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

91–100 of 206 posts

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

#91

Post by itsnotvalid »

_delirium wrote: post #84
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if there's a name for this class of contracts that seems suspect, some of which are actually illegal and others of which are legal but give people pause more than normal contracts. They mostly seem to have something to do with exclusion or tying, that if you do A you can't do B, and/or if you do A then you must do B. Various examples that aren't allowed: EULAs that purport to prohibit resale of books (first-…

First the first time you use your iPhone you need to accept agreements in iTunes. Second, originally cracking iPhone to install custom firmware was prohibited by DRM, which was bounded to DMCA, and now becomes one of the exceptions.

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

#92

Post by billswift »

lwhi wrote: post #88

I think Apple may have decided to enforce an untenable rule, simply so it can be used as a reasonably large concession when the antitrust machinery slides into gear. If you are going to be required to give up ground - you might as well grab all the ground you can prior to any punitive action.

That sounds like the man who beat his head against the wall; because it felt so good when he quit.

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

#93

Post by shangaslammi »

flyt wrote: post #78
statictype wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Triple of zero is still zero. The open letter states that their current share is 30%. Apple would essentially get 100% of their profits.

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

#94

Post by macrael »

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…

Could you elaborate on why you don't think the parent comment has a point?

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

#95

Post by shangaslammi »

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…

The 70-30 cut alone might be acceptable, but what makes it ludicrous is that the developer is forced to offer the in-app purchase option for external services like Instapaper, which are not in any way tied to the iOS platform. I mean, what's next? Should Evernote, Remember the Milk and Dropbox, to name a few, all be forced offer an in-app subscription with 30% Apple cut just because they happen to have an iPhone client among other clients?

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

#96

Post by neutronicus »

lwhi wrote: post #83
montagg wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS is like a magazine, Apple are the editors, and the developers are the writers. Apple has every right to do whatever they want with their channel, even if it's a stupid move. You wouldn't tell "Time" they have no right to publish who they want and keep others out, would you? Likewise, I don't buy a magazine and then demand that I be able to print my own stories in it. I buy the magazine because it has stories in i…

No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. I think all markets should involve a certain amount of freedom - and Apple's decision making process actively inhibits market freedom. EDIT: iOS/App Store

No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace.

The "global marketplace" is the one in which you can purchase a piece of hardware, install software of your choice on that hardware (albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort), possibly licensed from a third party (again, albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort).

Apple sells a service - they make it easier to install certain software on the hardware you purchased (from them, although that's irrelevant), to the extent of pre-installing iOS and various applications, and they facilitate discovery of individuals willing to license software to the owner of the hardware and transactions between said individuals and the owner of the hardware.

They are free to provide or not provide this service as they see fit.

If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead?

Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger.

All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?

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

#97

Post by bartonfink »

siglesias wrote: post #90
bartonfink wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than almost anything else, killing seems fundamental to nature as I understand nature. I would, in fact, say that "kill or be killed" is THE natural contract.

Oh, please. We are advanced beings with complex neocortexes that are capable of ethical reasoning. Surely we can agree on an system in which we can find solutions to our fundamental needs without resorting to killing one another.

Of course, but said system would be unnatural and artificial. Real, yes - but artificial.

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

#98

Post by siglesias »

shangaslammi wrote: post #95
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…

The 70-30 cut alone might be acceptable, but what makes it ludicrous is that the developer is forced to offer the in-app purchase option for external services like Instapaper, which are not in any way tied to the iOS platform. I mean, what's next? Should Evernote, Remember the Milk and Dropbox, to name a few, all be forced offer an in-app subscription with 30% Apple cut just because they happen to have an iPhone clie…

Fair point. I think it comes down to the potential loophole that could be exploited whereby an app is offered for free but the full version can only be activated by clicking a link and following a separate payment flow that deprives Apple of 30%. This could also pose a long term usability problem.

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

#99

Post by johnbender »

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.

The metric you've used to measure "betterness" here appears to be sdk file size.

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

#100

Post by OpieCunningham »

If I understand Readability's issue, it breaks down like this:

What they want: For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of the articles viewed through that $1 sub get $0.70

What Apple requires: For a $1 subscription fee, Apple keeps $0.30, Readability then has the option of keeping $0.30 (30% of $1) or $0.21 (30% of the remainder after Apple's cut) and then the publisher/writer gets either $0.40 or $0.49, respectively.

Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.

Post reply on HN