Forgot your password?
IOS Apple

Apple Blocks iOS Apps Using Dropbox SDK 356

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the protection-racket dept.
Barence writes with an excerpt from PC Pro: "Dropbox's latest SDK has incurred the wrath of Apple, because users who don't have the Dropbox app installed on their iPhone/iPad are instead pushed to Dropbox's website via the Safari browser. Here, they can click a link to the desktop version of the service, which allows them to buy extra Dropbox storage without Apple taking its usual 30% cut." Reportedly, Dropbox is attempting to strike a deal to resolve the problem.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Blocks iOS Apps Using Dropbox SDK

Comments Filter:
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @11:31AM (#39868463)

    This is why I don't publish an app for my web services. Safari's rich enough for an appropriately formatted and scripted web interface, and it avoids the 30% haircut.

  • Re:How dare they... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _8553454222834292266 (2576047) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @11:49AM (#39868771)

    Ok. Link me to the software I can use instead on Windows, OS X, and Linux and has shell integration on all 3 and a free usage tier.

  • Re:How dare they... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @11:59AM (#39868923) Homepage Journal

    My problem is that Apple is causing problems with 3rd parties that have nothing to do with this dispute. I never commented on whether Dropbox was right or wrong. Apple could of sent an email message that said "This is a TOS violation, fix it." They cut off API users instead. That's the criticism.

  • Re:How dare they... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cinder6 (894572) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @12:38PM (#39869517)

    ...They could also say hey, if you like to pay for your account upgrade here, its a 30% surcharge. ...

    Actually, as far as I know, they can't do that, likely because it would have the same effect as telling them to go to their website and buy instead of letting Apple get a cut. No source on that, though, so I may be wrong.

    A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.

    Of course, Apple probably also wants to have a system wherein it's a more seamless experience for users to pay for something. Instead of downloading a "free" app and then going through the developer's website and entering your credit card info again to pay to actually use the app, you just pay for the app at download and have everything available at the start.

    Then again, there are people who are completely against Apple taking a cut at all. To those people, I remind them that Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity, and that (by all accounts) the App Store merely pays for itself. There's also the fact that Apple handles distribution costs and payment processing, both of which do cost money.

    (I may be wrong about all this. I just woke up and am still bleary-eyed, after all, which is a bad condition for posting.)

  • by Mabhatter (126906) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @01:36PM (#39870389)

    Apple has a policy that "real world" items should not be purchased off the App Store account. For instance Postcards on the Go isn't allowed to use your Apple ID for Mailed Postcards.

    So which is Dropbox? It's a "real world" service that exists seperate from the iPhone app. if I have a problem with my SERVICE on another non-apple device, will APPLE refund my money? It is definately not "black and white" even by Apple's own rules.

  • by Cederic (9623) on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @02:02PM (#39870691) Journal

    The entire app-store ecosystem falls apart if Apple does not have this policy.

    What, like the Google Play ecosystem fell apart? Like Amazon's app store fell apart?

    Or maybe, just possibly, people might just for once be able to buy an app without paying an excessive device based tax that contributes to the astonishingly high profit margins of a Foxxcon device marketer.

  • Re:How dare they... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @02:17PM (#39870837)

    Although I partially disagree with GP (nobody was cut off...), I'd say the main problem is the same that ended up causing so much troubles to Microsoft: abuse of dominant position

    I don't think we're there yet, but the limit is becoming very thin between "making profit because it's our goal as a company" and "give us your money, resistance is futile"

  • Re:How dare they... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gishzida (591028) <gishzida AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday May 02, 2012 @02:55PM (#39871373) Journal

    By this analogy the Mafia should be allowed to operate freely because everyone needs 'insurance' so that bad things don't happen. We all know that if you don't pay your insurance to Vinnie and Tony something bad will happen...

    Let's be honest: Apple's Walled Garden is *not* an "Ecosystem" -- it is a kind of monopoly. It is a "pay to play" garden where you will be cast out of the garden if you eat fruit from the Tree of Revenue without paying Apple it's cut.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell