I don't understand why this is linkbait? Apple is indeed rejecting apps which use Dropbox.

No. They are blocking applications which allow you to make purchases without using Apples in app purchasing system. See the difference ?

...and using the Dropbox SDK is apparently violating that

THIS version does. And a NEW version doesn't.

There is no specific probelem with Dropbox.

But... there... was? Not too long ago? And it might require action by users of the Dropbox SDK?

I get notifications of security updates for apache. Guess I shouldn't though, because by the time I get any it's no longer a problem with apache. Maybe I should tell my security auditor that?

The new version is hobbled and won't even let you make an account. It is nothing more than a workaround for apple's stupidity.

The difference is that the title will go over 80 characters and won't make it to HN, this is not Reddit.

I don't get the complaints about the HN title, it's reasonably accurate given the space limitations and the forum further clarifies things. Not everything can fit in the title.

Also, I see a distinct lack of suggestions of a better title, just complaints that it's link bait.

A much more accurate title like

    Apple Rejects Some Apps Using (Old) Dropbox API

is only 47 characters.

As best I can tell, the title here is better than the title of the forum post ("The Horror." has been removed.) I think "Apple rejecting applications which use Dropbox." reflects what's going on pretty well. Why do you disagree?

I don't think that's accurate. It would be like saying "Apple rejecting applications that use buttons" because the apps being rejected have buttons. I'm not saying Apple is doing a good thing here, but the blog post states that it also happens for Google accounts and presumably any other web service where you'd sign up via a browser. Sending people to the site for that purpose if the service is potentially a pay one seems to be in violation of Apple's terms, though it's certainly a stretch. Apple should clarify things and not restrict browser use, but also the title is needlessly alarming.

That isn't particularly similar. The reason "Apple rejecting applications that use buttons" is a poor description is that using buttons is very, very weakly correlated to Apple rejecting your app. That isn't true here: If you use the Dropbox SDK, your app gets rejected. In fact, it's a causal relationship.

I'll agree there are much more neutral & accurate titles that could be used, but given that the title is factual (For some reason, Apple has begun enforcing a policy that they were being selective about previously, and is now indeed rejecting apps that use Dropbox.) and the source is a post to the Dropbox developer forums (not a blog post.) I don't think this title is far enough off the mark to warrant changing it.

Linkbait might be "Apple still bitter Dropbox rejected buyout offer, bans API from App Store." ;)

It's linkbaity for sure but it seems entirely accurate, too.

At least two devs in the linked-to thread claim that they have been rejected for the same reason.

I removed "The horror" from the original title to make it less of a link bait.

What's your suggestion for the title though?

Apple is never consistent about rejecting apps. The reason is what matters here, not the number rejected (as long as it wasn't a fluke, and since it was multiple devs I don't think it was).

They very much are being rejected for using dropbox. You can be more specific and say it's for letting the user log in to dropbox but that's it. Apple is blocking it because if you spend long enough wandering around the site from the login point you might find a place where you might be able to purchase something.

Logging in to dropbox is a core part of using dropbox and to suggest otherwise to call the title into question is very strange.

I hope you are consistently this much anal about the "linkbaitiness" of every HN article - or else I'll just have to regard you as an Apple employee or an Apple apologist.