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

31–40 of 206 posts

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

#31

Post by brk »

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 run on "your" hardware. But in the current scenario you're buying iron-wrapped software (or I guess plastic-and-glass-wrapped software). Apple is really controlling what happens with the software, not the hardware.

This is an importnat distinction, IMO, because I don't believe any of the "I paid for it so it's mine" arguments out there really pass muster until you also create your own (not jailbroken) software stack.

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

#32

Post by Zakuzaa »

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…

Possible Apple's side: App revenues may not make for a sizable part of their revenues as of now but they are expecting a humongous growth in both - iOS devices sales and Apps sales (and hence In-Apps sales). They feel the need to get in right now or before it's too late. They might also be contemplating Apple Television and more iOS based form factors. This can be huge.

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

#33

Post by ekanes »

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?

In part because Android's many devices/configurations make it a less predictable development platform. (I'm not saying there aren't reasons to develop for Android, but you asked for one reason people don't do it more.)

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

#35

Post by joshmanders »

I don't understand why Apple is putting themselves in this situation.. Bad for business. Apple HAD the market, then Google came along with Android, now they're being snobs and just forcing their own users to switch to Android powered phones just because of this exact thing. Shame really.

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

#36

Post by panacea »

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?!?!

I could be wrong, but I don't think Apple actually used their technology, but rather implemented a similar feature into desktop Safari.

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

#37

Post by fauigerzigerk »

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…

All contracts are artificial constructs. There are no natural contracts. So the question is simply whether the kind of contract Apple has with its customers is legal or not and if it is whether the law should be changed.

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

#38

Post by bad_user »

rimantas wrote: post #14
Kylekramer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is part of the artificial construct. There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's except that they enforce ridiculous rules like this rejection to maintain complete control. And the channel loses value every time they pull something like this.

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 control their channel, but why should I be restricted to their channel only? Why should I jailbreak my phone, which is dependent on kernel / various other exploits and risk bricking my device and losing the warranty if I want to be freed from Apple's channel?

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

#39

Post by nika »

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, and so now people can comply with the rule, and so now they are enforcing it.

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

#40

Post by jammur »

gaustin wrote: post #19
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…

>How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to use the monopoly argument at arbitrary level of granularity. For instance, while Apple has a monopoly on iOS app by definition, Ford also has a monopoly on Ford cars. Monopolies are only a problem when there is no viable competition. In this case, the competition is Android et al. By saying you only want an iPhone, you are restricting your own choice. That said, it's perfectly fine to complain about the policies Apple implements. Complaints are part of the free market process, and in many cases bring about change for the better.
Post reply on HN