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

101–110 of 206 posts

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

#101

Post by webwright »

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 ...

Not a great comparison. Windows is an OS, the App Store is a channel.

A better example would be Google. What would happen if Google tried to own some of the dollars that flow through the organic search channel? /shudder

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

#102

Post by siglesias »

bartonfink wrote: post #97
siglesias wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think your use of the term artificial, while apt in the sense of "not existing in non-human nature," is really banking on a series of connotations of artificial that don't apply to the non-natural sense of artificial. Artificial, for example, connotes: unnecessary, inferior to the non-artificial, superfluous, inauthentic. Your point is really something along the lines of linking an ethical system of non-killing to these connotations, which really have nothing to do with whether ethics can be found in non-human nature (which is, of course, a trivial point).

What really matters is why we should inform our thinking with how animals treat each other.

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

#103

Post by nhangen »

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 tend to think of it as Verizon/ATT's hardware, because they are subsidizing the purchase of it.

Maybe it's a stretch, but I don't feel like I own it until my 2 years is up.

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

#104

Post by ajays »

I believe what Apple is trying to do is to head off the possibility of being scammed: app writers can give away their apps for free, but unlock the full potential only when you "buy" a (lifetime) subscription. This way the writer can keep 100% of the price of the app, instead of just 70%.

Do I agree with Apple? No. But I think this is where they're coming from.

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

#105

Post by lwhi »

neutronicus wrote: post #96
lwhi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Once you have purchased your hardware, and have purchased a catalogue of software titles, you are effectively 'locked in'.

It's a bit naive to state that people have choice - because if you have a iOS based device, you (effectively) only have one place to make purchases. Jail-breaking and third-party software sources are beyond the reach of most consumers.

For all intents, if you have an iOS based device, the AppStore is your marketplace - and it is a marketplace which trades globally.

--

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

A TV station purchases or licenses content on behalf of their customers. Apple doesn't operate in this way.

I honestly believe the most useful analogy is a 'marketplace' - however, if this is accepted, perhaps Apple's policies seem more disagreeable than they do if 'tv station' or 'magazine' is used as a comparison. Maybe this is why Apple's supporters seem unkeen to make the comparison?

--

"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?"

I think Apple should be forced to allow third party App Stores.

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

#106

Post by nhangen »

I tend to agree with Apple's right to do this, but I can't tell if it's a genius move or a stupid move.

I think this move could further empower Apple, in as much as to put people like Rhapsody out of business. On the other hand, it makes sense to create a hospitable ecosystem, and right now it feels like they are carpet bombing what was once a nice place to hang out.

More of my thoughts here (podcast) http://bluerize.com/free-market-anarchy-020-apple-subscripti...

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

#107

Post by mx12 »

mjfern wrote: post #87

I posted this to my blog a few days ago, but I think it's worth repeating here because it applies directly to this open letter: While apps and content are just break even businesses for Apple, they are instrumental to the company's financial success. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are each technology platforms that bring together consumers, apps, and content. The value of each platform (iPod, iPhone, and iPad) to consume…

After reading this, I am struck with the idea that maybe Apple's reluctance to support flash, is not just motivated by the performance issues. That it could also be that the DRM support in flash would mean that companies could just abondon the app model and just use flash (i.e. Netflix or a flash based Amazon ebook reader).

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

#108

Post by bergie »

webwright wrote: post #101
lamnk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not a great comparison. Windows is an OS, the App Store is a channel. A better example would be Google. What would happen if Google tried to own some of the dollars that flow through the organic search channel? /shudder

> Not a great comparison. Windows is an OS, the App Store is a channel.

It is a pretty good comparison as long as App Store is the only way to install anything on iOS

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

#109

Post by krschultz »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #100

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…

I think its a little different.

Readability has made a contract with the media suppliers: you get 70% of every dollar from the customer. If Apple takes the other 30%, there is 0% left for Readability.

If they want to make any kind of revenue for themselves in Apple's system, the only option is to give the content creators a smaller percentage and charge a higher price.

It's not really a matter of if Readability deserves 30%, but if Readability deserves any money at all. Apple is basically eating their entire revenue stream.

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

#110

Post by gaiusparx »

kmfrk wrote: post #3

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…

Apple's side: Imagine most popular newspapers and magazines sites use Google One Pass to collect subscriptions fees via website, and offer free iOS app to consume the content. Apple collects nothing. I'm not totally with Apple but they have their points.
Post reply on HN