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

181–190 of 206 posts

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

#181

Post by OpieCunningham »

Natsu wrote: post #160
OpieCunningham wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are an assortment of technical barriers that limit my ability to convert my toaster into an ice-making toaster. Starting with those annoying screws which were clearly put there to prevent me from easily accessing the inside of my toaster!

That's not the manufacturers problem.

The govt has already declared that jail breaking your phone is legal.

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

#182

Post by bigiain »

brk wrote: post #31
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 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…

Didn't Apple just lose that argument in court trying to claim jailbreaking your own iPhone was illegal?

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

#183

Post by marshray »

kenjackson wrote: post #54
thailandstartup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple feels its position is now strong enough that it can dictate terms.

Funny how everyone used to say that Apple was benevolent due to their actions in the PC space. My argument was always they've never been in a position to really be aggressive. Now that they are in a borderline position they are quickly being a lot less benevolent. Does anyone honestly think if they had 90% PC/browser share they'd be "nicer" than Microsoft?

Apple is the company that has their police raid journalist's homes and confiscate all his computers because their dumbass engineer left his special phone in a bar.

Say what you want about Microsoft, they never stooped to the level of _actual_ fascist Nazi crap like that.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

marshray wrote: post #183
kenjackson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how everyone used to say that Apple was benevolent due to their actions in the PC space. My argument was always they've never been in a position to really be aggressive. Now that they are in a borderline position they are quickly being a lot less benevolent. Does anyone honestly think if they had 90% PC/browser share they'd be "nicer" than Microsoft?

Apple is the company that has their police raid journalist's homes and confiscate all his computers because their dumbass engineer left his special phone in a bar. Say what you want about Microsoft, they never stooped to the level of _actual_ fascist Nazi crap like that.

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by marshray »

tomjen3 wrote: post #25
thailandstartup wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple feels its position is now strong enough that it can dictate terms.

Considering that almost nothing happened when the iphone was released on Verizon, Apple is at an extremely weak position and can not only not dictate terms but they are very far from being at a point where they can.

Perhaps it really does reflect Jobs' weakness, or maybe he's behind it all too.

Man if it were my business I sure wouldn't want to risk pissing off developers or the consumers right now:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/how-will-smartphone-market-sha...

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

#186

Post by marshray »

[deleted] wrote: post #184
marshray wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is the company that has their police raid journalist's homes and confiscate all his computers because their dumbass engineer left his special phone in a bar. Say what you want about Microsoft, they never stooped to the level of _actual_ fascist Nazi crap like that.

[deleted]

Apparently the local police do their bidding. Perhaps you heard about:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003446-37.html

Widely denounced as unjust.

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

#187

Post by spullara »

writetoalok wrote: post #125
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…

>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 isn't the case. The only state that you must offer the ability to buy in the app and they get 30% of that charge. You can still collect payment outside of the app on your website as well.

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

#188

Post by jellicle »

brk wrote: post #31
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 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…

This isn't a good summary of the law as it is, and it isn't a good summary of how the law should be.

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

#189

Post by foobarbazetc »

damoncali wrote: post #68

The reason this doesn't work is because Apple had to pick a number - 30%. For some businesses, that makes perfect sense. for others 1% or maybe 70% might make sense. But rigidly adhering to 30% (no doubt because of the massive complexity of the alternative) is going to cut lots of business out just because it doesn't make sense. Apple needs to rethink this - it's clumsy.

They have to pick 30% because in-app purchases are charged at 30%. You can't have two variations of the same thing (one that auto-renews and one that doesn't) charged differently.

Let's say the subscription cut was 10%. Everyone would release their apps as free, and charge for everything as a "subscription" because it's less than the 30% cut for app sales or non-auto renewable in-app purchases.

Basically, there is no other percentage that Apple can use here, for very good reasons. If they lower the percentage for this, they have to lower all the other percentages.

And that's not going to happen, because 30% is pretty reasonable for what they provide. The Android Market takes 30%, and Amazon takes 70% for Kindle subscriptions.

Edit: IMHO, everyone talking about the percentage is missing the point. The problem is the policy itself. It's just too general and broadly applied for a huge amount of stuff out there. Marco nails the issues here: http://www.marco.org/3437484678

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

#190

Post by Natsu »

OpieCunningham wrote: post #181
Natsu wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There are an assortment of technical barriers that limit my ability to convert my toaster into an ice-making toaster. Starting with those annoying screws which were clearly put there to prevent me from easily accessing the inside of my toaster! That's not the manufacturers problem. The govt has already declared that jail breaking your phone is legal.

> There are an assortment of technical barriers that limit my ability to convert my toaster into an ice-making toaster. Starting with those annoying screws which were clearly put there to prevent me from easily accessing the inside of my toaster!

That's a terrible argument to make in Apple's case:

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110125/0207...

It wasn't accidental, necessary or even cheaper to make the iPhone require a jailbreak before you could install your own stuff, after all.

> The govt has already declared that jail breaking your phone is legal.

That's a very misleading way to put it.

I already explained why the Librarian of Congress' exemption for jailbreaking an iPhone is useless because they do not (and cannot) exempt anyone from the ban on trafficking in such tools.

You can read more about how the DMCA works here: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/blakereid/new-dmca-exe...

Hopefully that will be enough that you can understand why the Librarian of Congress wrote, "Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201."

Source: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-120...

That's the statement in which the Librarian of Congress exempted people from the ban on circumvention (but not trafficking) things like iPhones. The specific phone exemption is exemption #2.

Now then, how does one jailbreak an iPhone legally if they're not allowed to make or distribute the means to do so?

If you read the Freedom to Tinker article, you'll remember that the DMCA says that you cannot "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that is "primarily designed" to circumvent, has only "limited commercially significant" non-circumvention purposes, or is "marketed" for circumvention purposes.

That word "manufacture" is the sticky one, not that you can't run afoul of the others. Damn hard to circumvent things when you can neither make nor import the tools to do so.

The DMCA is one big catch-22. Claiming that the government has declared this legal is very dangerous. IANAL and you need proper legal advice before dealing with this stuff.

I solve it by not owning an iPhone in the first place.

Post reply on HN