11–20 of 206 posts
So basically: "We totally think your policies are right and groovy, but please make an exception for us"?
I like to think of Apple's side of all the negative stories, but this time, I can't come up with a cogent excuse for what they are doing - save inept App Store policies/reviewers. By this logic, flattr will never get a native iOS app. And when are Apple going to shut the Instapaper app down, when Marco decides to let his one-dollar monthly subscribers[1] receive premium benefits? Apple really hates newspapers and mag…
Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome...
by Richard Ziade on Feb 21, 2011
Dear Apple: It’s your friends from Readability. Remember us? You put our technology into your Safari browser last year. We’re writing this open letter because – well – we’re a little upset right now.
Last Friday, you notified us that our Readability iOS application was rejected. In explaining the rejection, you pointed us to 11.2 in the App Store Review Guidelines:
11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.
We’re obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including “functionality, or services,” it’s clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability’s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works. Before we cool down and come to our senses, we might as well share how we’re feeling right now: we believe that your new policy smacks of greed. Subscription apps like ours represent a tiny sliver of app sales that represent a tiny sliver of your revenue. You’ve achieved much of your success in hardware sales by cultivating an incredibly impressive app ecosystem. Every iPad or iPhone TV ad puts the apps developed by companies like ours front and center. It was a healthy and mutually beneficial dynamic: apps like ours get exposure and you get to show the world how these apps make your hardware shine. That’s why we’re a bit baffled here.
To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that delivers any value outside of iOS will only discourage smaller ventures like ours to invest in iOS apps for our services. As far as Readability is concerned, our response is fairly straight-forward: go the other way… towards the web.
Since we re-launched, we’ve already seen a significant amount of usage across a wide range of browsers, operating systems and devices via the Readability web interface – for both mobile and desktop. Looking ahead, we plan to redouble our efforts to deliver the best possible reading app using the latest best-of-breed web technology.
The new Readability is fueled by the free-form nature of the web. Just as content pumps through the web’s piping, apps like ours thrive as nodes on the web – unencumbered by levies or barriers imposed by others. As we said months ago: “for us, the web is the right bet.”
Still, we’re always looking to give readers the best possible reading experience and a native iOS client would help us do that. We hope you’ll change your mind. If you do, we’d be happy to resubmit the Readability iOS app. Regards,
The Readability Team
P.S. We’d we be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you’d carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was another part that you omitted "and your channel". Or did people buy that also?
That is part of the artificial construct. There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's except that they enforce ridiculous rules like this rejection to maintain complete control. And the channel loses value every time they pull something like this.
> There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's
I like to think of Apple's side of all the negative stories, but this time, I can't come up with a cogent excuse for what they are doing - save inept App Store policies/reviewers. By this logic, flattr will never get a native iOS app. And when are Apple going to shut the Instapaper app down, when Marco decides to let his one-dollar monthly subscribers[1] receive premium benefits? Apple really hates newspapers and mag…
I think a large chunk of Instapaper's revenue comes from the iOS apps so assuming Apple continues to keep acting like a douche, Marco would probably just as soon cancel the subscription plan rather than let his app get rejected.
That's the most obvious route for Marco - the (rhetorical!) question was directed at Apple, because they appear to thwart a large domain of what iOS could be used for.
I really don't understand Apple's moves here. They have a terrific platform, and much of the value of their platform comes from third-party apps. If app devs start leaving for WebOS or Android in droves, much of their traction is going to be lost. I think if they would have gone for 10% or 15% they wouldn't have gotten this kind of response. I predict either reversals or abandonment of their platform. I still maintai…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is part of the artificial construct. There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's except that they enforce ridiculous rules like this rejection to maintain complete control. And the channel loses value every time they pull something like this.
I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment whic…
The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.
> To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial constru…
There was another part that you omitted "and your channel". Or did people buy that also?
When Apple sells you an iPhone, it ceases to become their phone and becomes your phone. You're not leasing it, you aren't renting it, you've paid for it and it's yours.
This is somewhat orthogonal to the original point, which was that Apple is free to reject whatever applications they like from their application delivery channel, just as I'm free to choose my clients, but it's important to remember.