Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox

[wraith808]

Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because *Gasp!* Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts (via Techdirt)

Ok DOJ... I think it's past time that you step in on this issue (and the others where Apple uses its dominant position on iOS to restrict competition and 'tax' developers unreasonably for use of service).

[KynloStephen66515]

I hereby declare, the day Apple dies a HORRIBLE death (and that day IS going to come VERY SOON) is the day I get "HAHAHAHA FUCK YOU APPLE" tattooed on my forehead!

[eleman]

Mine may be a technically ignorant rant but I don't see how Apple has a dominant position in any market. (OK, yes maybe in the tablets market, but it should be eroding fast, now that competition is really churning out android tablets).

Asking government intervene on Apple's policies is like saying "Daddy, Mike won't let me play with his ball."

The better (and more dignified) stance would be telling Apple (or Mike for that matter), take the gadget (or the ball), and use it for a "thoroughly personal" function.

There are other gadgets (and balls) you know.

[KynloStephen66515]

Mine may be a technically ignorant rant but I don't see how Apple has a dominant position in any market. (OK, yes maybe in the tablets market, but it should be eroding fast, now that competition is really churning out android tablets).

Asking government intervene on Apple's policies is like saying "Daddy, Mike won't let me play with his ball."

The better (and more dignified) stance would be telling Apple (or Mike for that matter), take the gadget (or the ball), and use it for a "thoroughly personal" function.

There are other gadgets (and balls) you know.

The government CAN interfere when you call "Anti-competition" laws into play...no company can completely lock itself out like this without governments and laws getting involved...its getting fucking stupid now, and I cannot wait to laugh in the faces of people with hardware that will no longer work, because its made by Apple who will get shut down very quickly.

[eleman]

But there is a viable competition.
Apple has a dominant market position in only the market for "Apple products". Not in smartphones, not in laptops, not in desktops, and given market trends, not in tablets (at least not for long).
Do you really want government to intervene because Apple has a monopoly in producing iphones or ipads?
Apple is no more dominant in any product category than General Motors is dominant in cars.
But General Motors has a dominant market position in making Cadillacs. Should government intervene to foster competition?

[KynloStephen66515]

But there is a viable competition.
Apple has a dominant market position in only the market for "Apple products". Not in smartphones, not in laptops, not in desktops, and given market trends, not in tablets (at least not for long).
Do you really want government to intervene because Apple has a monopoly in producing iphones or ipads?
Apple is no more dominant in any product category than General Motors is dominant in cars.
But General Motors has a dominant market position in making Cadillacs. Should government intervene to foster competition?

When they are blocking things purely because users might signup for an alternative service...yes...Apple must die.  That is my one and only opinion on this, nobody (And you can ask anybody on DC who knows me) will EVER change my mind about apple.

[eleman]

Uh, don't take me as a fanboi, I wouldn't be caught dead owning an Apple product.

But I don't believe that Apple's policies constitute violations of anti-trust laws, because, as I said, there is a viable competition. Consumers have the very real and reasonable option of telling Apple "go forth and multiply".

What I'd concede, however, is that jailbreaking is technically a crime (violation of DMCA). That twists the concept of ownership.

So, if I were a US citizen, I'd be demanding the government to fix the intellectual property rights regime for good, instead of interfering in a single firm's policies. The disease is more deep-rooted. Focusing on symptoms won't do much good in the long run.

[wraith808]

<sarcasm>Yes, Apple doesn't have a dominant position in the marketplace- that's why their market capitalization has outstripped Microsoft.</sarcasm>

The existence of alternatives doesn't change dominance.  iOS is the dominant OS in the mobile market- not to the same extent as Windows on the desktop, but still dominant. Though charts of penetration have variance, most show iOS with around a 65% penetration.  For an example see this chart from NetMarketShare.  Apple did something that was dissimilar from Microsoft- it set rules for participation before there was competition.  However, as those rules show their lack of coverage (i.e. iCloud vs DropBox, iBooks vs Kindle/Nook), they change the rules, using their gateway to entry to strong arm the competition.

One might say, well go to the competition.  Buy-in and sunk cost are two very big reasons why this isn't a really viable alternative.

[eleman]

Apple did something that was dissimilar from Microsoft- it set rules for participation before there was competition.  However, as those rules show their lack of coverage (i.e. iCloud vs DropBox, iBooks vs Kindle/Nook), they change the rules, using their gateway to entry to strong arm the competition.

One might say, well go to the competition.  Buy-in and sunk cost are two very big reasons why this isn't a really viable alternative.

Well yes, these are very legitimate concerns. In any case, I believe the right solution is preventing device lock-in once and for all, and not forcing just one company behave under the stick of a DoJ investigation.

[wraith808]

^ To prevent a device lock-in, you'll have to enforce a standard across OS's, and that's not really realistic.  Also, anything like that would have to be enforced from a DOJ level, on a per-country basis.  I personally think it's just better for everyone to compete on their own merits, and know that their responsibility is to the consumer after a certain growth level is reached.  But... yeah...

[eleman]

Or...

^ To prevent a device lock-in,

you could just abolish DMCA's restrictions on breaking digital locks in devices you own.

[wraith808]

^ That doesn't prevent device lock-in.  If I have iOS Apps, no matter what you do, they are not going to run on Android, and vice versa.  And they've already said that jailbreaking and such does not violate the DMCA.

[Renegade]

Sigh...

Does any of this surprise anyone?

[IainB]

Sigh...
Does any of this surprise anyone?

No.
And yet, people will probably continue to buy Apple toys whilst ignorant of this small fact.
Because, from the manufacturer's perspective, "lock-in" works, and "there's one born every minute".
This is arguably a form of industrialised victimisation of the consumer.

[Renegade]

This is arguably a form of industrialised victimisation of the consumer.

+1!

Actually, if I may be so bold as to edit a tiny bit...

This is arguably a form of industrialised victimisation of the consumer.

It's the same thing as planned obsolescence or engineered obsolescence. It's purely predatory.

[daddydave]

This is strange, that is like 90% of existing non-game apps, isn't it? I thought that was part of the deal with iOS, you don't have access to the file system on the device itself, so of necessity you put things on Dropbox. I guess the sole reason is that it completes with iCloud.

[mahesh2k]

If you start accepting such monopoly as fair practice and then also dont mind google stalking you as annoying, or try to justify every act of your favorite brand then you're perfect candidate for chip implants in head.

[IainB]

If you start accepting such monopoly as fair practice and then also dont mind google stalking you as annoying, or try to justify every act of your favorite brand then you're perfect candidate for chip implants in head.

Are you suggesting there may be something wrong with having chips implanted in one's head?
Enquiring minds need to know.   

[daddydave]

If you start accepting such monopoly as fair practice and then also dont mind google stalking you as annoying, or try to justify every act of your favorite brand then you're perfect candidate for chip implants in head.

Are you suggesting there may be something wrong with having chips implanted in one's head?
Enquiring minds need to know.   

Let me be the first to say: only those with something to hide will object to having chips implanted in one's head. And yes, I'm kidding.

[mahesh2k]

If you start accepting such monopoly as fair practice and then also dont mind google stalking you as annoying, or try to justify every act of your favorite brand then you're perfect candidate for chip implants in head.

Are you suggesting there may be something wrong with having chips implanted in one's head?
Enquiring minds need to know.   

Nothing wrong actually if you are not part of 'em.

[Stoic Joker]

If you start accepting such monopoly as fair practice and then also dont mind google stalking you as annoying, or try to justify every act of your favorite brand then you're perfect candidate for chip implants in head.

Are you suggesting there may be something wrong with having chips implanted in one's head?
Enquiring minds need to know.     

Nothing wrong actually if you are not part of 'em.

...But one of the chips primary features is to prevent you from enquiring about things that might upset you. It's the new medication free way to maintain calm from the inside out!

[IainB]

...But one of the chips primary features is to prevent you from enquiring about things that might upset you. It's the new medication free way to maintain calm from the inside out!

Interesting point. Has potential.
Not a physical lobotomy, not a chemical lobotomy, but an electro-lobotomy.
Reminds me of the story about the Buddhist monk who didn't need Novocaine to have a root canal, because he could transcend dental medication.

[Renegade]

If you start accepting such monopoly as fair practice and then also dont mind google stalking you as annoying, or try to justify every act of your favorite brand then you're perfect candidate for chip implants in head.

Are you suggesting there may be something wrong with having chips implanted in one's head?
Enquiring minds need to know.   

Nothing wrong actually if you are not part of 'em.

...But one of the chips primary features is to prevent you from enquiring about things that might upset you. It's the new medication free way to maintain calm from the inside out!

Being "chipped" is the end. It changes you from being human to being property - slavery. It is the ultimate in surveillance and total control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGcatieMvfk

The technology has been researched for a long time, and they're even at the point now where they're looking into altering human emotions via chips. You can search and find all that out there.

There are only 4 words you need to know when they come to chip you - "Over my dead body."

[Stoic Joker]

Being "chipped" is the end. It changes you from being human to being property - slavery. It is the ultimate in surveillance and total control.

Right. Knew that. I was just doing a sarcastic parody of a futuristic sales brochure.

[Renegade]

Being "chipped" is the end. It changes you from being human to being property - slavery. It is the ultimate in surveillance and total control.

Right. Knew that. I was just doing a sarcastic parody of a futuristic sales brochure.

Ah - sorry - that wasn't meant to be a response to you -- just to the topic of chips.

Your comment about medication reminded me of the new research into altering human emotions.