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

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

#141

Post by toast76 » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:00 PM UTC

I picked up an iPhone 3GS when they came out with intent of developing iOS apps. Even at that time it was clear that playing in someone else's yard meant playing by their rules, and that it was highly likely that I wasn't going to like their rules. I decided to not make an app. Simple decision really.

A lot of developers are now complaining that they're getting burned by what is a reasonably obvious profit motive from Apple. They're not offering an app store because they're good guys. They're offering an app store to make money.

They take 30% of purchases. It only makes sense to take 30% of in-app purchases and related subscription services as well. Did anyone honestly believe that apple would fall for the ebay $0.90 purchase with $90 shipping fee-dodging trick? Letting subs through just opens the door for people to ship free apps with subscription "unlocks", thus cutting out Apple.

The simple fact is that Apple owns the mountain, and if you want to mine their gold you can expect to pay their taxes.

Of course the simple solution is to just build a web app (as these guys have done). Why restrict yourself to Apple's yard and Apple's rules when you can target every device without rules, without restrictions and without a 30% tax? The sooner ever developer realizes this the better off we'll all be.

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

#142

Post by siglesias » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

bartonfink wrote: post #137

siglesias wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're either misunderstanding or reading too much into my point, siglesias. I'm not suggesting that "kill or be killed" is a great basis for society or an ethical system. Just like with many other facts of nature, we can and often do improve on them by creating structures and constraints atop those facts we find unpleasant. However, those structures and constraits are inherently manufactured in the strictest…

I just think that describing our ethical system as "artificial" is a tremendous misapplication of the term, and I think it would give most people evaluating your statement pause.

On the other hand, I do find my aversion to killing rather natural in the sense that I needn't justify too much beyond my own instinct (and, if you should know, ethics as instinct is the subject of research with promising theories[1], but I'm not even talking about that).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

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

#143

Post by zoul » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:10 PM UTC

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?

I simply like the platform. The hardware is nice, Objective-C is a pleasant language for me to write in, the library is very well thought out. And it certainly does not hurt that we can keep the company afloat by developing for iOS -- we simply could not do that on Android.

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

#144

Post by _b8r0 » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:28 PM UTC

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

Better than you think. The original XBox ran a modified Windows 2000 Kernel.

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

#145

Post by Natsu » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

OpieCunningham wrote: post #140

generalk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 res…

I've seen plenty of people in this very thread claiming they own the hardware so they should be able to do whatever they want. But all of those people already have that right. So the complaint is: Apple is required to do more to allow me to do things I can't manage on my own. It is an implicit claim that Apple is duty bound to provide features that Apple has no interest in providing. My toaster doesn't make ice, nor…

> But all of those people already have that right.

Not legally. A limited amount of iPhone jailbreaking has been exempted under the DMCA, but that won't absolve you for the offense of trafficking in the tools to do so. And there are a million other EULAs and such that at least purport to take away that very right. IANAL, but I've seen people dragged into court over them. Whether or not they're legal is pretty much academic if you have to go through the expense of fighting it out in court against a giant company.

The point is that the vendors are taking away our legal right to do all these things and occasionally adding some screw-you technology to make them technically difficult as well. They're not passively thwarting your ability to do what you like, they're actively opposing it both technically and legally and that's why people worry.

My response has been not to buy devices like that and to boycott those vendors wholesale, but the way the market is going, that's not going to be possible forever. We need a good first sale type right to eliminate all this nonsense.

We would never have made it this far if those nonsense book licenses that publishers tried back in the day had actually been successful.

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

#146

Post by OpieCunningham » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:42 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #145

OpieCunningham wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen plenty of people in this very thread claiming they own the hardware so they should be able to do whatever they want. But all of those people already have that right. So the complaint is: Apple is required to do more to allow me to do things I can't manage on my own. It is an implicit claim that Apple is duty bound to provide features that Apple has no interest in providing. My toaster doesn't make ice, nor…

> But all of those people already have that right. Not legally. A limited amount of iPhone jailbreaking has been exempted under the DMCA, but that won't absolve you for the offense of trafficking in the tools to do so. And there are a million other EULAs and such that at least purport to take away that very right. IANAL, but I've seen people dragged into court over them. Whether or not they're legal is pretty much ac…

You're correct, but the limitations you are referring to are specific to software.

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

#147

Post by s3graham » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 9:46 PM UTC

OpieCunningham wrote: post #123

frossie wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

The content is not free to the end user and it's not given away for free by the publisher. The end user doesn't pay cash for it, but they do pay by becoming a target of numerous ads and a demographic metric for selling additional ads. Let me answer your question with a question: Does Visa take a percentage of donations made to the Red Cross using a Visa credit card?

I guess that's supposed to be rhetorical, but I recall that Amex and Visa both waived fees for donations to Haiti after the earthquake.

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

#148

Post by iPhone1 » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 10:10 PM UTC

kmfrk wrote: post #29

iPhone1 wrote: post #16

What a slap to the face. Apple uses their technology then tells them they can't use it themselves without offering in app purchases?!?!

Not exactly. If you haven't read about it, Readability (Arc90) has a new subscription model[1]. That's the point of contention. (Not that it's any less stupid.) [1]: https://www.readability.com/learn-more

I know about the subscription model; I'm a subscriber.

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

#149

Post by tygorius » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 10:13 PM UTC

relic17 wrote: post #51

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 gu…

Changing the rules once you have a large installed base is always a delicate issue. How many current iPad owners knew their Kindle app (and others) might be deactivated by Apple in a couple of months because Apple decided it wanted a 30% cut?

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

#150

Post by Bossman » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 10:13 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #132

petercooper wrote: post #80

My satellite TV provider has an app I can only use if signed up to them. Do they now need to offer TV subscription through their app? What about the 37signals Campfire clients? Do they now need to offer Campfire subs via inapp purchase too?

Answer to the first one is no, because you don't get their service in the app.

As far as I can tell, Apple's new guidelines wouldn't let them put that app in the App Store anymore. Apple's guidelines say you have to sell through the app using their API and can't sell anywhere else. And you can't link to a place where customers can buy your service outside of Apple's control.