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

171–180 of 206 posts

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

#171

Post by adsr »

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…

It has nothing to do with the hardware. Apple gives access to a sales platform, similar to let's say Amazon. They charge for the use of that platform. And are now preventing someone to use it as a mere "springboard" to somewhere else. Nothing is stoping anyone from creating a web app to take care of this by them selves, independent of the app store.

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

#172

Post by commandar »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #128
nika wrote: post #39

I think it is worth noting, because everyone seems to have forgotten, that this has always been the rule. I remember it from the very first reading of the terms and conditions (back when they were under NDA). It has always been against AppStore rules to monetize apps outside of the AppStore. Apple has been lax in enforcing it, primarily because Apple didn't offer a subscription mechanism. Now they offer a mechanism,…

A rule isn't a rule until it's enforced. Apple has effectively changed the rules after tricking companies like Amazon and Netflix to develop software for the App Store, which was – until now – a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Wasn't Netflix functionality something Apple used as a selling point for the iPad?

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

#173

Post by brk »

exit wrote: post #162
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 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?

If you read through most software licenses, whether click-through or break-the-seal arrangements, the wording comes down to you are being granted a license to use the software, not a transfer of ownership of any actual property.

Hardware is different. Unless you specifically sign a contract like a lease that makes some arrangement other than the traditional you bought it, you own it scenario you can do whatever you want with a piece of purchased hardware. The have been cases in the past, for example DirecTV receivers where the hardware purchase price had a built in subsidy, requiring you to sign up for a subscription. When people started paying cash (instead of the usual credit card sale for a $300 item) and not activating the hardware (because they were easy to hack) DirecTV changed the way retailers were allowed to sell the hardware.

People keep getting the iOS software, and the related devices confused, thinking of them as a single entity. You own your hardware, but you don't own the underlying software. Among other things, the lawsuits targeted at the company that was selling OS X loaded on clone hardware (forget the name) also seemed to prove this out.

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

#174

Post by jammur »

natrius wrote: post #159
jammur wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's correct, when you run the software, you agree to the license. But before that, you still don't own the software. At no point do you ever own the software. You simply pay for a license to use it. This is the same with OSX, Windows 7, etc.

You are correct that consumer EULAs haven't really been tested in court, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This isn't about the EULA. Apple is not stopping you from putting a third party app store on the device. They are stopping you from putting a third party app store on the stock iOS. If you jailbreak, then you can put Cydia on it.

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

#175

Post by DougBTX »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #113
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…

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 exist…

In my opinion, the old AppStore 30% cut for apps and in-app purchase was fair, but the new subscription cut is unfair.

Here's my reasoning: AppStore provides distribution and one-click payment processing. Selling access to a web app is painful because you have to ask people to enter credit card details, or sign in to a third party payment processor, lots of hassle. With the AppStore, it is just as easy to take people's money as it is to give away your app for free. So, Apple is providing a service, and it seems fair that Apple would get paid for that service.

The main issue with the AppStore cut is that Apple doesn't allow direct competition to the AppStore on iDevices (I think that 30% would be smaller if users were not locked in to the AppStore) however the value added is real.

With the new subscription rules, the value added by Apple is much less clear, since Readability was already taking in money without Apple's help. So, the assumption is that Apple's subscription tools won't provide a boost to sales large enough to cover Apple's cut, hence unfair. With Readability's 70%-goes-to-authors business model, they will never be able to make up the loss by selling more content.

I've not tried out Readability, but the argument is probably that they fall into the first category along with the AppStore, since they make it easier to give money to creators without having to look at ads. So, they are providing value, and a 30% cut is "fair".

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

#176

Post by xentronium »

gaiusparx wrote: post #110
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.

> Apple collects nothing

How about they sell the phone?

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

#177

Post by nnutter »

Apple, I bought an iPad because I could watch movies in Netflix and read bookmarks in Instapaper, news in Reeder, and books in Kindle. Please send each $37.50 (30% of the iPad sale shared four ways) to each developer for bringing you a customer.

Or, optionally, stop acting like you, as a middle man, provides more added value than the developers that make your platform so damn profitable.

P.S. WebOS still looks pretty damn nice.

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

#178

Post by trout »

I don't understand the legal ownership fuss of their decision. If they had decided to take 5% instead of 30% there would be no discussion here. The only difference between 5% and 30% appears to be whether or not it's a good business decision. It does alienate a number of applications that have less than 30% margin, but that appears to be Apple's motivation. I would not go so far to say this should be expected, but it's a risk you take when you play with a company that likes to own such a large portion of the experience.

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

#179

Post by pnathan »

jimbokun wrote: post #166
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…

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 in…

I use iPod with iTunes. Music comes from amazon.

Of course, next mp3 player will be some no-name brand, I expect. :-)

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

#180

Post by OpieCunningham »

sh4na wrote: post #165
OpieCunningham wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Readability scrapes content and removes ads. Publishers lose revenue when Readability processes their content in that manner and presents it to the Readability subscriber.

Readability then tells the publisher "we're charging our subscribers in order to remove the ads from your site, if you want 70% of that revenue, sign up here, the alternative is, you get 0% and you also lose the revenue from your ads because we're going to scrape your content anyway".

Publishers can now either agree to Readability's redefining the publisher's business model, or they can fight back by using resources to subvert Readability from scraping the content.

Readability's business model is very similar to such P2P companies as Limewire: charging people for an easy method of accessing content that belongs to others. The only difference is, Readability has offered, apparently out of the kindness of their hearts, to pay a portion of their revenue to the publishers they steal content from. The publisher has no choice to be uninvolved in Readability's business model, they either accept it and get a percentage of it in lieu of their existing revenue, or Readability justs cuts the publishers existing revenue.

That's nearly the textbook definition of extortion.

Regarding Apple, you're absolutely wrong. No one is forced to develop an iOS app, so automatically, extortion is off the table. Further, the 30% does only apply to in-app subscribers, and though you want to claim that means everyone has therefore had their choice removed and must subscribe in-app, that's simply false. In addition, if most of your subscribers come from in-app purchases, you can thank Apple for setting up and maintaining an eco-system that is in turn your largest market.

Post reply on HN