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

51–60 of 206 posts

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

#51

Post by relic17 »

Niten wrote: post #4

> 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…

Sure, the hardware belongs to the people buying the device. They can sell it, give it as a gift, break it. But they can't use the device every way they want. The device does only so much. The fact is: everyone bought a device in the full knowledge of all its limitations. Before purchase, Apple never promised a stream of wonderful applications and content at a price that the customer deems appropriate. They did not guarantee a great App Store, they did not even guarantee that they won't shut down the App Store and let the device be just a piece of hardware. The customer knew the limitations and bought the device anyways.

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

#53

Post by russnewcomer »

siglesias wrote: post #44
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…

It's because in-app subscriptions are really just recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time. If you accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for sales of apps, by logical extension you must accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for in-app purchases, because technically one could provide a free app with an in-app purchase to make it a full app, and anything less than 30% on Apple's take would g…

I don't think that's a logical extension, personally.

However, I think Apple could say that a subscription purchase was 85-15 or 90-10 and they would have gotten this in with little push back.

Or even required that subscription apps cost $9.99 for the initial purchase ($9.99 is a number from my head with no basis in reality) and a following 90-10 split, or requiring that apps with a free initial release go to a 70-30 split on subscriptions. I really think they could have done that and not had a major revolt on their hands. They may not have made the same in the short term, but I think they would have had a better response and a better long-term hold on small developer and publisher loyalty to their platform.

I would personally buy a Palm Pre 3 if it had Instapaper and Kindle and the iPhone 5 didn't. I would venture that their are numerous other consumers who have similar preferences.

[Edited for clarity]

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

#54

Post by kenjackson »

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.

Funny how everyone used to say that Apple was benevolent due to their actions in the PC space. My argument was always they've never been in a position to really be aggressive. Now that they are in a borderline position they are quickly being a lot less benevolent. Does anyone honestly think if they had 90% PC/browser share they'd be "nicer" than Microsoft?

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

#55

Post by maguay »

nika wrote: post #45
maguay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 plat…

That policy has been in place for 2.5 years, since the original AppStore terms and conditions. It wasn't enforced because before now, Apple didn't offer SDK support for subscriptions. People have had 2.5 years to prepare.

The App Store terms have said that subscriptions had to be offered though Apple since the App Store was launched? As far as I'd heard, this was just added...

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

#57

Post by zacharypinter »

nika wrote: post #45
maguay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 plat…

That policy has been in place for 2.5 years, since the original AppStore terms and conditions. It wasn't enforced because before now, Apple didn't offer SDK support for subscriptions. People have had 2.5 years to prepare.

To draw a parallel:

A law is only as good as it is enforced. There's a huge amount of laws out there that would be very controversial if they started getting enforced. For example, many states still have crazy/puritanical sex laws on the books.

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

#58

Post by quizbiz »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #37
Niten wrote: post #4

> 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…

All contracts are artificial constructs. There are no natural contracts. So the question is simply whether the kind of contract Apple has with its customers is legal or not and if it is whether the law should be changed.

   > There are no natural contracts.
Do not kill?

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

#59

Post by sacrilicious »

Believe you me, I want these guys to succeed as much as anyone else, but... wouldn't keeping the payment processing for subscriptions OUTSIDE of the iOS app solve the issue? I must be missing something critical to the functionality of the app?

There are no non-profit or even strictly business-related terms under the umbrella of the App Store as far as I know. There are no corporate/business iTunes purchasing accounts, no escalation to root-level privileges allowed for apps in the MacAppStore(postponing backup and other more powerful apps). This seems like another oversight on Apples part due to treating it as a lower priority.

And although they have every right to be proud of their achievements, it seems a bit like "you owe me" to remind Apple that they used the Apache-licensed Readability tech for Reader. Their proposed app could stand on its on.

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

#60

Post by siglesias »

russnewcomer wrote: post #53
siglesias wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because in-app subscriptions are really just recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time. If you accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for sales of apps, by logical extension you must accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for in-app purchases, because technically one could provide a free app with an in-app purchase to make it a full app, and anything less than 30% on Apple's take would g…

I don't think that's a logical extension, personally. However, I think Apple could say that a subscription purchase was 85-15 or 90-10 and they would have gotten this in with little push back. Or even required that subscription apps cost $9.99 for the initial purchase ($9.99 is a number from my head with no basis in reality) and a following 90-10 split, or requiring that apps with a free initial release go to a 70-30…

I don't think anybody would buy a Time magazine app for $9.99 (or whatever the offset amount) just for the option to purchase a cheaper subscription, let alone spend an extraordinary amount of time becoming informed about the various price differences.
Post reply on HN