Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

blog.readability.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 206 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#21

Post by Kylekramer »

rimantas wrote: post #14
Kylekramer wrote: post #10

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…

It is kind of a circular argument to answer "there is no reason for Apple to own the channel" with "But Apple owns the channel". I know Apple does. And Apple should place their own rules on their channel, I don't deny that. My problem is there is no competition allowed.

And who is this larger segment that benefits from this decision (besides Apple employees and shareholders)? Is there a group of people who hate to have the chance to use Readability?

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#22

Post by Bud »

talbina wrote: post #6

Why do these types of letters have to start with the headline "An Open Letter to...". If you're publishing it, it's obviously open.

Just to be nice and actually answer this person's question rather than just downvoting them:

The distinction, as I understand it, is that labeling it an "open letter" tells us that one entity (Readability) intends not just to publish a given letter for all to read, but also make clear that it is directed at a second entity (in this case, Apple), in the same way as if Readability had sent it directly TO Apple.

It is also often hoped that such an open letter might elicit a public response.

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#23

Post by Zakuzaa »

maguay wrote: post #15

If the subscriptions policy isn't the absolutely craziest move Apple's ever made, I don't know what is. iOS has converted me into an Apple fan, but not if stuff like this continues.

It still doesn't beat the "Objective-C Only" fiasco..does it?

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#24

Post by jammur »

I'm fairly quick to defend Apple, because a lot of the flack they take is BS, but in this case I'm really struggling to find the upside.

Richard says that their 30% would account for a tiny sliver of Apple's overall revenue, but lots of tiny slivers start to add up eventually. The problem though, is that if the cost of those slivers is to drive the developers away from the App Store, then those slivers disappear. Considering that third party apps are possibly the most important feature of the platform, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.

The 30% cut on App sales is understandable, because software generally has high margins, but it doesn't sound like the same is true for content subscriptions. Maybe it's a case of trying to keep their policy too uniform (i.e 30% on everything)?

Does anyone know where the subscription content comes from? From my understanding, the subscription content will usually come from a third party, rather than Apple's CDN, so there's no marginal cost to Apple.

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#25

Post by tomjen3 »

thailandstartup wrote: post #18
russnewcomer wrote: post #7

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…

Apple feels its position is now strong enough that it can dictate terms.

Considering that almost nothing happened when the iphone was released on Verizon, Apple is at an extremely weak position and can not only not dictate terms but they are very far from being at a point where they can.

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#26

Post by maguay »

Zakuzaa wrote: post #23
maguay wrote: post #15

If the subscriptions policy isn't the absolutely craziest move Apple's ever made, I don't know what is. iOS has converted me into an Apple fan, but not if stuff like this continues.

It still doesn't beat the "Objective-C Only" fiasco..does it?

It's a strong second place then if it's not the first. Good thing is, Apple backed down on that which is why I was just today trying out Airplay SDK on Windows. Hopefully they'll back down on the subscriptions plan, too.

That said, it really should require us all getting up in arms over it for Apple to stop stuff like this. They shouldn't have made such a policy to start with! Very worrying for the future of the platform...

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#28

Post by lambda »

rimantas wrote: post #14
Kylekramer wrote: post #10

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 issue is that Apple is artificially tying their channel to your hardware; they sold the hardware to you, but they sold it, not leased it, so its still your hardware. However, they've artificially retained control of the channel via DRM, software that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want on your own hardware.

If you had the option of buying apps through another channel, this wouldn't be a problem. Most people don't have much of a problem with any of the Android Market's policies, since you can install other apps or even other markets on your own phone if you so choose.

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#29

Post by kmfrk »

iPhone1 wrote: post #16

What a slap to the face. Apple uses their technology then tells them they can't use it themselves without offering in app purchases?!?!

Not exactly. If you haven't read about it, Readability (Arc90) has a new subscription model[1]. That's the point of contention.

(Not that it's any less stupid.)

[1]: https://www.readability.com/learn-more

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#30

Post by yannickmahe »

EnderMB wrote: post #27

This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?

Revenue on iOS devices is far greater than on Android devices: it seems people paying for Apple products are far more eager to pay for apps.
Post reply on HN