An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by frossie » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #109

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 deser…

It's actually worse than that. Readability is passing money to publishers for FREE CONTENT. Its model is not a purchase or even a subscription - it is essentially a donation. I don't have to pay to see this content, I choose to.

I wonder how this affects the Instapaper "back door" to Readability (which is what I use)

I am also wondering where this is goingn to end. Why not ask for 30% off Evernote subscriptions too? Or every cloud accessing iPhone app?

This isn't going to end well.

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

#112

Post by robrenaud » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:24 PM UTC

estel wrote: post #75

ekanes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A friend of mine develops games for phones professionally, and he says fragmentation and the lack of ability to query the device for what operations it supports and only sell software for the supported hardware is a big problem for him.

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

#113

Post by OpieCunningham » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:27 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #109

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 deser…

I understand that Apple has thrown a wrench into Readability's plans. I'm trying to understand why I should believe that Readability's plans are "fair" whereas Apple's plans are not.

Readability has made a contract with Apple, so I'm not clear how establishing a contract with media suppliers matters (have they? or have they taken it upon themselves to distribute a portion of their revenue due to eliminating the existing revenue model the publisher uses, without the publishers explicit consent?). Readability's contract with media suppliers is firstly contingent on Readability's contract with Apple, if Readability intends to leverage iOS app distribution. Readability cannot provide a contract to media suppliers that is in opposition to Readability's contract with Apple (again, if Readability intends to release an iOS app).

Fundamentally however, Readability's value is derived from processing articles. Readability decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service to readers. Apple's value is derived from supplying an eco-system and they have decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service.

Why does one of those service providers "fairly" get to receive 30% but the other does not?

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

#114

Post by OpieCunningham » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:30 PM UTC

frossie wrote: post #111

krschultz wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 deser…

It's actually worse than that. Readability is passing money to publishers for FREE CONTENT. Its model is not a purchase or even a subscription - it is essentially a donation. I don't have to pay to see this content, I choose to. I wonder how this affects the Instapaper "back door" to Readability (which is what I use) I am also wondering where this is goingn to end. Why not ask for 30% off Evernote subscriptions too?…

It's not free content, it's ad supported content. Readability is a service that, among other things and perhaps primarily, removes ads.

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

#115

Post by generalk » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:38 PM UTC

OpieCunningham wrote: post #79

generalk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

  > It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building 
  > a boot loader into the device [...]"

Nobody said it was. In fact, I think for the most part nobody has ever said that it's Apple's duty to do anything. A bunch of folks have said it'd be nice if Apple did allow third-party distribution channels, and a handful of hackers went ahead and made one, but I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Apple had a responsibility to make that easy.

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

#116

Post by russnewcomer » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

macrael wrote: post #94

russnewcomer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't agree that Apple's rules have to be structured the way they are. I do agree that if one merely extrapolates out the current structure, then the rules make sense, but I don't think it's a logical extension of how it has to be.

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

#117

Post by msbarnett » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:53 PM UTC

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.

You can't sell at a loss and make it up in volume.

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

#118

Post by natrius » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:55 PM UTC

jammur wrote: post #46

lambda wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

As another person commented, it may be your hardware, but it's not your OS. You license the right to use iOS, but you don't own it. The app distribution channel is tied to the OS, not the device. If you want to install a different firmware on the device, and can figure out how to do it, there's nothing Apple can do about that.

Have EULAs been upheld in court? The idea that I need special permission to use software that I've purchased seems a bit ridiculous. Kind of like a EULA on a car that restricts my driving to Ford toll roads.

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

#119

Post by frossie » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:55 PM UTC

OpieCunningham wrote: post #114

frossie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually worse than that. Readability is passing money to publishers for FREE CONTENT. Its model is not a purchase or even a subscription - it is essentially a donation. I don't have to pay to see this content, I choose to. I wonder how this affects the Instapaper "back door" to Readability (which is what I use) I am also wondering where this is goingn to end. Why not ask for 30% off Evernote subscriptions too?…

It's not free content, it's ad supported content. Readability is a service that, among other things and perhaps primarily, removes ads.

The content is free to the end user. In the event it has ads (certainly not all I donate to do), my access through readability is no different from using AdBlock on my browser or even, in my case, completely failing to notice ads.

The point is that unlike, say, Netflix, I am not paying anybody to serve me licensed content. I am donating (extremely selectively in my case) to specific publishers. It's hard for me to see how Apple needs to be involved here.

I should add that I never used Readability and used Instapaper extremely rarely prior to this scheme. My only interest here is that this is the first content micro-donation scheme that I have seen that allows me to pay for content I like. I don't see where Apple fits into this, morally.

Let me ask this question: if there was a free Red Cross app that allowed you to make donations, should Apple get 30% of that?

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

#120

Post by joe_the_user » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 7:59 PM UTC

_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-…

I think the word is "unconscionable". Or at least that's the term for when a contract is so abusive it is not valid.

The thing is that, as you say as I understand it, whether a contract is considered unconscionable is normally a complex question; for example, terms that are unconscious in a residential real estate contract can be included in a commercial real estate contract because a commercial renter is considered more sophisticated (and so if you rent commercially, you better be sophisticated and count your fingers after every hand shake). One guiding question is whether the signer really knows what he getting into.

By that token also, I believe a number of terms are considered unconscionable if you click through them on a website. I would speculate that if a vendor sent an actual devil who blew smoke out his ears and demanded a video-taped signing in blood celemony, that vendor would have a stronger claim that "the signer knew exactly what he was getting into".

Will Apple employ Devils in the future? I think Microsoft may have them all tied up...

IANAL of course...