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

151–160 of 206 posts

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

#151

Post by kennywinker »

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?

People would be a lot less upset if apple was charging a small processing fee, instead of a 30% cut.

If Readability wants make an iPhone app, and keep giving $7 for very $3 they make, they'll have to make their in-app purchase price $14.99. Also they can't charge less anywhere else.

IAP price = regular price / 0.7 then rounded up to the nearest integer (less a penny).

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

#152

Post by thought_alarm »

The App Store does have the potential to drive a massive amount new business for an app like Readability. Apple believes they should be paid for that publishing and marketing service and it's hard to argue about that, particularly when comparing to the relative poor performance of other "app stores."

If the App Store fails to bring these developers new business then it doesn't cost the developers anything. If the App Store does bring them new business then it's up to the developers to weigh the cost of the App Store vs. the new business it brings.

Is 30% the right price? Ultimately the market will decide that, because if there's one thing this industry doesn't lack, it's competition.

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

#153

Post by xentronium »

bad_user wrote: post #38
rimantas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment whic…

The only channel possible on iPhones without jailbreak is Apple's. Users own the iPhones bought. Therefore Apple should either let users subscribe to third-party channels, or release their channel in the hands of users (i.e. let them approve or ban apps). Otherwise, if there will ever come a day when Apple will have a monopoly on his hands, a big lawsuit will also happen. And really, I can see why Apple wants to cont…

Imagine a phone without third-party apps / any kind of app-store. Does your manufacturer have to provide some kind of software channel for your phone? No.

It's just another service, separate from the phone, you're free to use it, or not use it.

The answer to your why's is probably "because they can".

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

#154

Post by jerome_bent »

ajays wrote: post #104

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.

Apple already had measures in place to block that 'loophole' without these new rules—or new interpretations of the rules, if you will. Apple banned an update to ReadItLater, last year, because the reviewer believed the developer was attempting to circumvent the in-app purchase: http://readitlaterlist.com/blog/2010/08/version-2-2-rejected...

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

#155

Post by Natsu »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #146
Natsu wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's their control of the software that allows them to control what people do with the hardware both via technical and legal means. It is, after all, a computing device.

While I suppose that people wouldn't have this problem if they were using it as, say, a doorstop, that's not really the issue people are having here.

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

#156

Post by Pooter »

mx12 wrote: post #107
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).

I believe Jobs actually made this point fairly directly, though couched it in terms like "if people start using 3rd party tools to generate cross platform apps, you wind up with crappy apps that don't suit the platform, have undesirable performance characteristics, and fail to take advantage of platform specific features that get added."

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

#157

Post by joe_the_user »

I'm not impressed with anyone here...

Readability was trusting enough to release their code with a license which allowed Apple to put the code in their product and then freeze readability's product out of Apple's store.

And now the readability folks don't seem inclined to admit their trust was a might miss-placed.

But perhaps that's because the readability model is aiming for a kinder, gentler version of Apple's monopoly. They distributed a "product" that reworking website in a manner that steals the original site's advertising revenue. And then they "offer" to give the authors a different revenue source (along with "offering" a lack of choice concerning how their product is presented).

Edit: And problem with readability isn't in it just distributing a web-site-rewriter in itself but it doing that AND then asking revenues from content providers...

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

#158

Post by OpieCunningham »

Natsu wrote: post #155
OpieCunningham wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's their control of the software that allows them to control what people do with the hardware both via technical and legal means. It is, after all, a computing device. While I suppose that people wouldn't have this problem if they were using it as, say, a doorstop, that's not really the issue people are having here.

That's not accurate. Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it. Replace their software with your own and Apple has no control over the hardware. Therefore, Apple has no control over the hardware - you do.

The claim "I bought the hardware, I own it, therefore I should be able to do what I want with it and Apple is preventing me", which is the general argument being made, is fundamentally false. You bought the hardware, you own it and you can do what you want with it.

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

#159

Post by natrius »

jammur wrote: post #121
natrius wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You didn't purchase the software. You purchased a license to use it, which included agreeing to Apple's terms. To use your car analogy, it would be more like renting a car, and the rental company saying you have to stay in your state/province/country/etc., which is perfectly legal and pretty standard. You didn't buy the car, but instead purchased the right to use it.

That's not true. Before you rent a car, you sign a long contract agreeing to all the various restrictions. When you buy software, you typically don't agree to anything until you run the software. At that point, you already own the software, and as far as I know, no court has held that you must abide by the license in order to use the software.

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

#160

Post by Natsu »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #158
Natsu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's their control of the software that allows them to control what people do with the hardware both via technical and legal means. It is, after all, a computing device. While I suppose that people wouldn't have this problem if they were using it as, say, a doorstop, that's not really the issue people are having here.

That's not accurate. Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it. Replace their software with your own and Apple has no control over the hardware. Therefore, Apple has no control over the hardware - you do. The claim "I bought the hardware, I own it, therefore I should be able to do what…

> Apple's only control of the hardware is how you use it via their software. The hardware is not sold to you under the provision that you must only use Apple's software with it.

You have to jailbreak an iPhone to install other software, or so claims PC World. That's definitely a technical barrier, just like I explained. And a legal one, with the DMCA "trafficking" problem. Having established that their opposition is not merely passive, your complaint rings hollow, unless when you said that, you were trying to say that they were less than upfront about disclosing the restrictions?

No link will be given to those instructions. They're incredibly easy to find, but I don't want to run afoul of the nebulous contributory infringement claims like "inducement." My recommendation is for people like me with a problem with this to avoid buying the products to begin with. It's the approach I have selected.

Post reply on HN