[deleted]
An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
161–170 of 206 posts
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#162> 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…
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 follow this argument. software doesn't exist in some alternate metaphysical reality. software is just as much a configuration of matter as the rest of the device.
can apple "license" the physical shape of the device and charge 30% on all sales of protective sleeves?
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are no natural contracts. Do not kill?
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.
And you could argue that civilization has been one long exercise in striving to replace the contracts of nature with something better.
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
For somebody new to the whole iTunes Store ecosystem it is neither faster nor less mentally challenging to set up a new ITS account than it is to jailbreak their new device.
It may strike you as obviously false, and it may well have been so two years ago, but when I got my new iPad after moving to another country I've spent about twice as much time getting iTunes to let me pay for apps in foreign App Store than I've spent researching jailbreak options and caveats and then actually pwning the device.
So no, App Store is far from the only way to distribute iOS software, even though it still is the default and sometimes the only apparent way.
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their eff…
> All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream. - Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons. - And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which i…
>Effectively, Readability is extorting publishers: give us 30% or we'll take everything
Readability has costs, and provides a service for free. They give you the choice of using their service for free (no revenue for them, no revenue for ad-driven content sites), or paying them a fee for the use of their service (which is strip everything except the content so you don't have to - a value-added service if I ever saw one). This fee gets forwarded to the content author, while they keep a commission for the service they're providing you. You, presumably, see a value in their service, or you wouldn't use it. You see a value in the content, or you wouldn't read it. They give you the choice of supporting the content and the service, where money is split to support the service you like and the content you like, or just use it without paying anything. The content author is denied ad revenue because you use a service which strips ads. This service now offers you the chance to support your favorite content authors directly, to compensate for the loss of ad revenue.
And you see extortion where?
>My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue >from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated >from within the iOS app or from Readability's website
Your point is moot. Apple takes 30% from in-app subscriptions. People using the app don't have a choice between subscribing through the app or through the website, seeing as Apple does not allow linking to the website. Obviously, people using the app won't think of going to the browser to subscribe. Hence, even though it seems there's an alternative, toll-free way to subscribe, in practice there isn't. Even though it looks like it's optional, it's not, and content-based apps are going to be especially hit with this toll. The Apple 30% toll - encouraging people to develop for your platform, then putting up flat 30% fees on revenue - now that is extortion.
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#166I 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…
Simple thought experiment: iPhone with iTunes and...nothing else. Android with Netflix, Kindle, Hulu...and the rest of the world's content producers. Which one are people going to buy?
Starting to sound like Mac vs. Windows all over again. I thought the App Store showed that Jobs had learned his lesson that the systems with the most software and content win. Putting that at risk fits the classic folk definition of insanity (same behavior, expecting different results).
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#167I wish these open letters said, "we are ebaying our iPhones, removing our other apps from the App Store, and switching to Android and Windows Mobile" instead of "we are going to change our business model just because the default icons you guys pick are so great".
Apple does not care about whiney letters. They might care if there are no more apps for or users of iOS.
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#168Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#169I haven't heard anything about this subscription model and Netflix. Will Netflix be able to continue to provide their iOS apps without giving a cut to apple? Seems crazy that they would have to.
Netflix may be exempt, somehow: http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-not-affected-by-apple...
It implies that Amazon could get around this just by removing the "get books" button from their kindle iPhone client, requiring people to make purchases from a browser.
Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection
#170Earlier 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 follow this argument. software doesn't exist in some alternate metaphysical reality. software is just as much a configuration of matter as the rest of the device. can apple "license" the physical shape of the device and charge 30% on all sales of protective sleeves?
Isn't that pretty much how the "Made for iPod/iPhone" program works?