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

71–80 of 206 posts

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

#71

Post by dpcan »

nika wrote: post #39

I think it is worth noting, because everyone seems to have forgotten, that this has always been the rule. I remember it from the very first reading of the terms and conditions (back when they were under NDA). It has always been against AppStore rules to monetize apps outside of the AppStore. Apple has been lax in enforcing it, primarily because Apple didn't offer a subscription mechanism. Now they offer a mechanism,…

The same thing happens in the Android Market. Apps get removed for policies that have always been there, and then they complain that they exist AFTER they develop the app.

READ THE TOS PEOPLE.

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

#72

Post by nlogn »

redrobot5050 wrote: post #50
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?

There might be more Android phones out there, but you also can't get to them through the Android Market. Not every country that has Android has an App Store that will accept commercial apps. It's getting bigger and growing faster, but Apple is still ahead of Android. Also, Apple's tools for developing are just superior. The Android SDK is an Eclipse/Netbeans Plug-in. Apple's is an 800MB-1GB version of XCode.

I disagree that Apple's tools are superior.

XCode is a really unpleasant IDE to work in imo because it has so many separate windows, even in the All-In-One view. Admittedly, this could just be because I am so used to the VS/Eclipse single tabbed window style.

I dislike that XCode is only available on OS X which adds the cost of (expensive) mac hardware to app development (or the difficulty/annoyance of updating a hackintosh every time a new version of OS X comes out).

And finally, it is annoying to have to download/install an 800MB-1GB version of XCode every time a new version comes out.

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

#73

Post by brk »

lamnk wrote: post #61
brk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not ru…

I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

I'm not sure what you mean. "Windows", to me, refers to the desktop OS, which is certainly licensed, and has no corresponding hardware component available from Microsoft directly.

Microsoft definitely has their own crazy and draconian licensing and "ownership" issues, but I can't tell from your comment which one of the thousands of possible example cases you're referring to.

If you have a well-reasoned counterpoint, please post it. I'd honestly love to hear a different perspective.

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

#74

Post by T-hawk »

We don't like it, but Apple's got every allowance and reason to do this. Either Readability will cave to Apple's pricing model, or somebody else will come in with the same technology and do so. Apple believes that the competitive position they have attained allows them to dictate pricing terms. The market will decide whether they are correct.

The only argument against Apple that holds water is abuse of monopolistic power, but I don't think that will fly given that the whole market of Android and Windows and other phones also exists.

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

#75

Post by estel »

ekanes wrote: post #33
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?

In part because Android's many devices/configurations make it a less predictable development platform. (I'm not saying there aren't reasons to develop for Android, but you asked for one reason people don't do it more.)

I'm not sure I've talked to a single Android developer I know, including myself (yes, I talk to myself) that sees fragmentation as a significant difficulty in developing apps. Something to consider whilst developing? Of course (and fundamentally moreso if someone wants to support tablet devices now), but supporting multiple devices is something that Google's made ridiculously easy.

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

#76

Post by nkassis »

[deleted] wrote: post #65
lamnk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

[deleted]

A monopoly isn't required to act anti competitively. Creating monopoly takes time and many anti-comptitive moves. Apple's rule of not letting a app vendor charge more on iPhone direct sale than on a web or android sale is anti competitive in my book. It prevents Android from competing by only asking 5% or something and making the in app subscription cheaper.

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

#77

Post by Synaesthesia »

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…

I suppose you'll have to do the Android on iPhone thing though. They're still kind of struggling with a lot of issues, like power management for one.

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

#78

Post by flyt »

statictype wrote: post #47
nika wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he doesn't, and when he adds in-app subscriptions, will it cause you to revise your perspective? Instapaper is exactly the kind of app this is directed at. It is a SaaS subscription. It would be foolish to turn away all the additional sales you'd get by being able to offer subscriptions within the app (something you couldn't do previously, forcing Marco to take paypal.)

When he doesn't, and when he adds in-app subscriptions, will it cause you to revise your perspective? Sure, I'd be curious to see if it's economical to hand over 30% of whatever subscriptions he receives to Apple.

If it triples the number of subscriptions then it could be.

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

#79

Post by OpieCunningham »

generalk wrote: post #20
rimantas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was another part that you omitted "and your channel". Or did people buy that also?

No, of course they didn't buy the channel. But that's not the point. 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…

You are free to do whatever you want to your iPhone/iPad hardware. You can build a Linux distro and install it, there's already an Android distro for it, you can smash it, tear it apart, put it back together, wallpaper your room with them, etc. Nothing prevents you from doing those things. It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building a boot loader into the device, adding double sided tape on the back so it will stick to your wall or putting a hammer in the package to make smashing it easier.
Post reply on HN