Dear Apple:
It’s your friends from Readability. Remember us? You put our technology into your Safari browser last year. We’re writing this open letter because – well – we’re a little upset right now.
Last Friday, you notified us that our Readability iOS application was rejected. In explaining the rejection, you pointed us to 11.2 in the App Store Review Guidelines:
11.2 Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.
We’re obviously disappointed by this decision, and surprised by the broad language. By including “functionality, or services,” it’s clear that you intend to pursue any subscription-based apps, not merely those of services serving up content. Readability’s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
Before we cool down and come to our senses, we might as well share how we’re feeling right now: we believe that your new policy smacks of greed. Subscription apps like ours represent a tiny sliver of app sales that represent a tiny sliver of your revenue. You’ve achieved much of your success in hardware sales by cultivating an incredibly impressive app ecosystem. Every iPad or iPhone TV ad puts the apps developed by companies like ours front and center. It was a healthy and mutually beneficial dynamic: apps like ours get exposure and you get to show the world how these apps make your hardware shine. That’s why we’re a bit baffled here.
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. But to impose this course on any web service or web application that delivers any value outside of iOS will only discourage smaller ventures like ours to invest in iOS apps for our services. As far as Readability is concerned, our response is fairly straight-forward: go the other way… towards the web.
Since we re-launched, we’ve already seen a significant amount of usage across a wide range of browsers, operating systems and devices via the Readability web interface – for both mobile and desktop. Looking ahead, we plan to redouble our efforts to deliver the best possible reading app using the latest best-of-breed web technology.
The new Readability is fueled by the free-form nature of the web. Just as content pumps through the web’s piping, apps like ours thrive as nodes on the web – unencumbered by levies or barriers imposed by others. As we said months ago: “for us, the web is the right bet.”
Still, we’re always looking to give readers the best possible reading experience and a native iOS client would help us do that. We hope you’ll change your mind. If you do, we’d be happy to resubmit the Readability iOS app.
Regards,
The Readability Team
P.S. We’d be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you’d carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do.
Stay cool. I was only ever into the web part and there are others like me for sure. I see Apple has pissed off the Guardian paper today. They’ve upset both ends of my supply train. It won’t hold, I bet.
Although it’s a crying shame the service won’t appear on a native app right away, the web app I’ve been using on my iPhone is already pretty good. I’m seeing better and better offerings as web apps on more and more of the services I love – surely there’s scope to do something special outside of the app store… No re-application for bug fixes and an up to the minute codebase, no 30% cuts, no obtuse rejections.
To be totally honest I getting bored with people slating Apple’s business model, and I’m not a fanboy by any stretch of the imagination.
What grates on me is the sheer number of people that expect Apple to cater to the business model of each and every content provider, rather than Apple expecting content providers to adjust their business model to comply with their terms of service.
So 30% is too much for you because you hand over 70% to your writers and publishers and if you went ahead under Apples terms you’d take home 0%. Fair enough. As I see it you have two options, don’t publish on the iOS platform or adjust your business model to make allowances for a new partner, Apple.
At the time you setup your Readability your 70%/30% split served its purpose, great. But you now want to expand onto a platform that unlike the web isn’t open nor free. Is it therefore so unreasonable to think you may need to reconsider your own business model to take this into account?
I don’t think so.
I love you guys, and I think your app is awesome.
But if your current app was accepted, what would the experience be? I load the app, then I have to go through PayPal or use a credit card to get the full features? Because while I wish you got every cent you wanted, that experience would be less optimal than in-app purchasing.
Apple may be greedy, but in this case they’re also forcing you to give me the best purchasing experience. And I appreciate that, as much as I love you guys.
Rich – A similar Open Letter to Tim Cook I posted (ages ago) was responded to by none other than a VP of Developer Relations at Apple. NICE guy taking time to talk to a teensy little fish (me). You guys are substantial in your footprint and scope. I’m guessing you’ll get a quick phone call. Whether you’ll get any joy from that is to be seen.
With all the hoopla in the middle east right now over gobs of people rising up and taking charge of their environments. We’re seeing similar “ClueTrain” action in the consumer electronics space. It wasn’t so long ago Apple veered from a web apps model to an App Store model.
Stay encouraged – They’re listening. Stay true to your cause – Apple will, occasionally, bend.
And, to the degree you’re allowed… keep us up to speed on what you find out.
~ Gerald
Why not build an offline-capable webapp that would run in the browser?
All you need is a webview, right? Safari can give you that. And you wouldn’t have to submit to the tirany of App Store guidelines.
Do you need something not acessible to webapps?
Rich – A similar Open Letter to Tim Cook I posted (ages ago) was responded to by none other than a VP of Developer Relations at Apple. NICE guy taking time to talk to a teensy little fish (me). You guys are substantial in your footprint and scope. I’m guessing you’ll get a quick phone call. Whether you’ll get any joy from that is to be seen.
With all the hoopla in the middle east right now over gobs of people rising up and taking charge of their environments. We’re seeing similar “ClueTrain” action in the consumer electronics space. It wasn’t so long ago Apple veered from a web apps model to an App Store model.
Stay encouraged – They’re listening. Stay true to your cause – Apple will, occasionally, bend.
And, to the degree you’re allowed… keep us up to speed on what you find out.
~ Gerald
Those with an Android are ready to welcome you with open arms, big smile & a pint of beer.
So now will people finally get a clue about Apple?
I don’t understand.
Why don’t you just split your revenues with your contributors?
C.
I second Steve’s comments. As you will already know Android is now the larger platform and such problems are rare on the Android market. If anything, Android users are far more welcoming to those who decide to focus on their platform due to the popularity of the iPhone and peoples willingness to develop for Apple.
It’s worth restating that there already is a mobile web version that works across Android, iOS, etc. We’ve got big plans for mobile/tablet coming soon.
I love you guys, and I think your app is awesome.
But if your current app was accepted, what would the experience be? I load the app, then I have to go through PayPal or use a credit card to get the full features? Because while I wish you got every cent you wanted, that experience would be less optimal than in-app purchasing.
Apple may be greedy, but in this case they’re also forcing you to give me the best purchasing experience. And I appreciate that, as much as I love you guys.
What about Android or more open-minded platform than Apple’s? All that glitters is not gold!
Android is on its way to beat iOS.
Leave Apple.
Be free ;)
@Jon, I agree that the in-app purchasing experience is better. We’re not arguing it isn’t. But the cut Apple is requiring — 30% of all subscriptions in perpetuity — is just way too high. That plus the fact that it’s a requirement, as opposed to an option, leaves us with very few good courses of action.
Run away from the closed world of Apple and proceed to Android.
Android is gaining more importance on the market than Apple anyway.
Be free!
Congrats to the team, for fighting against orthodox capitalism.
@Jon: what good does it do to force a good purchasing experience if there’s nobody to purchase from? Apple could achieve the same result by charging 5 or 10%, still well above the market rate for payment processing, which is all they’re really doing here.
Please, STOP BITCHING!
The rarity of such problems is part of the issue with the Android platform. While Apple toils over whether every single app conforms to its guidelines, Google deems it fit to let many, if not all (havent read a whole lot lately) onto their platform. The result is apparent when you hear about these developer’s stories, but in the end, neither offers a perfect world and each platform, as a result, can leave the end user wanting (whether it be through not having access to certain apps, or having to worry about malicious content).. As with almost everything, there’s got to be some kind of happy medium.
Smart post. I like Android, but I think this shows that web development should be top priority. YOu already have a shining example of a mobile web app. Some local storage, position saving, and perhaps pagination (for gym reading) is all that it needs to match a native app.
@Carniphage That’s what they do. Readability lets you save online articles, and 70% of subscription fees goes to the publishers of the articles that Readability’s users are reading. Apple taking 30% without sharing their cut with publishers doesn’t work with Readability’s model. Also, the current pay-what-you-want pricing would presumably be confusing, since Apple wants a price-match or better.
I agree with Carniphage. I don’t agree with Apple, but neither with you.
I paid because you vowed to share “70%” with publisher, which means also take “30%” cut to ‘total service fee to have your own. If Apple post that policy, then, take 70% from Apple, share it by ratio. Nobody say you’re wrong. If you found problem, that is not from percentage cut of publishers, your worry about fell short of ‘your’ revenue.
Cry some more. You are making a profit and want to use the platform for free to do so. You should not have been at all surprised.
Go ahead and go to Android. Nobody buys anything there. Plus fragmentation.
The only way they’ll get the message is if we vote with our wallets. Boycott mobile Apple products.
This is totally & completely 100% UNFAIR of Apple, and I hope that some government body finds that Apple is doing something ILLEGAL here as well. This would be the equivalent of MICROSOFT charging APPLE a 30% fee for every song that Apple sells on iTunes for Windows, simply because Apple is selling songs on Microsoft’s Windows platform. This is completely crazy and insane on Apple’s part, and hopefully people will teach Apple a lesson by leaving iOS and switching to Android instead.
Seriously, STOP BITCHING. Don’t like Apple? Don’t use their stuff.
I’m gonna whip your ass, Scott Rose.
Thanks a lot. This kind of pressure are very important for the future of how we could use the web. I hope that Apple will listen this shout.
@Scott Rose and Anthony Cerra: I’ll boycott mobile Apple products when a proper competitor comes around.
The people here defending Apple’s right to do this as part of benefiting the user experience or their own buisness model don’t seem to understand that it’s OK to criticise these policies when they affect you negatively.
If users of iOS devices start missing out on apps like Readability because Apple is taking an arbitrary 30% cut, then why shouldn’t developers and users “whine” about it. Voting with your wallet is one option, but not the only one nor often the most effective.
It’s not about entitlement, it’s about expecting, requesting, arguing for, demanding better treatment on your hardware you purchased with your money. It’s about not having stockholm syndrome.
I don’t want to sound like a whiny Android fanboy (cause I’m not. I think iOS is far superior to Android), but why not release an Android app in response to this rejection? Android has a larger user base and won’t take a cut out of your subscriptions.
It’s about more than a 30% vig.
Apple controls/censors content.
make a Cloud-based mobile application! otherwise your trapped in the apple ecosystem! apple is becoming a dictatorshit.
I doesn’t like Apple’s attitude at all, and those requirements which 30% cut of every services are too harsh, so your arguments are fully understandable, however, I’m support current Apple’s In-app purchase system. Many services are follow those guidelines and I’m pretty satisfied, since I tried couple of times in-app purchase to activate premium service of web apps. So basically It can say broaden way your business. Because it is safe, and hassle-free for buyer.
I have two hopes, eventually you guys develop true cross-platform, rich experience which possible in native app. and until then you guys and Apple concede each other, and make native app.
Yeah! Down with capitalism!
Apple is free to do what they want in their own backyard. If you don’t like it, you’re free to go play elsewhere. My guess is, that any decent developer would rather play in Apple’s backyard than any other, which is why there is such a big stink about this particular rule. They know that the people who use iOS devices pay more for apps than competing platforms, and that being able to publish to one store beats the fragmentation and confusion elsewhere.
People are upset because this will cost them money. A lot of stinking money. Welcome to capitalism. Deal with it.
According to the market / publishing industry eReaders are dead! eReader have no future because of the appearance of tablets running Android as operating system.
Also Netbooks are doomed.
And as competing tablets flood the market, the iPad becomes niche. Therefore redefine you iPad strategy as a ‘tablet publishing strategy’
Apple will loose out heavily caused by it’s iPad app / publication police state business model. Android allows anything you can imagine.
And not to forget, that VMWare coming out with Windows for the iPad allowing Flash to run…
According to the market / publishing industry eReaders are dead! eReader have no future because of the appearance of tablets running Android as operating system.
Also Netbooks are doomed.
And as competing tablets flood the market, the iPad becomes niche. Therefore redefine your iPad strategy as a ‘tablet publishing strategy’
Apple will loose out heavily caused by it’s iPad app / publication police state business model. Android allows anything you can imagine.
And not to forget, that VMWare coming out with Windows for the iPad allowing Flash to run…
Well said, and right on the nose. The stance of “go the other way… towards the web” is one I’ve always stood behind. I see comments saying “Well, just go Android instead” but that just trades one set of shackles for another – and I say that as a very happy Android user. Unless an application has specific desktop-like functionality that absolutely can not be replicated within a browser or is a game, it should be a web app rather than a downloadable/installable. This app craze will dwindle and, just like on the desktop, the more mobile browser capabilities improve the more applications will gravitate toward being web based. The app goldrush will be very short-lived. Build it once for the web and it’s instantly cross-platform and available to all using a single code base. Build it as a platform app and you immediately limit your application to certain users and get shackled by policies like those of the App Store.
I’m really glad to see Readability stay feisty, and moving to the web. Keep up the great work guys.
Readability. Umm, what did you expect after Apple’s new subscription pricing announcement last week? That your app is somehow “special” and the rules don’t apply? I don’t see anything about your app that would preclude it from the standard subscription pricing rules. Apple takes 30% of billing through their recurring billing system. You keep 97% (subtracting billing fees) from any customers you signup on your own web site.
Your strategy will have to change in iOS apps. Instead of promoting “70% of your fee goes to writers”, you’ll just have to say “70% of our revenue goes to writers”. This works out to 49% after Apple takes 30%.
Figure out how to make it work instead of whining about it.
I’m a iOS developer and I agree with Mic, not you.
Why your suppliers deserve 70% and Apple doesn’t deserve 30% ?
When you turn to web, can you ask your web hosting provider to wave the fee because some day you decide to give your content suppliers 90%?
Whose business model has a problem here?
This was so nicely written and thought out, but I cannot help but echo Mic’s thoughts from above in Comment#2, stop your convoluted whining about unfair practices. It’s not a democracy. It’s Apple. You clearly show that you understand that, which is great. So move on. You would have been better off spending the time you put into crafting this post, spending that time on furthering your development efforts on the web-based version of your application.
Comment referenced that clearly states your misunderstanding:
http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/#comment-203
ANDROID
So you take 30% of the subtraction payments and give only 70% to publishers / site owners. And Apple takes 30% of in-app payments and gives only 70% to app publishers / developers. And only Apple is greedy. If a website owner would want to negotiate with you a 100% / 0% revenue share deal would you agree to that?
I honestly am not surprised as to the outcome. Personally, I am fine with either a native app (and increasing the price or whatever) or with a web app with the ability to read offline. A native app would be nice but not the end of the world if it doesn’t materialize.
To all those who griped about Richard’s complaint and told Richard to “stop bitching”, did you read? He stated, “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.”
So, to all those who griped and told Richard to “stop bitching”: quit griping and bitching at those who gripe and bitch at Apple’s policy. Consider free speech and live and let live. Their griping and bitching doesn’t hurt you, and there’s no need for you to defend Apple. Chill out, man.
Make the app for Android.
I only stumbled across this because of the connection to Apple’s store in my reader search. I wouldn’t have found you otherwise.
That is the value of what Apple provides you. A bigger audience than you would have had otherwise.
If you think you would prefer to do it your way with a smaller audience, go right ahead. Others may find you, or not. Your choice.
I agree with you that this policy of Apple is a direct result of greed. Incidentally, practices like these nearly drove Apple out of business completely at one point. If it weren’t for the iPod, Apple would’ve declared bankruptcy–it was literally their last hope that they threw everything behind. It worked.
I remember back when Apple was going out of business (slowly, but surely) they tried to do silly things with their computers like introduce a proprietary headphone jack so that you either had to buy Apple speakers and headphones, or a special adapter made by Apple to listen to sounds on your computer. Now they’re putting batteries in bays not accessible to the OWNER of the devices and putting significant money into researching ways of keeping people out of those bays more effectively (Google Pentalobe screws).
This latest move by Apple seems ridiculous to me. Amazon, for instance, gets only 30% of the sale of an eBook. If Apple wants 30% of that sale, that leaves Amazon with nothing. So, either Apple will serve to single-handedly raise the price of eBooks everywhere, thus screwing the customers (us). Or, Amazon will pull support (this gets my vote).
I hope that Readability will consider giving the competition a shot–make your app for Android. Google has a significantly more reasonable subscription plan (though I wish they wouldn’t charge 10% even), but they also allow outside linking to stores not in the app market. They are steadily taking over the market, and are already ahead of Apple in the global scheme of things.
I’m glad people like you are, in a reasonable fashion, calling Apple out. I don’t understand why anyone would want to pay a company to screw them over. :-)
Neither here nor there for me, but if your business model doesn’t fit Apple’s like a glove on their platform then you would need to adjust yours or not publish on their platform. Make the 70% you get from Apple on iOS and treat it as 100%, divvy up that 70% the same way you do now with 70% of that going to the writers and publishers and the remaining 30% you keep. Pretty simple really, if you are willing to substitute volume for price point on the iOS platform, if not, then don’t distribute it through that channel.
what a horrible, scratchy, tiny type face, it’s a good job I’ve got the ‘readability’ bookmarklet ready to go, or my eyes would’ve exploded half way through that…
Just change the line “70% of all Readability membership fees go directly to writers and publishers” to: “70% of all Readability membership fee revenue go directly to writers and publishers.” Then pay out 70% of your Apple in-app subscription purchases to the writers and publishers. PROBLEM SOLVED!
Are any of you Android-lovin’ robots actually reading comments? The HTML5 web app already works with Android. Sure, that’s not on the Android Marketplace, but you guys are always telling us iPhone users how great it is to not be “locked in” anyway. So shut up and install the web app already.
And somewhat less facetiously, I wonder how many companies will do precisely this to get around Apple’s subscription model. If they can persuade people to install the “web app” version, they win hands-down — the question is how big an “if” that is.
Wait, so you take 30% of all revenues you generate, and give the other 70% back to publishers of web content for a service you provide. Yet when Apple do the same (provide YOU a service, host and retail your application, pay bandwidth costs, surrounding support infrastructure etc) they are wrong?
As others have stated, you need to suck it up, and readjust your business model to fit this. Apple are free to put out any rules they want for you to play in their walled garden. You don’t have to play in that garden if you don’t want to. Same as if your web publishers don’t like the 70% deal that you offer, they can jog on… I’m sure you aren’t bending.
Frustrating, but that’s life. This coming from an already frustrated iOS developer.
I keep on wondering when I read “It’s their hardware” if anyone has bought the tablet or has Apple given it to them out of the goodness of their heart. I mean, they are making money on the phone / tablet, they are making money on the store (which is acceptable since they also pay for the support of said app store).
On the other hand I see no reason for them to get a 30% cut since they do nothing except process the payment. They have no real reason for such a hefty cut. I understand paying a processing fee, but no way should you be forced to fork out so much.
Putting the Readability iOS app / subscription payments grievance on hold for just a moment, I am wondering about the iOS version of Safari and its implementation of the Readability technology, similar to the Mac OS X version of Safari.
The mobile / iOS version of Safari was particularly notable (and successful) because it didn’t compromise but instead offered the full capabilities of a desktop browser on a mobile device. I was a little surprised to find out that in spite of this it didn’t include the “Reader” / Readability functionality now incorporated into the OS X version. Nevertheless I assumed that this would be feature would be added relatively soon to a future version of the software.
I used Readability before it was implemented in Safari, but now almost always utilize the Safari implementation due to its convenience. Assuming that the same sequence occurs on the iOS implementation of Safari, what happens to the need for a Readability iOS app?
BTW, let there be no doubt — I love what Readability does and give it enormous credit for successfully creating a critical level of adoption and attention to one of the larger advertising-induced warts on the face of the web. The implementation and its iterations was also done “just right”, no small feat.
So my question isn’t one of giving credit where credit is due — Readability clearly owns that! The question also has little or nothing to do directly with the merit of Apple’s new subscription model.
Instead, I’m wondering why Readability (and future development of related technologies with its 70% charitable contribution), is a preferred conduit for supporting publishers and content creators now that the underlying technology, the open source implementation, and the meme more generally have all succeeded with widespread adoption continuing to grow.
70% charitable contribution to publishers and content creators sounds like an excellent way to support and encourage , but with the basic “mission accomplished” why not provide 100% to the content providers directly as they are doing most of the work and providing most of the value?
Looked at another way, what does the 30% cut offer to subscribers or content providers / publishers that couldn’t be accomplished with a 5% break-even fee or similar. This would appear to go much further in directly compensating publishers and content providers for the ad revenue lost by offering cleanly formatted, easily readable articles without any ads?
Jon
Jon
I think one thing worth clarifying here is that while yes, we do have a model, it’s quite difficult to bolt Apple’s model ON TOP of ours (or anyone else’s for that matter).
This is issue will arise for any app provider or service that worked very hard to secure content deals with a particular set of expectations only to have Apple show up and upend things.
Again, I believe it’s their prerogative to do this. We just find it onerous and short-sighted.
Someone in the comments said, “Nobudy buys anything there.” I say if iOS users are so filthy rich, charge them 142.85% of normal fees. Give 30% to apple and rest 100% is yours :).
one more quick comment:
Publishing houses demand the 70% cut according to most eBook and other media suppliers. That is WHY the 30% cut Apple wants is so staggering. Do a bit of research.
@Darwin: They obviously aren’t looking to use the platform for free–they’ve paid for a dev kit, and were willing to put their app in the app store, thus paying Apple with each download. They’re not some mooches trying to make easy money, they are a business who wants to be able to make a profit.
I don’t understand how people can defend Apple for something like this. It’s like my brother saying that a non-removable battery is a FEATURE. How is that a feature? It isn’t, it’s just Apple wanting to charge you to replace the battery.
TIL that Readability was created by a whiny idiot.
>”I think one thing worth clarifying here is that while yes, we do have a model, it’s quite difficult to bolt Apple’s model ON TOP of ours (or anyone else’s for that matter).”
Well, that’s YOUR problem, isn’t it? WTF should someone else modify their business model to fit yours?
Maybe you should change YOUR model if you want it to work with something else.
Next time you go to a store, complain to BestBuy that their pricing does not match your budget and ask them to change all the prices.
See how ridiculously retarded that is?
Next time, THNIK before whining and smell the coffee.
Stop whining and move on to Android!
Oh, and I buy Android apps . . . :-)
Guess you’re just going to have to take less money for yourselves then. Why should Apple adapt to your business model?
Let me get this straight. Apple provides developers easy access to a consumer market of 40+ million people on iOS devices, and maintains a portal through which you can sell your offerings directly to the consumer. The consumer is confident that buying the app through that portal won’t subject them to viruses, and other malware. Your company didn’t invest the billions required to research, design, develop, manufacture, market, sell and support those devices nor the portal through which you offer your solutions – and you’re hacked off Apple wants to share in the revenue that you get from the end user? Really? Who’s being greedy? Next, you’ll be wanting Comcast, Verizon FiOS, etc. to give HBO free access to consumers without having to pay Comcast for access to those consumers. This isn’t the Soviet Union circa 1970s.
Maybe you should consider a fair distribution of revenues that reflects the realities of the value chain: 50% to the content developers for the content, 30% to Apple for the platform, and 10% to you for your much smaller role in the whole equation. The telecom providers get their cut via the monthly access fees – or maybe you think they should waive those too.
I say raise the fee on all app’s going towards the IOS to cover the extra cost, and let the IOS consumers pay that bill, don’t raise the app cost towards all other platforms that don’t take this outrageous cut, then we see who stays and who leaves the platform fair enough ?
I just want to take a moment to point out to all the proponents of Android that the platform has many of its own problems, including device/software fragmentation and inconsistent user experiences. Championing Android as a free and open alternative to iOS is a non-starter because Google has proven time and time again that consumers are the product. The software is open to the whims carriers and corporations, not it’s users. The fact that you can jailbreak your phone is irrelevant.
The takeaway here is that Android on its own is not an adequate defense, but merely another platform with its own considerations. The real solution is for Apple to compromise with developers or face losing mindshare to the only truly open platform: the web.
I’m a current Readability subscriber, and this “Open Letter” reduces my respect for you. It seems to be an emotional response to an unexpected change that may affect your business model. I thought your company had more class than that.
You would be smart to just go with the new IAP rules, and be clear about how that divides the money that is paid by the subscriber. I might even increase my payment to cover your ‘loss’ from Apple. But only if you re-earn my respect.
@Mike
Well, just because you have a crap load of money doesn’t mean you should go buy your HDMI cable at Best Buy for $60 when you could get one every bit as good online for $10 with free shipping.
Let’s be responsible consumers and speak out (with our mouths and wallets) when companies try to do things that are blatantly wrong. We shouldn’t blindly defend them just because we like the way their gadget works. Keep an open mind.
Sigh . . .
First off, as an owner of an Android device for over a year, I haven’t seen a SINGLE problem resulting from “fragmentation”. Nearly 90% of all Android devices out there are now running Android 2.2 and up, which shows very LITTLE fragmentation.
Second off, yes, Android does have some problems…nothing is perfect. We’re proponents of Android, however, because the Android OS is so usable and versatile. The device manufacturers have to be careful because they’re competing directly with other Android developers, which makes the hardware good too. For instance, I can remove my battery. :-)
That being said: for all of you saying that Readability should simply alter their business model…you don’t seem to know much about business.
Consider the fact that, perhaps, 30% was the LARGEST percentage they were allowed to take when making deals with content partners. How, then, would they change said model? Hmmm? Not a single person has addressed that.
Secondly, if we start allowing one business to dictate how other businesses work, forcing companies to distribute through a single and tightly controlled channel, that’s something called a MONOPOLY. If you refer to some historical evidence, you’ll find out that is a bad thing.
hey guys, tbh i don’t know your app, but gonna check it out now. I don’t know how it is in the world of app devolopment, but as we all can see and what we all know over the years apple is greedy, and what they did now is totaly not acceptable. I think you should reconsider moving to Android, which will be better than apple, just look at the evolve of it, look at the good things of it, little restrictions, apps are made by people that know what to use and what to want, almost all free. I know that it’s not the same doing apps for apple and android but hey how hard can it be for you guys? Keep up the great work, and don’t let apple fool ya!
Apple’s argument is that the app store brings customers to the developer’s platform.
Maybe Apple should pay app developers 30% of the revenue from their phone sales since the apps bring users to Apple’s platform.
Who cares. Nothing to see here…move along.
@Quinton — you are right that a non-removable battery isn’t a feature. But you did manage to miss what a non-removable battery enables. It means that Apple didn’t have to take up space on the device for a battery bay and door. It means that the batteries themselves can just be directly connected to the main board on the device rather than having a connector and a casing around the battery. There are a lot of requirements for a user replaceable battery that Apple can get around by not making the battery user replaceable. Apple can then take the space that they saved to either make a smaller device with the same battery capacity or use it to hold a larger battery, thus making the battery last longer.
Another thing that seems to be forgotten is that Apple directly provides customer support to it’s customers via the Apple Stores. Anything that can be done to reduce the cost of support is a good thing. One easy thing for them to do is change the screws from Phillips to pentalobe. It keeps people who probably don’t know any better from cracking open their iPhone and destroying the screen connector cable in the process. These same people then take their iPhone to an Apple store and demand that it get fixed. Meanwhile the people that actually know what they are doing will go online and order a $2 pentalobe screwdriver and get in just the same.
Things like non-replaceable batteries and odd screws aren’t about Apple trying to take away your freedom. It’s about them trying to make a better product while keeping the cost of support down. I’ve owned an iPhone for three years now and not once have I lamented the fact that I have a non-replaceable battery. I know enough to be able to find replaceable batteries if I need them and I know how to replace them as well. Apple’s decisions have not affected my ability to fix my devices at all.
It seems to me that the people that are loudest in complaining about Apple’s hardware decisions either don’t own Apple hardware or they just like hearing themselves talk. The rest of us are either fine with going to Apple to fix a device (because we either don’t know how to do it ourselves or we value our time and don’t care to do it ourselves) or fixing it ourselves.
Ever since building the OSX operating system to enable software companies to reach into my computer I have grown to hate Apple. Apple’s greedy tactics coincide with the purchase of a large part of the companies stock by the dark side. I have an ipod I can’t even use because it is tied so closely to the iTunes store. Won’t buy from them. Your letter is too nice.
You were going to publish a native app for iOS, and it got rejected. Then, when people ask you for an Android app, you tell them that there’s a mobile web version that works well.
If native apps aren’t necessary, why did you make one for iOS? Or, if they provide a better user experience, why don’t you want to make one for Android?
I like web services, and I like native apps, and I’d be happy to use Readability either way. But ‘native for iOS, web for everyone else’, without any explanation or clear technical/economical reason, even after Apple’s rejection, gives me the message I’d be a second-class user just because I’m not in Readability’s preferred fan-club.
I fear that this blog post – however well intentioned – with language such as ‘we’re pretty upset’ and accusations of ‘greed’, will do the Readability app approval process no good!
I would love to have seen Readability as an app on my iPad and iPhone, but I will not hold my breath.
Good luck!
@all & others What you fail to realise is that this option is not available. Had Apple simply required 30% cut there would be no issue. What Apple requires is 30% cut while your price must stay the same or be lower on iOS. Get it now?
You can’t raise your price on iOS and make customers of iOS pay the bill. You need to raise the price across all platforms and make non-iOS customers share the bill.
How would you change your business model to accommodate this? Leaving iOS seems like a natural choice.
Basically your “innovative” business model is to middleman and like other middlemen (EMI, Time Warner, etc.) you’re getting squeezed. Welcome to the bizz.
@Quinton
User experience is a big deal, an important measure of usability being consistency. The fact that there are so many hardware options, each with inconsistent button configurations, just scratches the surface of why you say versatile, and I say problematic.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/07/visualized-the-real-android-fragmentation/
Dear Apple
Boo hoo, we want to make an app store in your app store, use all your customers, take advantage of your delivery system and build our own customer base without sharing revenue with you.
Oh, we also don’t really make any content, we just strip out content from other sites, removing their adds, depriving them of revenue and divert their compensation our way.
Why won’t you let us do this Apple, why??
@cwebba1 — whoa, man, back away from the keyboard and put down the tin foil cap. Apple built OS X to “enable software companies to reach into my computer”? What are you even talking about?
iPod is “tied so closely to the iTunes store”? What makes you say that? Because you use the iTunes application to load content onto the device? You do know that they are separate entities, right? Is it because the iPod only allows you to use industry standard audio formats like AAC, MP3, WAV, even without Apple’s proprietary DRM?
At this point, you can even use the iTunes store to purchase music to load on other music players, since Apple sells standard AAC files without any DRM around them.
But hey, it’s sounds like you are already worked up enough as it is… I really should avoid feeding the trolls.
It’s developers and apps like these who has made the Apple marketplace what it is today, without you Apple would have gotten nowhere and now they slap you in the face with these new restrictions.
How much longer will you stick around with Apple? How many chances have you given them? 5? 10? Yet you are still with them. Apple gives you one chance then they shut you off, ONE.
I say walk away, walk away and don’t look back, even if they backtrack, show them that you are sick of it, there are numerous other platforms eager for your apps. Put Apple in it’s place and walk away, what do you have to lose? Apple is already going to take all your money, so why stay with a platform that is popular yes, but eating your bottom dollar?
If this was any other platform you would have walked away ages ago. It’s sad and pathetic watching Apple stomp all over the developers who made Apple what they are today.
iOS developers, get some dignity back and fight back or don’t complain when Apple slaps you in the face.
According to my mathematics…
70% of a lot, is quite a bit more than 100% of nothing at all.
C.
@zebb
Without developers there would be no app store. But Apple has made THIS app store successful.
Moreover the subscription program only impacts a very small group of developers, who, like these guys, don’t want to play fair and don’t want to look for a better business model.
I am happy to be a developer for Apple’s App Store and both my dignity and wallet are doing fine, thank you very much.
@dennis
First off, thank you so much for a rational and intelligent response. Refreshing. :-)
Secondly, my point with the pentalobe screws and the non-replaceable battery didn’t have to do with customer service, but more with this: if I buy a phone (or anything for that matter) I should be able to do what I want to it as long as it’s not illegal.
I would NEVER buy a car that went to extra measures to keep me from changing my own oil. Also, there phones with nearly the same dimensions as the iPhone (Galaxy S) that feel the same size in the hand (though the S is lighter, I believe) and have removable batteries. I also have a lot of experience with Apple products now that I have two family members who are fan boy’s.
No, I really don’t buy the thickness argument at all. In any case, I digress. The issues is still this: it is wrong to allow a distribution medium to dictate so strictly the way the suppliers get their products to the customer. 30% is ludicrous because it effectively eliminates profit of MAJOR players like Amazon because of the deals that they had to make with publishers to get the media.
Oh, and I know Readability works in my Android Browser, but why not make a native app for us? We do have the larger global market share now . . .
Arc90 is the greedy party here: they want to leverage Apple’s ecosystem to add new subscribers, and use their payment processing system free of charge!
What’s the solution?
Arc90 can just let Apple have its 30% cut, then give the remaining 70% to the content creators, keeping the rest for themselves. Arc90 will make up any “loss” in volume.
Would you rather have 30% of $1 million dollars or $5 thousand dollars?
Stop being greedy, Arc90, and add the app to the Apple store!
Just a question, but since some people have volunteered to pay more than $5 a month (being heavy users or whatnot) is it possible to just readjust the 70-30 Readability split into something more static? So $x of a variable subscription cost goes to Readability to keep the lights on and the rest gets split between content producers and Apple (if done via in App). I admit I’m naive as to exactly what goes into the accounting here so I can understand if that is unreasonable. I understand it kind of sucks that Apple hit you guys with the 30% because I honestly see you guys trying to do similar things (focused on the user) so it sucks that the interaction can’t be more friendly.
Just raise the price. Not that big a deal.
Apple’s new slogan: Think Greedy™
boycott Apple products…I have
For every ebook of mine that Amazon sells, they take 30%. Before Apple’s iBookstore opened, they took 70%. This rage is based on nothing. Apple is not the internet; it’s not free. If you choose to play in Amazon’s sandbox, it’s by their rules, and the same goes for Apple.
I enjoyed working with Arc90 on the Indaba RFP, and hope I get a chance to work with them in the future. I already liked you folks, but let me say that as a potential customer of Arc90′s services, I like this letter. A lot. We need people like you, with credibility and good intentions, to challenge models which undermine the open and interoperable Internet by bundling hardware and software in ways that restrict consumer choice.
Sadly for Apple hardware owners, I think their strategy is pretty clear. They don’t want you developers any more. Apple will effectively ban subscription-based apps with an arbitrary 30% transaction fee, then launch their own service into a market which — surprise! — has no competition. The ultimate loser here, of course, is the Apple user, in the form of higher prices and weaker software.
Cheers,
Jonathan Eyler-Werve
Director, Technology and Innovation, Global Integrity
Wrong answer, Steve.
Readability is at that perfect price point that if raised would lose my patronage.
Apple is driving content and services out of its ecosystem with these policies and with the 30% rate. This leaves a huge opening for companies like Google, Paypal, and Square to fill for developers. Once a developer has to leave the comfy Apple nest and scratch their own itch, it may be hard to lure them back. The lure of premium environments is no drama. If you drag developers through drama, they might as well play the field.
Like Peter has already mentioned: Focus on web development. In your case a native app isn’t necessary at all.
i find it ironic that i have difficulty reading this blog. minion-pro-1 on windows is not the best font choice.
This is stupid, if you don’t like the price, quit whining and go Web only. Then someone new can come along, clone your service and offer it as an App, that’s why.
Laughing out loud at the fanboys suggesting Android. NOBODY pays for ANYTHING on Roid, geez, pay attention.
No iPhone/iPad, no business. App developers accept 30% cut for providing all manner of billing and distribution. Why can’t content providers accept the same terms? Is your content harder to produce and an app? Really? Don’t be ridiculous!
The small publishers will *LOVE* THIS. Imagine textbooks! Do you THINK that the professors writing these MIGHT be interested in taking home 70%!!! of the PRICE OF THE BOOK? (Instead of the really greedy textbook companies taking, what 80% for THEMSELVES for doing basically NOTHING.
If not, then I suggest a reality check.
So, here’s the deal… don’t make an app, deliver as a full-featured HTML5 web client and tell Apple to take their 30% from the internet.
We had our Shopify Mobile app rejected for the same reason, despite over a year of successful releases. We took the rejection to the Apple Review Board, stated our case, and within a few days had our app approved once more.
They too tried to argue that we were offering a service outside of their in-app purchasing model. After explaining that we were no different than Netflix, 37 Signals, Skype, or even Apple themselves (offering iTunes Connect Mobile), it cleared up quickly.
The line is certainly becoming blurred with Apple, and more clear definitions need be to stated.
Hoping for the best for you all!
I find it rather amusing that all you fandroids call Apple ‘Greedy’ when you are all about playing with their tech and not giving them a dime. How exactly is the Android anything more than just a really weak, derivative iPhone hack job, stolen by Eric Schmidt, and not even supported by Google. And you people think this is ‘open’. Is it open to buy stolen merchandise at the pawn shop, too?
Apple has a method (more than Android by the way, which has NOTHING in terms of development–they don’t even PAY for Java!) for distributing this content for FREE. It’s OPEN and uses OPEN STANDARDS. Or, if you want the usability which Apple developed (and others just lamely copy and miss all the good parts) then pay them their cut. They are handing distribution, hosting, delivery, billing, promotion, proofing, etc…, it’s not like they are doing nothing. But you want them do to nothing and charge nothing, like Google (and you probably don’t care what customer data are mined in the process. Slap some ads on there, now how much would you (not) pay?
But you Fandroids don’t really care about openness, that is all just BS.
Hahaha! That will teach you. Get a PC!
@Doug,
“Fandroids” – I like that!
@Mic (3rd comment)
Amen!
It’s Apple’s party. If you don’t want to play by their rules, don’t expect to have a place in their App store.
I’m continually amazed at the people that can’t comprehend how much money it takes to create an App store like Apple has in the first place, then are aghast that this same company would structure its policies for profit.
Duh.
Business is designed to create profit. Call this “greed” if you want. I’ll just call you stupid and naive.
@Brain (comment 2 above) and @Marc (comment above)
Exactly.
There are plenty of options for content delivery. Every iPhone comes with Safari. Make it work on that and voila, an “app” free from the tyranny of Apple’s “greed”.
At the end of the day, it’s Apple’s right to do what they want with what they created. As an iOS developer myself, I can FULLY appreciate how ticked you must be after pouring all that time and money into development of an app, only to have it rejected like this.
Nevertheless, Apple is free to make it’s own decisions, and you are completely free to choose how you will respond. Pursue the web option and knock it out the park.
WTF … Readability, are you not taking a 30% cut just as apple is ???
“Readability’s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers”
Do I need to break out the Pot and Kettle metaphors here?
Apple’s reasoning is that it is better for the user to have in-app purchasing. That’s true. But it isn’t better if many developers leave the eco-system because of Apple’s greed.
Developers have to decide as a group what to do (where is the Developers Union?). They can stay, and get fucked over, or they can walk. Developers should walk like an Egyptian.
How come you’re surprised? It’s clearly stated in the Guidelines and by the way, if you don’t live on the moon, you must’ve noticed the shitstorm that went through the web about two weeks ago because of this very topic. Apple won’t make a special deal for you, who do you think you are?
If you don’t like it, don’t use it.
Also, if you don’t want Apple to use your technology in their Browser, why did you use a license that allow them to do so.
Get lost.
As mentioned before, the (as of recently) larger crowd of android users on the planet would be happy to have you. As a bonus, you’ll find you don’t have to act uppity around us. Cheers! and good luck.
@ Other All
If they didn’t require a price match the whole policy is pointless – everyone would just charge a ludicrous price on the App Store and avoid Apple’s cut. Why would Apple waste their time with unenforceable rules?
@ Fred Ochsenhirt
I saw an article about Readability comparing the App Store fee to a credit card processing fee. Which totally ignores the marketing machine of Apple in bringing you subscribers. Is Visa bringing customers to Readability? You really don’t see a difference between the App Store and Visa / Mastercard? That’s what it sounds like you’re saying, and it’s pretty far from the truth.
Seriously. You charge 30% to content providers for use of your infrastructure/technology/promotion/payment method/stats etc, with 70% going to the content publisher.
Whilst you may make a pretty picture of the this money being taken from the writers hands, in a lot of cases it will be the publisher, and your one more distribution method taking a cut of the money. Just like Apple. Some content producers will keep using you, some will go to Apple, some will use a combination. Some writers will move more away from being part of a publisher and cut out more and more middlemen where ever possible.
All that for a system that provides clear easily readable articles, you know just like instapaper, read it later but those app do without subscription charges.
Like you say, you’re not happy with the deal so you’ll make it web based. I’m sure Apple is fine with that. I am too, if you want to increase the money you make, innovate, provide more value, make yours the best kick ass publishing system you can, and good luck to you. Please though don’t moan that you’ve entered the world of business, I might stop listening.
I support your letter in almost every way. I have to take issue with a bit, though.
I have to disagree on the point, “In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like.”
As the owner of an iPhone, I have to say it’s really MY channel and that of other iOS device owners. Taking this action which restricts choice and does indeed smack of greed and effectively adds a tax to purveyors of complying apps. NOT COOL. After owning 3 iOS devices, I’m switching to Android ASAP.
What’s being missed here is that Apple *has already made their money* selling their overpriced hardware to the masses (while not super-overpriced like Macs, i-devices are still expensive). Then they still want 30% of the cut on sales. The 30% is greed. Yeah, I can see a single digit percentage perhaps (one, say, less than the number “6″) but 30% is ridiculous. There is nothing special about i-devices except to the sheeple who buy into the iTunes Store pitch. Apple doesn’t *deserve* such a huge cut- and for what? DRM? Censored apps? Bullshirt. Apple should be happy with a small percentage, enough to run the DRM Store, and that’s fudging it. I’m an i-device owner since 2002 but I refuse to give them any more of my money. Remember the iOS fiasco, where they wanted to charge iPhone/iPad users to upgrade their iOS? $10 for what, two incremental features? Bull. Apple is greedy. Anybody who disagrees with the above is a fanboy/girl, has already drank the koolaid, and has a stilted opinion and tainted view of the facts.
“I’m an i-device owner since 2002 but I refuse to give them any more of my money. ” – to clarify, I haven’t bought a single thing from the DRM store, and will never give Apple any money through that mechanism.
One correction: it’s not Apple’s hardware, it’s MY hardware. I have the receipt.:)
The problem here is not the policies of the store, which is an excellent resource, but that there’s no other way for a developer to deliver a native app except through Apple. I find this pretty ridiculous. Why does Apple need to come between every developer and user?
As a Mac user for 20+ years, this is exactly why I refuse to buy in to iOS. I could see this coming right from the start. Give a corporation like Apple complete control and they inevitably abuse it.
So while I still use a Mac, I use Android, where I can run any app I like without having to get anyone’s approval or break out of any jail.
Come to HP WebOS, they treat their devs so well, and dont pull silly crap like this.
Woah woah woah. Let’s all take a step back.
@fandroids – this isn’t a win for Android over iOS. The rejection of Readability from the app store doesn’t highlight how superior a “Market” with little restriction is. In this case Readability was attempting to get in front of the Apple app stores consumers and couldn’t.
Overall I think the issue is that Apple’s subscription model and guidelines are fairly new and hurt Readability. It seems especially bad since Readability feels like they contributed to Apple’s product offerings directly. The overall tone seems like the Readability guys are concerned with Apple’s guidelines effecting anyone that offers Software as a Service.
@Kreg – you seem especially angry. I’m pretty sure that Readability submitted their app to the app store prior to Apple announcing their new subscription based model. You highlight that announcement being made two weeks ago, as if Readability submitted the app yesterday. They also never claimed they didn’t want Apple using their technology. They were simply saying they felt slighted.
Lets all seek some balance. Peace brothers.
@M9R, it’s your hardware, but Apple’s software. You only have a license to use it. If you don’t like it, then install Android or some other OS on your Apple device that has more amenable terms.
@Cojay, that’s great that you’ve taken such a stand and continue with it even after Apple removed all DRM from its music purchases. A lot of people would have given in once they could buy music on iTunes that was free of DRM encumbrances. Kudos on standing by your opposition to Apple even after Apple has partially acquiesced to your principles. Keep their feet to the fire until all content offered via iTunes — not just music, but movies and TV shows as well — is offered without DRM.
Speaking of readability, what’s with this godawful font? It’s barely legible.
Everyone seems to be missing the boat here (well I didn’t read all the comments, but this is the web after all so I can be hyperbolic …). Apple requires 30% of the subscriptions that are made through the app but it also allows subscriptions to be made outside the app too. So if you build a loyal following, I bet you can get a significant proportion of your readers ***over time**** to convert to subscribing via your website. That way you get the best of both worlds a big customer base and if you provide value and make it reasonably easy and protect privacy, customers can ultimately choose to devote more of their subscription cost to your service, cutting out Apple’s 30%.
I totally understand each and every point you make in this article, and can sympathize with having to change your business model mid-stroke. But come on, this is a capitalism-based system you’ve been successful in and can totally continue to be successful in if you do what you’re good at and adjust to the marketplace and adjust your product to fit the consumer need. You don’t like it, find another platform and stop bitching. If you thought for a second technology would stand still, you’re in the wrong field. Adapt, asshole.
I’d say just stick with Android. Apple is going down anyway.
To all the apologists for Apple: These are not Apple’s devices, they belong to whoever purchased them. Seek help for your Stockholm syndrome.
Hang on, I’m not sure I understand the problem here.
If I sign up from your site I see I have the option to “pay with Amazon”. I’m not sure what fee they’re charging, but I’m sure it’s more than 0% (looks like for a $5 purchase it would be about 6%).
So if I pay $5, you capture $4.70 from Amazon. You then split that 70/30 with publishers, keeping $1.41.
Now, if I were to pay the same $5 via the app store, you’d capture $3.50 from Apple, split that 70/30, and keep $1.05. A net difference to you of $0.36 or drop of about 25% from what you get from the web.
Now, maybe you think that’s high, but it is what it is. A “cost of doing business” so to speak. Considering the exposure and sales the app store can bring, it may arguably be a bargain (100 x $1.41 is much less than 1,000 x $1.05).
The size of the market and strength of the channel always effect the distribution costs. Walmart will have much more say over the terms for selling through their channel than the corner dollar store, for example, but Walmart has the potential to drive much more revenue to you.
I don’t mean to be unsympathetic, but your argument that Apple is overreaching or greedy rings a little hollow to me. You might want to relax, have a cup of tea, and rethink your reaction.
Just sayin’.
Surely your maths is incorrect? If you are paying 30% from your gross revenue on in-App purchases, then you will only pay 70% of this to your contributors – ie 49% of the gross revenue from each App. Thus the revenue split will be:
Apple – 30%
Contributors – 49%
Readability – 21%
If this is all marginal revenue for Readability and your contributors (ie the customers will not purchase through any other method), I can’t see what all the fuss is about. If you think that you can capture the same customers via alternative delivery models, then go ahead and do it and don’t put an App on the Apple store.
If you decide to pay the full 70% of the gross revenue to your contributors, leaving yourself with nothing, then your contracts with your contributors are ridiculous and the whole discussion is moot, as you will be out of business within a year.
Let’s see. You create an app you know will not be allowed, then whinge. Brilliant.
Oh, and about the 70/30 split. You do the exact same thing.
What you are seeing here is hypocrisy.
1. Spin off a separate company, give them exclusive license and they publish the iOS app with an increased subscription price to cover Apple’s take (exercise left to reader).
2. ???
3. Profit.
The Stockholm Syndrome here is astounding. the 30% cut that Apple is requiring is not the biggest issue. The MFN issue is -
“Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions.”
Translation – Apple users as well as non-Apple users will be indirectly subsidizing Apple tax.
Read your service contract, Apple fans. You don’t own the software on it, you licence it. It’s theirs, and you play by their rules. Without the software, the hardware is a brick. You are a monetization chicken that lines up willingly to get plucked.
Just wait until Apple removes self-install from Mac OS and forces everyone to go through the Mac store. You think it sounds silly? Wait.
This is the reason I don’t buy any apple systems, they are greedy pigs, sure they make a good computer, and other stuff, but overcharge like crazy for them, as my system it is easy I have a high end gaming rig, that is way cheaper than any apple and can smoke it to boot. For o/s I use Linux, in my opinion the best o/s there is, so much is available for it and mostly free. More secure than Windows or OSX, and if you need something for it you can look it up and find it or you can just make your own mod or api, its that simple. People need to stop relying on the vendors like Micsosoft or Apple to tell them what they need, which is usually their product, and open their minds and think for themselves, and do what I did, If I were to go to the store and buy a store made system I would easily have paid $2000.00 for it, but got the stuff needed myself and built it. And paid 1/3 of the cost.
People today have got so used to being told that this is what they need, and got away from knowing what they really need. Which is a shame, also on the same note, if you don’t know how to build your system there are many small system builders out there that will love to help you get what you truely want and build it for you, still way cheaper than those over bloated, over priced cookie cutter machines out there. It is time for the people to say enough is enough, and demand better quality for better prices, just look at our economy, how long do you think they will be able to keep charging what they do, when no one can afford what they are selling.
Come on people wake up.
Put the app on Cydia :)
@Murphy Mac What a twisted argument.
1. I never said ludicrous prices. I might have implied 30% raise in prices on iOS.
2. So are you saying producers are just using iOS to market their products or are they trying to make sales here? In this case the policy does nothing to stop them (Putting up an app with ludicrous prices or an app that does not sell items).
3. “Why would Apple waste their time with unenforceable rules?” Are you saying the 30% cut is enforcable :) ? To paraphrase “everyone would just make their app no sell items on the App Store and avoid Apple’s cut.”
All in all, producers are voicing their concerns at the middleman raising his cut. Why on earth are consumers outraged by this? Do you really wish to pay more for less? Do you really wish to have fewer choices in your store?
@doug “…when you are all about playing with their tech and not giving them a dime.”
Last time I checked every device I bought from Apple was paid for and I have receipts to prove it. Did you steal yours?
Wait, you charge publishers a 30% cut, right? This open letter is so rich with hypocrisy it is thoroughly amusing.
So
1> You have to go figure out your own way to get subscribers on the open, wide open, standards based web, which you’re free to do. Any modern browser will support it. Charge whatever the fuck you want, @30% someone else thinks you’re greedy.
2> Apple decides it can sell content and charge publishers 30%, cutting you out. Cutting out the 2nd middle man. Who needs a second middle man? They beat you to it, sucks for you. You can be angry, but your business model was flawed from the beginning. Don’t rely on charity to make money. You can barely rely on charity to stay alive.
This is spot on: “Don’t publish on the iOS platform or adjust your business model to make allowances for a new partner, Apple.”
Apple has turned into such a greedy company. It’s just not the old company everyone was in love with. Oh well, at least there are other platforms on the rise. Android FTW!
“Subscription apps like ours represent a tiny sliver of app sales that represent a tiny sliver of your revenue.”
Ah. So since it’s a tiny slice of revenue, you should get more favorable terms than if you were contributing a large slice of revenue. Got it. So, you’re not really saying what Apple is doing is wrong, you’re saying you’re too small to matter.
Here’s the bottom line: your company really isn’t successful. It is actually dependent on the benevolence of others, namely Apple, for you to make it work. You need virtually free distribution ($99 a year) combined with a 30% share of revenue in order to keep the company running. In fact, not only isn’t your company all that successful, it’s not all that unique. Someone else could duplicate your functionality with another app and fill in whatever gap your app lease in the store. Your company is not that special.
And you know it.
Apple, on the other hand, has these devices, and this platform. They offer something executed in a manner not easily duplicated. In fact, you’d rather whine about Apple than simply carry your business elsewhere. So now you write this desperate sounding letter, which obviously brings you a ton of hits, but won’t really change anything. And soon, very soon, someone will come along with a leaner business model for which Apple’s 30% cut is not fatal, create a native app that does just what yours does, and any remaining need for your app will disappear. But hey, thanks for playing. It was a ball while it lasted.
It’s says something that Apple’s apologists and stenographers, like John Gruber, will even applaud Apple when developers start to withdraw their apps because of Apple’s greed. Even if it makes things worse for the user.
Imagine if all bakers were suddenly burdened with an extra bread-tax overnight. Many bakers would go under, unable to afford to continue business. Instead, a few Walmarts take over. Imagine Walmart fans, cheering for the demise of bakers – “We don’t need you bread anyway!”. I can see a lot of Walmart fans in the comments above.
If it came to Android, I would pay for it to spite these fools who just let Apple dig deeper and deeper into their wallets without all that much added value but aesthetics. But hey there’s a reason that the Newport Beach Mercedes Benz dealer is the most profitable in the country, from leases no less. I imagine lots of people sleeping in their Mercedes looking for work on their iPads.
so launch the app with the APIs in place to meet their requirements, then ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE your new customers to subscribe OUTSIDE the app.
what do you have to lose? If Apple hands you a subscription, you get 70% of a sale you might not have had otherwise.
@Doug,
you talk the droid folks don’t pay for java, guess what neither does apple on their systems, and neither do I, I can go to sun microsystems and download Java for free from the manufacturer, as well as everyone here can too. Try a better arguement next time.
I am not saying do’t get this product or that one, I am saying just think, do I need this at this price or can I find something just as good for a better price, it is about economics.
Like I said Apple does make good products, it is what they charge people, that I don’t agree with. I am the same way with Microsoft as well. I like what they offer on the o/s but not what they want for it. The same goes for phones or other products these manufacturers get their hands into. When they get involved into things, prices go up on those things. I am no fan of Android but for the money they do offer a lot.
Oh well I have said my whole on this, I hope people can get educated that you don’t need this just because so and so made it, when someone out there may have something that does the same thing and for less, that is what it is all about people.
Good luck on things Apple, they won’t make money off of me.
Wow, greed? You don’t say- Guess what, Apple intends to make money, and as much of it as possible. They’re a business.
what if you concede apple’s requirement and pay their 30%, indicating clearly in documentation that readability on the iphone will only deliver 40% to the publishers (due to greed). the caveat is that readability will not deliver any profits to any of apple’s sites – so they cannot take bites from both ends as it were.
android. (period)
“…In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like.”
The hell it’s Apple’s hardware. I bought the iPad, therefore it is MY hardware! And I say you (and every other company) should be free to make money any way you choose, so long as I invite you onto MY iPad.
Don’t give an inch on this Readability. Apple is being greedy and overcontrolling! They need to clip the cord and let people who have bought their products make of them what they will.
@Alex, thank you, finally someone gets it, thanks for that statement.
It’s entertaining to read all the the comments from gLoaders who literally define their platform through iOs. As if they were two sides of the same coin, i.e. black implies white as iOs implies Android. Unfortunately for Readability, focusing on Android would be anything but lucrative. Android’s base consists of a high percentage of users that constantly whine about “freedom” and “fairness” and “greed”, etc with hardly a clue as to what value is; these aren’t the kind of people who will pay for things that they can’t quantify like a sack of potatoes, in other words, 0% of 0 will always be 0. How is it that anyone could still be under the impression that Android is an “open” free-for-all? Don’t forget that the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn’t exist! And remember kiddies, “don’t be evil!”
To everyone who says “down with capitalism,” your sarcasm is shortsighted. This is capitalism at its finest. Apple’s decisions will influence the market, competitors will step up to the challenge, and Apple will either win, co-exist, or lose. This is free-market capitalism at its finest. Please, Apple, carry on. You’ll realize the error of your ways soon enough.
Have any major content providers endorsed your model? I haven’t read anything on how you plan to pay them.
I’m not an Android fan or owner of any mobile devices. I do follow what’s going on in this market as an IT professional. What dismays me is the juvenile response from the Apple / iOS crowd any time anything is discussed about iDevices / Apple that isn’t completely sycophantic.
Look, people are free to criticise. In arguing their point of view, they might get Apple to change. Maybe, maybe not, but speech is still free, right? They’re not evil people for saying how they view the world.
And… take a chill pill! Apple is not (I would hope!) your religion. You will not be more or less cool if someone buys a different device or runs their app on the web rather than the Apple App Store. I’m pretty sure the size of your penis is not directly related to how cool everyone thinks your iPhone is, but some of these responses make me wonder whether you’re all a bit confused about that.
They’re just computers, guys, not your identity.
Crocodile tears.
Readability’s business model is to charge a subscription fee, keep 30 percent, and pass 70 percent along to the writers/publishers of the articles being read by Readability users. Sound familiar?
Maybe I’m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple’s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does. What they’re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.
So far, I have come across the following options:
1. Use Cydia to circumvent the App Store control
2. Go 100% for Android and WebOS and forget Apple
3. Use a web-based application
4. Offer a slightly different service at a higher price from the in-app subscription to provide for Apple’s 30 pieces of silver, in case anyone is stupid enough to pay more for the same content
There really should be no need for anyone to pay the Apple tax.
Anybody know what the split of revenues is on in-app purchases for apps running on the Wii / DS / PS3 / XBox / Kindle?
Anybody know how open they are to allowing you to buy content outside of their walled garden?
And where’s anybody even questioning this?
If it’s OK for others, why not for Apple?
You take a 70/30 cut.
Apple takes a 70/30 cut.
This post sounds a lot like hypocrisy…
Let’s not forget that Steve Jobs is half-Syrian.
Another Arab dictator needs to be toppled.
Yes follow the angry masses ! They have put their money where their mouths are and have supported so many Android apps making it the most successful app store around !! Oh wait, it isn’t? You mean these android masses just show up on forums to whine but never actually buy anything – as shown by essentially equivalent sales of iOS & Android but the Android market place only being 4% of the iOS app market. Perhaps it just costs a ton of money to run a properly run quality store. If you want a free conduit then just focus on Android store, just don’t expect any sales.
What percentage of the revenue split went on processing that Apple will now account for?
I know! You should publish on Kindle! They only charge 70% after all. Or you could got to Android but those cheap bastards don’t pay for anything. Windows Phone 7? Palm Pre? Looks like you should have read Apple’s rules before defining your business model.
The problem is not Apple demanding a cut, that part is fine. What is wholly indefensible is the attempt at price fixing demanding that to play in the Apple app store you have to give up your freedom of discounting or otherwise charging what you want on other platforms.
If the costs of using the app store are such that a company can’t bring in enough money to make ends meet at their current price, why should those who don’t utilize Apple’s app store bear the burden of subsidizing the fees that Apple charges?
It makes no sense whatsoever that a company can’t offer their subscription for $X dollars on the appstore paying 30% for payment processing and offer their app for $X – 25% if someone wants to purchase that same subscription from a store where the payment processor only take 5%. Instead Apple’s solution is that you must charge the people who use other methods MORE as well for the product or you get kicked out of their sandbox.
That is indefensible and wrong no matter whether you are in the spectrum between being an Apple hater or Apple fanboy.
“2. Go 100% for Android and WebOS and forget Apple”
Good luck with that! hehe
I just canceled my readability account today. I refuse to support hypocrisy. Apple is a business just like you are. And just because you may feel “noble” with your intent on divvying up the 70/30 split, does not make you exempt from any other business model. Apple deserves their cut.
Nobody should use Apple and nobody should develop for them. That is just the end of the story. Don’t boycott the App Store, boycott Apple and let it disappear in the dustbin of history. If MS or somebody else with Apple’s market penetration was doing something like this on their App Store Apple Fanboys would be frothing at the mouth about the injustice of it all. Instead they defend Apple’s hegemony as if it was a good thing. It isn’t enough that Apple overcharges for everything while having it built by virtual slave labor at Foxconn, but now they want a finger in everybody elses pie now as well.
Truly Apply fanboys would buy a Steve Job’s bowel movement if it was packaged pretty enough and was given a hip name like iTurd. I am sure they have their credit card ready at the thought of it.
I agree with the original poster. Apple has been rather vicious (or at best, uncaring) about independent software developers on the app store for a long time. Now this smacks of a direct attack on them.
No wonder the Feds are now looking into this, as it seems most directly aimed at shutting off income to iTunes competitors with apps, like Pandora, Rhapsody, etc., who collected subscriptions.
Apple has clearly turned on the greed light (no typo there), and have become the new “evil empire”, easily eclipsing Microsoft. They just do it in ways that more cleverly avoid annoying the average user, instead aiming more at the middle and back levels rather than those front-line users.
I think the fundamental problem is that Readability needs/wants/assumes a totally free distribution path in order for the whole thing to work. This is a very web-centric dependence. It may translate to other scenarios, but sure as heck wouldn’t fly in a retail environment. If you were trying to sell a product or subscription on the shelves of a retail chain, expect to share 20-50% of MSRP with the retailer. That’s how retail works, whether bricks and mortar or through a company like Amazon.
The App Store follows a retail model too. It started with apps, and then in-app content, and is now extending to subscriptions. Get used to it if you want to sell through iTunes and have access to all the customers iTunes can bring to you. Apple lets free apps and services go through with no hitches, but if you expect to profit in some way, Apple wants their cut as the retailer.
I don’t see this as unreasonable (and I should note, I am an iOS developer who is perfectly happy with the 70% cut). If it’s unreasonable to you, then you either need to rethink your business model to make it work through retail, or ditch retail and stick to web-distribution only. Don’t expect to get a free ride from Apple.
Wow, I think I made a good point and I didn’t even have to mention Android….
No offense, but Microsoft would never do this to their developers. Apple has again screwed their customers and/or developers. I feel like something like this happens every few years with Apple.
As Steve Balmer once said, “DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!!!”
After observing Richard Ziade carry on like a three-year-old demanding ice cream at the supermarket, I have decided to STOP using Readability. His essay and comments are exercises in both being a hypocrite and being schizoid. As a few other commenters have pointed out, Ziade collects the same share of profits from his users as Apple does from its users. Yet, somehow, he is a knight in shining armor who should be praised and Apple the Gorgon, which should be slain. How can a person be that two-faced and live with himself? The essay shifts back and forth between beseeching Apple to give Ziade a special break not extended to other content app sellers, and, threatening Apple. (As if he is in a position to harm the second most valuable corporation in the world.)
The offer Apple has made Ziade is fair. His application does, in fact, deliver content to iOS users. Therefore, it was rejected for the same reason Sony’s e-reader app was. The solution for both is to reduce their own share of profits in return for the great sales volume offered by inclusion in the App Store. If they are too greedy to do so, they should not be in the App Store.
I use, mainly, a MacBook Air and an iPad. So, with easy zooming by multitouch available on both I can shut out distracting material on webpages pretty well. As more people move to having this option, Readability will become less useful anyway. I’m sure that others will join me in not using it after reading this piece.
The problem isn’t that apple wants a cut. The problem is that apple wants an exclusive option and isn’t willing to pay for it.
I strongly suspect that this requirement will run afoul of US monopoly and price fixing laws.
People who keep harping that Readability or anyone else is whining because they aren’t getting free distribution is either clueless or missing the point.
Apple should charge a payment processing fee, totally legitimate.. What they shouldn’t be doing is charging 1,000% more than other payment processing options. What they should not be doing is trying to force companies into raising their prices outside of their marketplace. I understand why they want to do it – it would obfuscate the Apple tax but it is clearly bad for consumers forcing amazon for example to raise snook prices for everyone, even those who want to buy content from a company whose payment processing is closer to the industry average of 3% instead of 30%.
@Craig – Really? If I buy a magazine at a Barnes and Noble and then subscribe to that magazine I’ll end up paying Barnes and Noble a percentage of the monthly subscription? Not sure that’s how it works.
Seems like Apple would have done better to stick with what it was doing. Taking a percentage or the sale of the application. Paying Apple on a recurring basis seems…strange. I’m sure this will pan out somehow and I’m excited to see exactly how.
As a side note I would bet that Readability submitted this app before Apple announced their new policy. That would at least take away the argument that Readability is being hypocritical or “greedy.” My guess is they were planning on offering a free app and planning on getting the money from the service they created.
Point in fact, it is NOT their hardware.
Everyone needs to stop thinking this way. You BOUGHT the hardware, it is yours. If you buy a car, it is yours (assuming non-lease, of course). If you buy a house, it is yours. If you buy cloths, they are yours. If you buy a computer, it is yours. Please stop thinking this way and you will soon want to stop supporting people taking away your rights…not privileges.
They own the channel, not the hardware. We SHOULD and CAN do with the hardware as we please. Apple is within their rights to put channel restrictions, but they cannot put hardware restrictions on them once we buy them. The fact that they have gotten away with this for this long is a miscarriage of justice (one that pales in the face of genocide in Africa, lets keep perspective…) and one that needs to stop.
Geez, get over it! Apple is just a company not Great and Powerful OZ !!! It’s not like they don’t have competition. The rules for posting on the App. store are pretty clear in this area. Did ‘Readability’ think if they submitted their product, knowing these rules, Apple would just let it slide. It sounds like ‘Readability’ is just campaigning special treatment.
Again, Apple is just a company. There are dozens of other companies out there that are competing. Should we all have special rules for one company over another just because they’re successful?
If you don’t like their rules, publish with somebody other company.
I just want to say Readability how dare you. I own an iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and 3 iPads lest I forget my 2 dozen MacBook Pro’s. I take your comments towards Apple’s subscription policy as an affront to me and my family. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking of writing a letter to Apple let alone making it an open letter.
Don’t you know that Sir Steve Jobs is ill? Your attack against his brain child at this time of dire need should not and will not be forgiven. How do you expect Mr. Jobs and the multitude of Apple investors to survive without a perfectly justifiable miniscule cut of 30% for the right to sell your intellectual property in the App Store. I don’t give a damn that you pass on 70% of you subscription fees to the actual writers and publishers. Just because you are the developer and have this past of contributing the majority of your fees to the actual writers and publishers involved doesn’t mean Mr. Jobs doesn’t have a right to his 30 percent too. As a matter of fact without his hardware I would have no way of viewing Readability content anyways. And did I mention you are kicking an ill man when he is down? Is that how you would treat your own Grandmother?
This internet and web based app you mention is just a red herring, and me and my fellow “loyal” Apple users know it. If it isn’t in the iTunes AppStore it doesn’t exist. So go back to your Imagination Land and make your “Web” app for use on that imaginary “internet”. I will be waiting here by the side of my friend Mr.Jobs in the real world saying “I told you so” when Readability withers away to nothing.
ps: Steve, I wrote this for you. Now will you believe me when I say I love you. Stevie I really do love you. Why won’t you let me show you you my love. Will you never let me live down that one Thinkpad I bought back in 1998?
@samrtin807 THEY PROBABLY DID NOT KNOW THOSE RULES. The subscription rules for the app store are very new and Readability would have had to have submitted their app before they came out.
@samartin807
Unfortunately, while that may be the ultimate solution, it is not a turn on a dime situation for most.
Apple changed the rules, midstream, on people. Apple suckered people into their ecosystem to fight MS and others promising to take care of developers, offering them a nice platform. Then, when they have the platform fully built, after years of it not being there, they change the rules. Sure, they can do this…but it is much like a street corner vendor getting “protection” from the mafia by another person…then that person becomes the mafia themselves.
Apple has essentially become the enemy…and it happened overnight. It is shocking for most who actually started to believe that Apple was something other than MS 2.0.
I don’t know which is funnier…Readability bemoaning Apple’s 30% cut when they extract a 30% cut from their writers and publishers…or the fAndroids who advocate “going Android” when the rest of the world, and especially Google, knows that the Android app store is a dud!
Readability…Will spoke the truth above. Your business model stinks and you’ve been getting a free ride off of Apple. YOU NEED APPLE, APPLE DOESN’T NEED YOU! Instead of writing open letters which only serve to expose your utter hypocrisy in this matter, change your app and resubmit it. Simple. But…if you don’t like Apple’s terms, go someplace else…like the Android App store, where you are assured of certain death.
As someone who has worked in publishing and bookshops my entire life I have to point out that Apple is just replicating the retailer, publisher model that has existed in my lifetime.
Most book authors get royalties based on net receipts from the retailer NOT the sale price of the book.
So, it’s very simple really, you pay the publisher and yourselves the 70/30 split AFTER the Apple store charge is taken out.
Every publisher makes these decisions when large retailers come to them with their demands. As a publisher you weigh up the decision based on whether you think you can sell more through them and make greater revenue overall for yourself and your author.
Currently by deciding not to go with Apple you are like a book publisher saying they won’t sell through Amazon and consigning yourself to niche irrelevancy that benefits no-one.
Under the current model there is nothing stopping you from encouraging people to take out direct subscriptions instead of subscribing through Apple. In fact I’m sure there are probably publishers out there who are willing to give you free stuff to encourage people to take out subscriptions. If your customers are as ideologically driven as yourself then maybe they’ll make a point of subscribing directly to bypass Apple.
No publisher likes it when one retailer dominates, so we are always out to encourage direct or alternative avenues for sale which gives you or everyone clout to re-negotiate down the track, but at the moment Android just isn’t going to generate enough income or readers compared with Android + IOS even with the Apple 30% cut.
As someone who just subscribed and was excited by the possibility of Readability from a publishing perspective I would have to make the pragmatic decision not to use the service since currently I prefer to use an iphone, and as a publisher use an ipad. Since I use apps to do most of my reading I just can’t see browser based reading matching an in app experience this year. In a year or two it may be different, but by then someone else might have taken your idea and made the pragmatic decision not to sweat the 30% cut.
samrtin807,
If you don’t like their rules, speak out, expose them just like Readability is doing here. Bring transparency into the system so the average consumer knows that instead of 3-5% being taken off the top, 30% is being taken off the top. That way when developers pass through the 42% price hike which they should/will do consumers may understand that it is Apple that is responsible for the increased costs, not them.
Every company offering a subscription should complain loudly that they are being charged 10x what they should be for payment processing. Enough public pressure and eventually Apple may adjust. If they get a way keeping the 30% fee for payment processing without the general public knowing there will never be any pressure for them to eventually do the consumer right by charging a fair payment processing fee.
@John …. I don’t see how your issue is even relevant. It seems simple to me. If you don’t like doing business with Apple, DON’T DO BUSINESS WITH APPLE … Duh !!!
Grow up, … get over it.
Commenting purely as a consumer. I have no problem with this model from Apple. They are doing what is in my best interest and I cannot fault them for it. Also I agree with Brett. I see little use for browser based reading right now.
My very naive view is that you will “make up for it in volume” if the product is sound. This seems to be the theme of the digital age. Content costs less, but more consumers are there to purchase it so you end up making just as much money.
Try to release yourselves from the old model, and embrace something different. Apple does essentially the same thing with music correct? If so this has been one of the most transitional changes in the industry’s history. And from a consumer’s standpoint, getting music has never been easier. Key word EASIER. This is what sells in the digital age.
Bret H,
The whole situation would be tolerable if Apple didn’t try to take away the freedom publishers have to offer deals to get users to subscribe directly. This would be a non issue if authors/publishers could offer their product for a discount if a consumer was willing to subscribe outside of the Apple store. Instead Apple wants to prevent these publishers from passing along the savings to consumers if they chose to subscribe via an outlet with more reasonable payment processing terms
samrtin807,
There is a third option – you want to do business with Apple users so try to expose the policies Apple has that are wrong and if you bring enough pressure you might get them to adjust the way they do business. A Win / Win for developers / publishers / consumers without harming Apple as they could still charge a reasonable fee for payment processing.
You guys are trying to justify a kind of stupid position. AGAIN, it’s not like Apple doesn’t have a LOT of competition in this area and that Android may or may not have a greater share of users (it seems to switch week by week). You guys are acting like it’s the ONLY GAME in town!!
I’ll say it again … If you don’t like doing business with Apple, DON’T DO BUSINESS WITH APPLE … Duh !!!
This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder why anyone bothers with Apple at all. As a user, why would I want a closed system, entirely controlled by a select few, for their own profit?
I just don’t get it.
@cale
Unfortunately you have no problem simply b/c you are quite ignorant of the situation.
1. They take away your rights on the hardware. Though, you probably don’t care b/c you wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway. Fair enough…still erosion of rights is a GENERAL problem…one usually worth fighting.
2. You don’t care, much like shopping at wal-mart, as long as it is easy, cheap and convenient. Problem is that eventually, when there is no one left to compete with them, prices go up, your rights get eroded further and THEN you start complaining.
3. There will come a time when you care, but there will be no one left to fight with you …
I’m reminded of a poem…”first they came…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Since was Apple “not” about greed? The whole model of Apple has always been greed. I dont understand why this is a shock for most people.
Cale,
Let’s take eBooks as an example. If terms are in place that publishers get 70% and Amazon gets 30% tacking on an additional 30% for Apple to do the payment processing = $0 profit for Amazon. Amazon has two choices – ditch IOS completely as an option for Kindle books or raise their prices across the board (since they can’t have different prices outside the Apple sandbox).
So if you are a a consumer who consumed eBooks you either lose the ability to purchase books from far and away the largest eBook retailer *or* ebook prices spike dramatically for ios and non ios users alike.
I’m curious… How is that in your interest?
samrtin807,
Speak out and expose Apple’s tactics for what they are and eventually you could do business on Android, iOS and everyone else. Why keep quiet when bringing transparency to a bad situation may lead to changes? What is the benefit of not speaking out and exposing what Apple is doing to publishers and consumers (in the form of higher prices)?
I for one applaud Apple’s efforts as linking to an external site is infuriating. I would use the kindle app much more if I didn’t have to go to a browser to buy. In app is much better and it can be integrated across amazons ecosystem as well
Robert,
Unfortunately due to Apple’s draconian terms, the much more likely outcome is that the Kindle app gets pulled from the Apple ecosystem. Would you rather external site and Kindle app or no Kindle app at all?
Wait… YOU take 30%, but Apple wanting to do that is horribly wrong?
Just do your 70/30 split on what you get from Apple. No one will complain. Geez.
I think Apple is being very smart. In essence, what they are telling these publishers is..”Hey…we are not going to bear the costs of marketing and publishing your app in our store while you re-direct customers to subscribe at website, at a lower cost, thereby circumventing our 30% cut”. Apple knew that these guys were going to try and pull a fast one on them. However, Apple is not saying that publishers can’t have a website for subscriptions…it just can’t be at a lower cost, thereby undercutting the App Store. If the publishers don’t like it, they can remove their app from the App store and charge whatever they want on their sites…or go to the moribund Android Marketplace.
Quite simply, it’s price fixing. Requiring a surcharge for their service is fine. Forcing all other distribution methods to be same price or higher is price fixing and is or should be illegal.
Drew,
If the publisher doesn’t like the terms, they can withdraw the app from the App store…and set whatever price they want in any other distribution channel they want.
Big business is always EVIL. Just like APPLE.
OK, just a joke. :-)
You’ve done a great job. I’ve translated your Open Letter into Chinese, just for fun.
Hope you would not mind!
@Drew,
You are obviously not a businessman. Do you think Walmart or any other retailer doesn’t mark up the wholesale price of products you buy. Get an education man!
It seems the majority of commentators here fail to realize that included with this 30% fee from Apple is a prohibition on raising prices to adjust to the additional fee. They require prices to remain static or be lower through their purchasing system. Further, to become a legitimate developer for Apple, you have to pay a yearly fee.
As far as the pissing contests between Apple and Android fans, SHUT THE HELL UP! This is the geek equivalent of Ford vs Chevy, and in the end, it’s ultimately pointless. Apple fans aren’t going to change an Android fans’ opinion any more than the Android geek is going to change the Apple geeks’. Why waste your breath arguing over it when there are far more important things we could be spending that energy on? Use the CPU cycles you wasted typing up your spittle covered fanboy response to run Folding@Home.
I think the best thing for Readability to do is dump the native apps and go to a web only interface, and tell Apple to stuff their 30% fee. If Google attempted the same shenanigans, I’d say the same thing.
The tl;dr version is shut up, stop arguing over Apple vs Android and do something productive with your time. I’m sure there’s a nice old person just down the street from you that could use some help shoveling snow, cleaning their front/back yards, etc. Trust me, you’ll feel better doing some good in the world instead of arguing like a bunch of harpies with nothing but time on their hands in their parents’ dark, dank basement.
Some really good points. I agree with amost everything, except for this: “In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like.”
Actually, i think this attitude is something that ought to be challenged as well. Apple has the ability (not the right) to make their hardware and software work however they like, and they have the ability (not the right) to put whatever they want on their website (in the absence of any decent consumer affairs oversight, anyway), but they choose to use these abilities (not rights) to promote a poisonous culture, i.e. one in which Apple are the gatekeepers for what people can do on the hardware they’ve purchased.
There’s no “natural right” at work here, just a desire for profit and brand-name visiblity, and the ability to see it through.
It isn’t “their hardware” – the hardware belongs to whoever is using it, including people who want the Readability App on their Iphones. Apple merely licensed a design, had in manufactured by hardworking, underpaid people, and then reaped the profit from it’s sale to the person who actually now owns the hardware. So no, Apple have no right to any say over what the customer does with their hardware.
And while the App Store is “their website”, the fact that they make it mandatory for owners of “their hardware” to use “their website” throws their right to have any ultimate authority over what happens on that site into question. Consumer affairs are actually considered worthy issues in many countries, and legislation varies, but in general, most reasonable people would consider Apple’s use of “their website” to be well outside their “rights” as a company.
Speaking to the “well, you get a 30% cut” theme that’s cropping up throughout:
It’s not about our business model and whether we’re “hypocrites” or not. It’s about Apple imposing its 30% on any business model. The problem here lies in the fact that this is a service that isn’t only living in iOS. There are web subscribers as well. The iOS experience is just part of the bigger picture.
As such, the real hypocrisy is if we charged people the same amount on web and iOS and yet ended up with very different economics in each case. Consider this: every Readability subscriber SEES how their money goes to publishers and writers. We would need a whole different view and a whole different set of math for iOS-originating. It’s messy and just not worthwhile.
To be clear, we love Apple products. They make amazing hardware. We just think this particular policy is just too prohibitive for upstarts like us.
@Richard Ziade
Okay, Richard…instead of just complaining, what changes would you consider fair?
Apple’s position isn’t sustainable because it is so uneven… For example if I buy a iPhone controlled RC helicopter, does Apple require 30% of gross on the Rc Helicopter purchase? If salesforce.com had an iPhone app, would Apple require 30% of gross of salesforce.com’s revenue? Lots of existing apps have a “login” and anything with a login -is- a subscription service. Does this exclude third party apps that build on an existing subscription service (aka using their APIs)… Apple’s idea here wasn’t fully thought out. Readability should be submitted by a neutral third party that cannot coordinate the subscription service. Readability is one supported service (think mail client versus email provider). Then can Apple say no?!
A well written article. I have one question though, not only for the Arc90 folks, but for Apple lovers in general? Why do you impose a corporate morality onto Apple? It obviously does not belong and like any other business, they are in it for themselves. Apple as a brand seems to attract folks who (unwisely) deem to the company to be far more egalitarian than they are in reality. Perhaps this would not have “bitten” as bad as it has if people would stop imposing this false sense of piety onto Apple.
All that aside, you have a great app and I look forward to more. Regards,
@LP Dude, he covered that in the article.
The first suggested change was, “Accept our application.”
The second was: “We’d be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you’d carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do.”
@ David E
Okay…fair enough.
I think it’s unreasonable to ask Apple to make special dispensations for a certain group of publishers/developers. Everyone is charged 30%…across the board. If you have a free app, Apple gets nothing (and bears all the other costs). Those are their terms. Period. If you don’t like it…vote with your feet.
Three more examples:
Netflix provides a subscription service. Will netflix have to provide in-app purchase of netflix subscriptions and pay 30% of that subscription revenue to Apple?
My TV provider has a remote control application. Will they have to provide in-app purchase of satellite service?
My hosting provider provides a free control panel. Will they have to provide in-app purchase of their hosting products?
this was briefly suggested above, but:
- in the native app, offer a “deluxe”, “iWhatever-tailored” edition of your content, with “premium” features which are just barely differentiable from
- the web subscription, which includes 99% of the same content, and 100% of the same important content, and costs 70% of the above ^^^
Let’s be clear that the Apple and Amazon subscription fees are not “payment processing fees.” The fees cover everything from hosting to advertising. In fact, but for having been mentioned in Apple promotions, Readability would not have the market share it does. Apple has done a lot more for Ziade than he has done for it.
Ziade’s latest comment is more hypocrisy, blame shifting and selfishness. The web interface is much less valuable than being an iOS app. That is why he is desperate to be in the App Store. But, not desperate enough, apparently, to give up his own selfish insistence on not paying Apple its 30%, which as a commenter demonstrated above, would reduce his take to 21% of the sales price. He seems not to care that greater volume would probably raise his actual profits. Because he is little Richie, and if he doesn’t get his way exactly as he wants it, he will flop on the floor, kick his heels and hold his breath until he turns blue. So be it. Apple should not budge.
also, the level of sycophantic responses in this comment thread is either funny or really, really sad. you people have no respect for owners of iOS devices, in that you support a business model that strips them of their rights, e.g. to control their own devices and tailor them to their needs. you also conveniently overlook the inequalities in apple’s models: if apple deserves a cut for bringing users to developers, don’t developers collectively deserve a cut for bringing users to iOS? isn’t it anti-competitive of apple to PREVENT PRIVATE ENTITIES FROM PRICING THEIR PRODUCTS AS THEY SEE FIT? where are you oh-so-snarky unfettered-capitalism types on this one? it’s not okay for a company to respond to apple’s business model by charging their consumers (iOS users) higher prices to reflect the realities of their platform compared to others. you’re a bunch of tools.
Julia,
Use the example of Amazon Kindle eBooks. To stay in AppStore Kindle app would have to allow in app purchasing of books giving Apple 30%.
If Amazon was crazy enough to keep the Kindle app in the AppStore and acquiessed to the demands of Apple they would not cover anything. Books hosted / delivered from Amazon servers. The only thing Apple would be providing for Amazon when one purchases a Kindle book would be payment processing. Nothing else as they certainly will not be providing advertising for Kindle titles over their own iBook titles.
I am honestly confused. Readability seems upset at Apple for adopting essentially the same business model as it has adopted. Namely, it takes a thirty percent cut for selling other people’s content. Apple does, and has always done, the same thing. Look at music. Apple sells music (e..g somebody else’s content) and takes thirty percent. That isn’t controversial.
Further Apple does the same thing Amazon does. Namely sell somebody else’s content. Sometimes Amazon does it directly, sometimes it does it through a third party. Amazon often takes a bigger cut then Apple.
People complaining don’t seem to acknowledge that Apple incurs real cost in distributing even free applications, and in the development of tools that are used to create said applications. These people don’t answer how Apple should be compensated. Moreover, if Apple doesn’t adopt this policy, it will not be compensated at all ever. For example, a game developer instead of selling a game on iOS, will merely offer a free application in which somebody can then download the game thereby bypassing Apple being compensated. That is what Apple is really worried about. Anything could be offered as a subscription thereby bypassing Apple desire to be compensated.
Now I know all of those blog posts saying that one day Google’s Android would overtake iOS in terms of popularity and use were true. It’s been a slow but steady rise to the top for Android and this will only further push Android ahead.
Apple have definitely gotten greedy. They make a stack load in profits and if it weren’t for you and the rest of the iPhone developers, the app store would be nothing and Apple wouldn’t be making a cent.
Time for a web application and Android application I think. Make a stand and leave the iOS platform, I am sure others will follow. Apple are greedy nerds. Steve Jobs will be dead soon anyway and then we might see some rational changes over at Apple.
After reading through all of the people here arguing without facts, realize that android marketplace is not free. Google is looking for a 10% cut and gives a bit more information back to the company it is collecting from. Not free by any stretch of the imagination. They charge that 10% for credit card authorization, hosting the app and advertising of the app, same as Apple. The difference is 10% vs. 30%. The market will dictate the price in the end. Right now Apple has 20 times the dollar amount of the android market given today’s published numbers. Apple does a lot of advertising for the app sales. Google does very little. Let both charges go forth and see who wins. Nobody is free here, not even readability who does charge 30%. Maybe they need to change their model.
So glad I bought an Android. It appears AAPL still hasn’t learned from its past mistakes.
Readability – your service is unique and innovative. screw apple. they are betraying their developers with this move. this move is terrible move for terrible move for consumers, either it will raise prices for them or have some of their favorite services leave the products they love. anyone that tries to defend this latest move by android is naive and a little stupid. this is only good for apple.
screw apple, take your services to android, bb, webos. holler.
If Readability can has a business model of 70/30 split, why can’t Apple have this model also? Weird…
I think this pricing model is the biggest mistake Apple has made in some time, and I hope they fix it. In the next year, Apple has the potential to cement their lead in the tablet computer segment they created. This would be done by having the best hardware and software out there, and they are hurting their chances at maintaining their lead in software.
You gotta be flexible when doing business with Apple — be ready to BEND OVER frequently.
No sympathy here. That’s what you get for sleeping with Apple. There is no moral, there’s only money. There is no fairness, there is only money. Keep that shortsighted view of supporting Apple because you supposedly can make a lot of money. The more powerful Apple gets, the more miserable and oppressed you will become.
Hey all,
I am still confused with the whole controversy.
Case I : If I setup my Online Store which sells Fashion Clothes , do I entitle to give 30% share to Apple.
Case II: Will the current clause may affect Google Boutiques ?
Can some one please enlight me on the same.
Arpan
Will the whole subscription give more limelight to Jail Breaking and CYDIA Store..!
As jail breaking is legal , many of the publishers should go for Cydia Store.
OH this is crap. I love Apple, but i hope they don’t turn into these greed monsters. I will stop buying their stuff if they don’t stop this.
the sheer amount of iPhone fangirls anywhere, everywhere on internet forums is much like an infectious disease. continuously mutating, waging holy war on any heretic who dares speak the truth about Apple.
fucking idiots, man. jesus.
Wait, so your business model is “we take 30% for publishing via out technology, person writing the content gets 70%”
And you’re complaining that Apple just offered you exactly the same terms you offer your content providers?
Cry more.
I don’t get it. Your last statement makes no sense. Right now if someone subscribes at $10 a month you day $3 and give $7 to the writers/publishers. If it went through the Apple store they’d take $3, you’d take $3 the the writers/publishers would split the $4. It sounds like you want Apple to give 70% of their $3 to the publishers (so Apple gets $.90 and the publishers get $2.1), but you still take $3. Why not just reduce your cost to 10% and get the same result?
Speaking of moving to the web, please do something about the blog. The fonts look horrible on Chrome on Windows and it definitely isn’t easy reading.
I’m not sure you being smart about this. Many of the comments suggest you go the Android (which is an ad platform) route and to forget Apple. A web app might be a good idea, but you will have to go it alone with marketing. The world may pass you by as you disagree with Apple. Already, Google is eyeing you and is trying to steal your idea and put you out of business. They are an advertising company and your product helps us avoid ads, and they don’t like that. Google will begin to offer this kind of service for free, no subscription. They may at some point combine it with Google Docs for offline syncing, using their marketing power to add a “google readability” link with their ad customers web pages and on their hosted blogs automatically, and on the web sites of others who want to jump on the “google readability” bandwagon. If you don’t believe me go to: http://readable-app.appspot.com/ . Google’s Appspot version of your service which they call “Readable”. I think you need to hurry up and decide if you are going to win with Apple or lose with Google.
Well, first of all, you are doing exactly the same thing Apple is doing by taking a 30% cut for yourself. I don’t see why you have such a big problem with that.
But more importantly, the closed model of the App Store is protected by the license agreement that you agreed to. The language is hardly broad. It’s quite clear in my opinion.
If you want to argue about Apple being greedy, etc. you do not point at a single clause in the license agreement of their closed walled garden. Instead you point at the closed nature of the platform itself.
Time to go Android!
We will love you, welcome you, embrace you.
This is a time that comes for inner ruminations and outward orchestrated plan to see you to the next frontier. You either move along and choose your Platform or you keep
On remaining in the browsers. That way you do not need Apple’s express permission to sell your stuff.
But you won’t. So I suggest you change your business model. You have options, so stop whining about Apple. You could go to the Blackberry app world, Android or the dead and decaying Symbian. But you wouldn’t. And so just change your business strategy, and put iOS policy into consideration.
Jobs is a dictator… always has been and the world has made it clear recently where that lot will end up ;)
Keep up the great software and just move platforms or promote jailbreaking.
Go away from apple wallet garden.
The world is outside.
This is a complete double standard. The Sydney Morning Herald app does not work unless people subscribe to the content through traditional methods. I.e. Have a a regular, paid subscription to the newspaper. Apple takes no cut of that subscription.
Complete double standard being inforced as Apple chooses.
I’d be asking if they have been allowed since June last year, why can’t you do the same?
Bruce
While this suggestion has been made several times before I’ll present it again, why not adapt your app for a more open ecosystem, say like Android?
Apple drops the blade into its golden goose. It is just a matter of time now before we are talking about Apple’s success in the past tense.
I think Apple is making a mistake by doing this…. Apple has always been my favorite, be it MAC, IPhone, IPad but by doing this, somewhere they are giving Android a chance to win over masses. Today if windows is what it is, the reason could be cause apple was not that OPEN. What do you think??
Well, no can do if we depend our software on 3rd party devices. The solutions are fairly simple, either adjust our application with the sad new rules or create our own special device to the customers as well.
Oh, right, I guess first choice is the perfect choice if we still want iPhone as our partner. :]
Let’s just hope Apple heard your complaint.
Richard and his band of keyboard warriors can huff and puff all they want but Apple won’t be changing their terms anytime soon. Apple knows the majority of its developers are smart enough to develop their apps and business models to take into account these terms whilst still being able to turn a profit. Those that aren’t or refuse to will have their apps removed or rejected and will leave the platform. This number will be minimal, and will be massively offset by the number of new developers drawn to the platform because of the new subscription offerings (don’t forget Apple hasn’t just come up with this, developers have been crying out for it).
Readability, how ever you care to dress it up, is a business and is there to turn a profit. One of the first rules of business is you must be able to adapt to change or you’ll be kicked aside and left for dead by those that do. Expecting a business model created a couple of years back to stand up today, or even in the future is incredibly naive. You’re unwilling to make allowances for the new partner, but expect to be able reap the rewards that getting into bed with that new partner would bring. And don’t forget, you approached Apple and asked if you could get into bed with them, not the other way around. Apple brings much more to the table than you ever could yet you expect them to give in to all your demands whilst not meeting any of theirs. Seriously, how naive can you be.
Apple has set the same % for subscriptions as one off payments because it is in the interests of the consumer (as well as them of course, I’m certainly not that naive!). If they offered a much lower % for subscriptions, how long do you think it would be before all current developers shift their own apps into this area and what once was a one off 99c purchase with unlimited use becomes a recurring 99c subscription and no pay = no play.
Big players like Amazon and Netflix will make the appropriate amendments to their respective business models to make allowances for Apple, and I very much doubt we’ll see them withdrawing from the platform anytime soon. Whether you love it or hate it, having a presence on the iOS platform can only have a positive impact on your business, and these two especially will know all about that because of the free ride they’ve enjoyed up until now, whilst not giving a second thought to reaping all the rewards.
I tip my hat to Apple, you go get your share, it’s nothing short of what you deserve.
The web is not free. You pay for your traffic and your access.
The web is not free, why should apples infrastructure be?
You started out with a model you liked. Great. Why exactly should apple subsidize your model?
i read every last comment and am shocked at people calling readability hypocrites simply because if they r only making 30% then thats their sale so if apple wants to take 30% it should be two sets one from readability which means 30% of the 30% that belongs to the developer and another 30% from the 70% that belongs to the publisher and being that apple wants to look at it from a whole and the publishers dont want to give apple any money readability made an offer they are willing to give up their profits of 30% if apple keeps the business motto and give 70% of their cut back to publishers i personally think its noble of readability to make such an offer
Apple is just getting greedy more and more. Keep on going without them!
How about if it wasn’t subscription based and you just load money into a wallet that you then use to pay the authors of articles you liked?
I really think it’s funny the number of people that defend apple on this policy. While the initial iPhone was pretty popular the introduction of the app store made it explode. The number and variety of apps in the app store add an exponential value to the phone far beyond any revenue the store generates. Simply insisting that everyone that dislikes the policy move on is counter productive to maintaining a superior ecosystem with choice and selection to the ende user just as insisting a company change their business model to accommodate the extra middleman in the supply chain combined with price caps on other retail channels eventually creates higher prices for the consumer. Like it or not the 30% most service will have to pay Apple will eventually be passed on to the end user. In many cases even non app store customers will have to pay more because of this policy.
Remember out of the 30% that Readability collected they paid all of their operating costs. Which, for the record, covered far more than just hosting an app in the app store. If they are forced to raise the fees it impacts the end users and reducing the percentage paid to publishers de-incentivizes them to participate . Both have a negative effect on the quailty of the app and its content directly impacting the end user.
I am not sure what all of the fuss is about.
I agree that the Apple policy is unfair and unjust.
So I threw my iPhone away. Problem solved.
I spent more time writing this response.
If a significant portion of iPhone users suddenly threw their phones away, Apple would change their policy very quickly. Those of you still holding on to your iPhones either accept accept the terms or really do not feel so strongly about it. Your actions speak much louder than words.
Though I agree with Arc9 here I also agree with Apple. If your business model doesn’t fit why not change it? I think a lot of revenue and usage comes from iOS devices, no? So why not split it as follows: Apple 30%, Arc9 20%, Content creators 50%. Or even Arc9 10% and Content creators 60%.
I’m upset about Apple’s greed. To charge 30% for apps is one thing — they host them on their servers, each version is checked to be virus free, etc. Apple does all purchasing transactions too. That cost something, so 30% slice cut isn’t small but somehow justifiable. But asking 30% slice for nothing? They don’t host those files, nobody at Apple checks them, — what’s the reason to receive 30% interest? That is how mafia is working — demanding people pay them for anything. Greed for money. I really hope that all publishers will find courage to stand together against these new ridiculous requirements. 3% would be more or less fare cut for using iOS ecosystem, especially if Apple doesn’t do anything in terms of checking content, serving those files from their servers, etc.
Sometimes I wonder if people really consider the amount of money Apple put(s) forth in order to build, grow, and maintain the App Store alone. It’s one of the most valuable and recognizable distribution channels in the world. One could argue that 30% is a bargain for the type of exposure the App Store provides(not to mention the brand recognition that comes with being associated with Apple).
One could also argue that it’s greedy and overpriced, apparently.
You’re not without other options. If your product is good enough you’ll be able to recoup the revenue you’ll lose from opting out of the App Store through other channels.
It sucks that Apple’s 30% cuts into your 30%, but surely the authors and publishers (and Readability) would still earn more with the Free Marketing that the App Store provides.
Nothing prevents you from marketing your web app, but of course, the entire marketing cost is on your end, not Apple’s, in that case. Subscribers you sign up through your own marketing can use the app without Apple receiving anything.
How useful is your app without a paid subscription? If the answer is “not useful at all” then you’re just leveraging the App Store’s free marketing, and it’s hard to argue that you’re a victim.
This isn’t the case for every app developer and content provider. Some business models truly are in jeopardy with these new rules. Some providers (hmmm, Amazon/Kindle) don’t have the cost flexibility you have.
@Le Roux, it looks like they can’t link out of the app to a web based purchasing system without offering in-app purchases.
Times they are a changin! You need to be flexible too.
You could, e.g., create an app that links directly to “free” content. Give em a taste and sign them on your web page. If you want to avoid this cost you need a better strategy.
30% cut for an awesome distribution channel is reasonable. You were still a mag before the app store anyway.
Addressing the argument that Apple is essentially a credit card processor and you should be able to charge more to subscribers through an iOS native app to account for their fees (and setting aside the fact that, as many pointed out, the 30% pays for much more than credit card processing):
Most merchant accounts actually do the same thing: prohibit you from charging a higher price to customers using a credit card vs. paying with cash. It’s a quick way to get your merchant account suspended if a customer complains – and the majority of merchants comply because they know the ability to accept credit cards means they have more and larger transactions. It’s also why some small businesses post signs saying things like “We appreciate your cash payment!”
Sound familiar?
The main difference between Apple and retailers is that retailers are now allowed to offer a cash discount (how the price is advertised draws the razor-thin line between “cash discount” and “credit surcharge”). In practice, gas stations are among the few retailers who do this because their margins are so thin; most other retailers don’t want the hassle of multiple pricing options or pissing off the spendier credit card customers.
> I say if iOS users are so filthy rich, charge them 142.85% of normal fees.
> Give 30% to apple and rest 100% is yours :).
There is another Apple dictatorshit rule that prohibits charging in-app more than you charge for a best deal offered elsewhere.
Your App was rejected… Get over it. You have many competitors working on better iOS tablet solutions, so quick moaning over spilt milk and get to work!
Wait. You lost me.
Are you saying that Apple’s business model of charging 30% for content delivered through its systems “smacks of greed,” while also pointing out that your own business model involves charging a 30% cut for content delivered through your service?
Is that really what you’re saying?
Really?
I was inclined to agree that Apple’s fees might be too steep, but reading your letter makes me think they might be in the industry-standard range.
They don’t call it a walled garden for nothing….
Many different points of view and it’s always going to be tricky.
I do, however, think more people should follow Steve Jobs’ advice to Adobe last year when he wrote about Flash:
“New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.”
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
hm.. all good and nice, and I would love very much to use readability on the ipad, but in worst case there is always the web app, isn’t it?
It is great to see the huge number of sane capitalists on here (no irony).
Apple is providing a channel to market, via it’s ecosystem, which will likely increase the revenue and profit for all stakeholders of Readability/Arc90.
Without that distribution, all stakeholders are likely to lose something and that something might be huge. So, as has been said, a slightly smaller percentage of something is worth more than a full cut of nothing.
This isn’t about Apple being greedy, it’s about Apple being a commercial organization setting terms for the use if it’s channel. It IS simple, if you don’t want to pay the cost for the use of that channel, then don’t. But you will likely be “cutting off your nose to spite your face” and could lose out big time.
Rich, I suggest you go back and rethink this because your attitude makes no business sense.
Can anyone imagine the amount of bashing that would take place if Microsoft would only allow shareware on Windows machines, which it approves and controls and rake in 30% of the revenues?
by the way, bad news for Apple is forseen by Forrester already:
http://blogs.forrester.com/george_colony/11-02-18-the_top_for_apple
Apple’s new requirement is only to allow in app purchases or subscriptions, so allow it you’re only hurting your own revenue here.
When Apple takes their 30% that leaves you 70% to divvy up between yourselves and the contributors. If you use the current model, you get 21% and the contributors get 49% of the total sale price, which to me 21% of something is better than 30% of nothing.
Now with all this being said if you have customers willing to port over to a web app/ Android version then you can ber certain that some will purchase content through non-Apple means so you wouldn’t be losing out on every transaction. Sure you can take a stand and try to defeat Apple’s system if you like but ultimately you will be losing exposure to new users through Apple’s app store, which in turn loses both your company and your contributers revenue in the long run.
As an app developer I may not always like the game, but I’d damn sure rather play in the pros than ship off to some unheard of farm team.
I started paying the subscription one week ago and I very much like what you are trying to do and believe it to be an awesome idea. I could be a long lasting client of you’re service.
But I think there is one thing that you are doing it wrong, and that is the iPad and iPhone App. They got rejected by Apple, but this is not my point here. In your place, I would have never tried it. You have a nice web interface already. Why not go forward with the great looking HTML5 webapp that you aready have and implement it 100% offline, both on the iPhone and on the iPad. Why go native anyway? I don’t see a single feature that you would would really need that only native apps do. May be a little more responsiveness, but that’s ok as it is now, you basically needs to add SQL database and keep evolving the platform.
Keep the good work, forget the cocoa/native app stuff and keep kicking ass!
Boy, am I tired of developers like you expecting that everything should be free. Your expectation that Apple should give you a free ride on its platform is silly at best. How do you think Walmart would react if I wanted to use their marketing muscle, brand awareness, and customer base to sell my goods in their store at full retail without giving them the benefit of buying at wholesale (i.e. no option for a margin)? WalMart is not going to do that and neither is anybody else. Hell, even a flee market requires some type of fee. Why should Apple be any diffrent, and why should you expect to have access to their hard earned customers for free? Your premise is all wrong. STOP your whining. It’s worse than my 3 year old son. You are coming off as a bunch of spoiled asses.
Readability’s model is unique in that 70% of our service fees go directly to writers and publishers. If we implemented In App purchasing, your 30% cut drastically undermines a key premise of how Readability works.
I’m a getting this right?
Basically, you say that your business model is to keep a 30% cut from from the writers and publishers ―but Apple should not do the same.
Apple’s argument is that the app store brings customers to the developer’s platform. Maybe Apple should pay app developers 30% of the revenue from their phone sales since the apps bring users to Apple’s platform
Emm, the App Store is ALSO a business for Apple. Why do people assume Apple built a gigantic infrastructure and a huge software stack, just to have it serve as a lure for their devices? The iPhone was selling very well before the App Store –actually it was a huge success.
What’s being missed here is that Apple *has already made their money* selling their overpriced hardware to the masses (while not super-overpriced like Macs, i-devices are still expensive).
Overpriced? You ARE aware that the iDevices are among the more competitive in the market, are you?
And what’s with this “has already made their money”?
Who told you the App Store is not there to make money too? Who said Apple should run the **biggest app market in the world** as a charity or simply an added-value lure for their devices?
Is this how YOU would run your business?
Bill_the_binman
–quote–
Apple is providing a channel to market, via it’s ecosystem, which will likely increase the revenue and profit for all stakeholders of Readability/Arc90.
–quote
If that is all it was, I’d have no problem with it other than believing the fees for credit card processing (all that they really provide on in app purchases hosted elsewhere).
What I have a problem with is Apple trying to force fix the prices in other channels. I’d love to see someone who thinks this is reasonable defend this practice and why it would be good for consumers.
If I have a subscription that costs me $10 a month to produce and to pay all my bills and everything I need to keep a 30% margin, why am I prohibited from selling it for $14 a month on my website where my credit card processing company takes 29 cents + 2.9% and $17 a month on the AppStore. Why am I forced to screw over my customers who purchase via the website by being forced to charge them an extra $3 a month to keep my margins where they need to be on the AppStore for me to stay in business..
Can anyone make a logical case why it is good for consumers banning me from passing those savings along to my clients if I also want to offer my subscription via the AppStore?
Personally – I’m not against the letter, but think it’s nothing but a publicity stunt for hits rather than any real outcome.
I have owned each iPhone since the first, had a mac mini, got the iPad, MacBookPro, Apple TV II, Magic Mouse, Magic Trackpad, Time Capsule, Airport Express – even the battery charger… (and not in this order LOL).
This does not make me a fan boy. I bought my first iPhone for my girlfriend as a birthday present and when we split up – she through it at me (surprisingly it didn’t break!).
I remember the ‘hoohah’ and the stares I would get. Because everyone knew it was an Apple iPhone.
But in the back of my mind – (not daring to say it outloud) – I kept thinking how it lacked pretty much anything. It was always crashing (back then, I didn’t know it needed restarting now and then!), the battery life lasted (and still is pretty much) one day – and worst of all. It didn’t do anything. I couldn’t send picture messages, I couldn’t copy and paste, couldn’t video call or video record, pictures were utter rubbish. There’s loads more – but I just can’t remember right now. These thoughts were there, but still everyone who would see it – would comment on it.
“Wow is that an iPhone?”… “Cool! An iPhone!”…. until the haters came along.
Then the people who would see it would say “Oh – an iPhone. You can’t copy and paste can you?” or “LOL – video me saying how rubbish it is”. Spurred on by the haters… and the massive online discussions and mass slanging matches between Apple Fans & everyone else.
Throughout this whole thing – I’ve just never understood why so many people go out of their way to pull (try!) Apple apart for such an amazing product they’ve created. I’m truly not a fan boy – just a guy who likes Apple stuff.
If Apple release something – I’ll buy it and try it. I didn’t ask for an iPhone. My (ex) girlfriend did. But it fell into my hands – and I loved it, and saw it’s potential. Saw how much care and thought had gone into not only it’s now – but it’s later. This is because Apple stuff impressed me. I saw through the lack of C&P, MMS, Video etc.
If Android or WP7 make something do something magically brilliant – fair play to them. I certainly won’t be ripping it (especially since I’ve not used it ever).
But if I tweet “Wondering whether my iOS app has been approved this evening” I don’t expect people who haven’t even owned an iDevice slating me, asking why I haven’t made my app for Android yet.
So back to the point of this letter –
Jump on the hater band wagon.
Apologise and admit defeat.
Work on your web app.
Make an android app.
Do whatever you like.
Just remember – Apple is not a charity.
And Apple is not in this business to make friends.
Apple did not create a search engine. But they made a bloody good phone.
http://www.android.com
Does anymore care about iPhone/iFad/iPlod in 2011?
@Mark,
Do the math.
Why is it that any new device it going to be the ‘iPhone killer’ or the ‘iPad’ killer.
Have you heard of the ‘Anything Android’ killer in the last 3 years?
‘Motorola killer’, ‘Windows killer’, ‘Samsung killer’ or any other killer for that matter…
We should all be grateful of the competition.
Based on what Apple released as the first iPhone – lacking so much functionality – Apple lovers have much thanks to give to these so called ‘killers’. If it weren’t for them – we probably wouldn’t have copy & paste still.
But in the same respect – people using the other devices should be thankful Apple gave them a reason to raise the bar somewhat.
So you guys are the only people allowed to take a 30% cut? Really? Oy vey.
The issue seems to be whether Apple’s 30% is financially justified (charge a “fair” price) or just “free market” justified (charge as much as you can).
If you don’t think it is maybe there is a way around it…
First put up your content price by 43% everywhere (so after Apple takes a 30% cut you’re back to where you started). Now you get the same revenue from iOS users and Apple gets it cut.
Second introduce a new kind of restrict content – which cannot be used by an iOS app. It’s different content. Sell this content for 30% less than the universal, use-everywhere, content.
Now you just have to deal with the legal issue of when is content “the same”, is it the same even when it is actually different?
Can you not just have the in-app price be x+30% and the website price be x?
There is a clear and consistent ethos here. Apple is saying that you can not use the iOS channel to advertise your wares without paying for it. They are guarding against apps advertising wares on websites that are cheaper there than via the IAP. That is why the additional pricing restriction is in place.
In the end, it is very simple. If you don’t agree with the terms of business, nobody is forcing you to use the iOS channel. So, don’t use it! Keep your business model intact and dream about the $$$s lost by your approach.
Grow up – this is business!
@JohnP – no you cannot have separate pricing schemes for in app vs out of app (as some publishers would up the in app price to astronomical amounts so that Apple would not receive a fair shake).
In my opinion all Apple is really asking for is a chance to sell the content you provide. If you have an app in their app store, why shouldn’t they get a cut of it, you can still sell the same content on your site, or the android store, and still have it distributed to the iOS device without Apple ever receiving a cent, as long as you provide them the opportunity, and you don’t vary the prices to make one subscription more desirable than another.
I’ve bought books on Amazon’s website because I couldn’t get the book in iBooks, and read them from my iPad and iPhone. Why would Amazon provide these books to a competing device, and also have it sync up with each other, as well as my computer? Why would Amazon use a competing platform? That’s right because it was free, and they get a wider base of customers. Honestly, I would have been happier if I could have bought the book in the iPhone or iPad Kindle app, as I don’t own a Kindle. Why shouldn’t Apple have gotten a portion of that money? They provided the platform, let a competing company market their app through their store (without getting a cut since the app is free), even marketed it as a featured app and gave them free advertising, not to mention the top app tab under books, that even right now shows Kindle as #2 under free apps (Nook another content competitor is #3). But you’re absolutely right the platform and infrastructure should be free for you to make money off of without Apple recouping any form of payment what so ever, so that your business can thrive on their backs. Basically what you are whining about is that you don’t get to be a parasite, that there actually has to be some form of symbiosis. So either provide your content for free, or find another host to leach off of.
Justin, you say all Apple is asking for is a chance to sell the content you provide but all most publishers want is a freedom to set their pricing fairly.
I don’t think most people are saying that Apple shouldn’t get a cut. It’s the price fixing they are trying to force on companies outside of their ecosystem.
If Apple charged a reasonable rate I think you’d have a lot of publishers interested in making the transaction easier for their users – it would make things better. They could probably get away with charging double what other payment processors do and everybody would win.
Under the current scheme, the only winner is Apple – everyone else loses.
Publishers lose – they have to raiser their prices both on the AppStore **and** outside the AppStore to keep their margins in the same ballpark.
Consumers lose – the content on their iOS devices either increase dramatically in price or they lose a significant amount of content. Kindle either disappears completely from iOS or prices for eBooks jump significantly and the pain is forces on users who don’t use iOS devices as well since Apple requires price fixing to stay in the store. Think of a lot of the other interesting ways that apps are being used that will go away. Think of establishments like Papa Johns that has an app where you can order pizza. There is no way that is going to remain – Papa Johns is not going to be able to give up 30% for every pizza sold and fix prices. Losing apps like that will be a loss for consumers.
I would rather see Apple reconsider and come up with a scheme that is Win/Win/Win for Apple / Publishers / Consumers instead of Win / Lose / Lose. It seems to me that is something everyone should agree with. I can’t understand why anyone is advocating or agreeing that a Win / Lose / Lose scheme is a good thing.
Reminded of the existence of Google’s Readable, which also obscures distracting background activity so one can focus on reading text, I’ve added it to the menu bar on Safari. It seems to work about as well as Readability, and, is, of course, free.
I also want to note something people analyzing the behavior of little Richie Ziade are missing. He does not want to pay any third party any of the 30% share he is collecting from Readability’s sale price. That is why he is eschewing Google subscriptions for a Web interface only. Doing so means he will not part with the 10% any more so than he part with 30% for Apple. I think this should make clear to anyone that not paying his dues is Ziade’s modus operandi.
I really hope this policy of Apple’s doesn’t kill them. I hope that every channel provider sees that the licensing model works and that they ‘close’ their channels. I hope that all content houses have to pay 30% of their GROSS revenue to these providers. And I want to see everyone raise their prices by 42.85% to cover that 30% “tax” (because that’s how much you need to raise your prices by to see the same net revenue; do the math, I’ll wait). Then I want to see these salt taxes compound each other as you start to use sub-providers for their services.
For example, i want to see every single application written for MS Windows go up by 42.85% because I want to see how the “stop bitching” crowd take those prices increases. I want to see how they react to a massive increase in their entertainment costs and their like reduction in their disposable income.
Yeah, that’s going to be a great day. :P
Seriously people; get your heads out of your collective pot holes. If whenever one company is successful at something, others follow suit. If this flies, it’s just the beginning.
And as for me, I love my iPhone. But in the not too distant future, I’ll be boxing it up and sending it to Mr Jobs with a note attached saying “Here’s your 30%; suck on it and I hope you choke on it”.
My one hope is that millions of other iOS users do the same.
Julie,
Are you in favor of the Win/Lose/Lose proposition apple has instituted?
The claim Apple is “price-fixing” is also false. In order to prevent would be freeloaders like Richard Ziade from raising the price of content subscription apps sold in the App Store, Apple had to make price equity. It is protecting iOS customers from price gouging by doing so. However, the requirement applies only to developers and resellers who use the App Store. Otherwise and elsewhere, developers and resellers are free to charge any price they want.
“Price-fixing” means setting prices for an industry. Obviously, other participants, such as Amazon, Google, Sony, etc., set their own share of sales prices. We know that Amazon lowered its ebook share from 70% to 30% to match Apple’s and that Google will charge 10% plus unlimited access to users’ personal data. And, ebook publishers set the actual price of most ebooks under the agency standard. Ergo, there is no ‘price-fixing” issue whatsoever.
Julia,
Explain why you think it is good for consumers to have to pay more who aren’t using iOS devices? Why should a Kindle device owner have to pay more for their copy of X eBook because the only way Amazon can make any profit on eBooks is to raise the prices across the board?
Let’s not be naive, the forcing of retailers to charge the same price on iOS with it’s 30% payment processing fee as they do in other contexts where the payment processing fee is 30 cents the 2.9% is not protecting iOS customers as in the end they too have to pay a whole lot more for content. It’s Apple wanting to hide the fact that they are gouging publishers. If Amazon has to rise the prices for the next John Grisham novel by 42% to keep their margins on their website for Kindle device owners there will be a lot more outrage at them instead of Apple if retailers were able to do the fair thing and pass along the costs of exorbitant payment processing fees to iOS users or pass the savings from reasonable payment processing fees to non iOS .
Julia, why do you think it is reasonable for Apple to force non iOS users to have to pay higher prices?
@John – in all fairness, it won’t be Apple that forces Amazon to raise prices across the board. It will be Amazon that uses that as their excuse to raise prices across the board. Just like, eventually, companies like Amazon will raise the prices of paper books to unreasonable prices because of the ‘extra cost of manufacture’ so that we’re all financially motivated to tie ourselves to an eReader.
When that happens, they’ll lock down their channels and DRM will rule our purchasing habits. No more selling your used books or lending them to a friend. You’ll pay the price that Amazone believes you’re willing to pay (and that price will be high) and your fair-use rights will be inapplicable because you’ve signed them away as part of the ‘licensing’ agreement.
We’ve already seen this happen in the gaming industry, with games stores like ‘steampowered.com’. Played the game and want to resell it? Nope, sorry, that’s against the licensing agreement.
Greed begets greed.
That’s why this makes me so mad. I hope the consumer fights this with their wallets and that the companies get the message.
Dave,
There is definitely a case to be made against DRM, that is why I prefer the way O’Reilly handles eBooks. But for Kindle books, Apple IS requiring Amazon to raise the prices across the board if they want to be in the AppStore. If Apple took a reasonable approach Amazon could pass along the increased costs from from using a payment processor who charges 30% without also charging users who purchase the same product from a methodology where the payment processor charges only 2.9% to the consumer this wouldn’t be as big a deal.
I still have yet to hear anyone make any kind of case let alone a compelling one as to why it’s good for consumers for Apple to force whatever pricing publishers have to charge to survive in the iOS store into marketplaces where the publishers could charge less and earn the same margins. Why is that good?
For the last time (because I refuse to spend more time on a pathological liar), Apple is not merely a payment processor. Nor is it engaged in price-fixing. Neither does it require publishers and resellers to raise their prices. Telling those lies over and over again do not make them true.
Remember, the BIGGEST reason folks are subscribing to your service is because they like to see that most of their money is going to pay the writers. Now what do you think they’d say if a large chunk of that is now going to Apple. It defeats the ENTIRE purpose. Whatever you do, don’t let that happen. It would be undeniably retarded.
I can think of several ways to work-around this. It’s not really rocket science, but in the end, a webapp is very likely to be the simplest option you have.
The only part that surprises me is that you guys thought you could slip through the cracks.
Guys,
Change your business model!!! Find one that fits with Apple’s business model.
Dave
John,
You and I are both saying Apple is nuts for doing this. And I don’t think that DRM is a bad thing; quite the opposite actually. I simply think that it’s a good thing that bad people will always abuse.
“I still have yet to hear anyone make any kind of case let alone a compelling one as to why it’s good for consumers for Apple to…”
I agree fully. 30% is too much. 10% is too much.
“Apple IS requiring Amazon to raise the prices across the board if they want to be in the AppStore”
Just to be pedantic, Apple isn’t forcing Amazon to do anything. If Amazon raises their prices across the board, that will be Amazon’s choice; Apple will just be the excuse that they use to do it. Having said that, I really hope that Amazon tells Apple where to shove their 30%.
Seriously though, I am sending my iPhone back to Apple with the note. I intend to vote with my wallet and I hope a good portion of the market follows suit by dropping iOS as a platform. Doing anything less is the same as supporting Apple in this kind of gouging/profiteering
Julia,
You can choose to naively ignoring common sense outcomes but that doesn’t mean that those outcomes are real / won’t happen.
You claim Apple is not just a payment processor. In some cases you are right, but in many cases you are wrong.
Tell me what else Apple is providing to Amazon if they sell eBooks through the AppStore other than payment processing?
Are they advertising the in app content?
NO
Are they hosting anything for Amazon?
NO
What is it that Apple is providing Amazon for 30% OTHER than payment processing?
Prove my assertion wrong – just saying it is doth not a convincing case make.
John – sure, it IS just payment processing in majority of cases from a serving point of view. However Apple also created the market in the first place. If Apple had not entered the mobile industry and developed their own OS, I doubt Android or windows mobile would be at the stage they are at. Apple deserves some reward for taking the time & risk to enter a new market.
The fact Apple can control access to the market (to a degree) means they’re able to set pricing higher than usual.
Companies should maybe take a step back before they realise what they’re getting into. You move into a relationship with a supplier who can control your access to a marketplace and they’ll screw you over eventually. I would say the majority of companies who have their own patents or differentiated market position will charge a premium price. So yes, if you want to use Apple’s API they can charge what they want – the question you should ask is if you’re better off longer term to use other routes to market that are not as restrictive.
That’s not to say I’m an Apple fan (I will NEVER buy an iphone whilst such restrictions are in place), and think that publicising the drawbacks publishers face allows people to make a more informed decision when buying a phone which is only a good thing.
@John
It’s very simple – Apple put Amazon’s app (and therefore their entire eBook catalogue) in the hands of tens of millions of potential customers that otherwise would’t necessarily use their Kindle service if the app wasn’t available on iOS.
I can say this first hand as I don’t own a Kindle (not would want to) an I don’t read eBooks on my Mac. However when I got my iPad I thought I’d give it a go and tried the Kindle app.
To assume Amazon will raise their prices is ridiculous. If they did their profits would take a nose dive and publishers would jump ship to iBooks. Amazon will renegotiate the terms with their respective publishers as they will be able to persuade them that a lower cut of much higher volumes is better than a higher cut of much lower volumes.
See you back here in a couple of days when Readabilites app gets rejected for a second time because their pathetic attempts to get Apple tonmake special allowances for them fails.
-Mic
I think many of the people who posted here would benefit from a little overview of the economic system called “Capitalism” (look it up). Basically, people will charge as much as they can for their product/service. There is equilibrium needed, and competition involved, and many, many other factors.
“That’s the way it is, just deal with it” is a dumb answer. So is the other extreme “They can’t do this”. They can, and they did. Will people stand for it? Unfortunately, that depends on each individual company/developer. If most accept it, Apple will go ahead. Else, they will be forced to change something, obviously.
Mic,
When you say:
To assume Amazon will raise their prices is ridiculous. If they did their profits would take a nose dive and publishers would jump ship to iBooks. Amazon will renegotiate the terms with their respective publishers as they will be able to persuade them that a lower cut of much higher volumes is better than a higher cut of much lower volumes.
The deal amazon has with it’s publishers is 30% of the price plus distribution cots to Amazon, the difference to the publisher. No way do they stay if they are paying 30% to Apple, giving 70%-the costs of distributing the app to the publisher.
IMO, the most likely scenario if Kindle remains would be that Apple realizes the Kindle is a draw to the platform and will carve out an exception for them where they take less. There is already a little back pedaling from Apple if people like John Gruber are to be believed that this only applies to publishers offering subscriptions.
@John
Why do you seem to think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that Amazon will renegotiate with it’s publishers. Perhaps to keep the same deal as now, only of the money left over after Apple takes it’s 30% i.e they take the 70% left over and divvy that up 30% to Amazon, 70% to their publishers? It’s not rocket science nor does it take a business genius to work out this is a probable avenue for Amazon to explore. One that perhaps Readability should also consider.
Also, it wasnt too long ago Amazon took 70% and only had to reduce it to 30% to match what Apple was offering publishers via iBooks. Hence if they’ve been able to adapt once to stay in the game, I’ll bet they’re more than willing to do it again. It’s win win win, Apple gets it’s 30%, Amazon stays as market leader and gains the exposure and sales volumes the iOS platform brings and their publishers reap the rewards of yes, lesser %’s but much higher sales volumes and therefore profit.
@John
It’s also not back pedaling. The terms have been there for months and are fairly specific in who they target, it’s just that they are now choosing to enforce them a lot more than they have in the past.
Finally I very much doubt Apple see the Kindle app as something that draws customers to their platform. Want to read eBooks only, buy a Kindle, it’s what they’re there for. They’re might be a few people who have bought an iOS device to read eBooks but that number would be incredibly minimal.
iOS devices are sold mainly on their primary functionality, wanna phone but an iPhone, wanna mp3 player buy an iPod, want some that sits between a laptop and smartphone buy an iPad.
I created an open petition site last week http://iwillpullmyapp.heroku.com/ I was surprised by the little response I got. It’s probably not a problem as big as I see it.
Dear readability,
I used to love you guys too and was in the process of writing to apple to support your cause–I love your safari app. Well, loved I suppose. Because today when I tried to use it I found that the formatting had entirely changed. One of my favorite things about it–that it would autofit the text to my browser window–was totally gone. Half the text is now completely cut off. When I went to the website to troubleshoot, I got a page (with similar formatting errors–classy) asking me to pay a ridiculous monthly fee.
Guess Apple had it right after all. I’m off to find a better app and that letter of support? It’s headed for the trash bin.
No love,
A former user.
“Those with an Android are ready to welcome you with open arms, big smile & a pint of beer.”
So will us Windows Phone 7 users. (Well near-future user here)
To be perfectly honest, I’ve never liked Apple that much. Steve Jobs is a technology tyrant that seems to think he has the right to tell me what to do with the technology I buy. But I let that slide when I got my first iPhone.
I loved my iPhone because it was amazing. There was nothing like it at the time, and it had so much to offer. But alas, that time has past. Now the iPhone (even the 4) is old tech. Once again Apple has dropped the ball on keeping up with the curve, and hey guess what? Windows Phone 7 is absolutely brilliant.
Now I’m no Microsoft fanboy either. They were evil bastards in the past, but you know what? At least they don’t have Steve Jobs. I mean seriously, f**k him.
…boo hoo…someone wants to charge you for using their system to distribute
Your application.
mmm, fine :)
To Mic who commented at Feb 21 11:08am,
You obviously have no real business experience. To promote this Apple policy as reasonable and say that developers just need to take it or leave it is completely out of touch with the reality of the Apple ecosystem. Hell its out of touch with the reality of contract law.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this severely damages Apple in the long term due to serious backlash.
And to you personally: go play with your dolls and stop trying make points about business models as your a complete fucking fool.
LOL @e
regarding formatting error *ON THE SAME BROWSER ON THE SAME DEVICE*
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/15/apple_ios_throttles_web_apps_on_home_screen/
Imagine that. I wonder if they’ve intentionally misformatted web pages to piss people off of their web store. Would it be something they would do? Definitely.
Reality didstortion field emanating from their Ithings is controlling thier admiteddly vey small brains!
Who owns the device Apple or the customer
So if Apple is so concerned about the in App experience why do they insist that the best offer should be available for the in App experience. If the customer values the in App experience they should be ready to pay a premium for that experience over the customer who use other means.
I disagree with Readability that they are special case its time they realized they were part of the problem towing Apples line every publisher of content is in the same boat. Just think of it would you pay Sony, Samsung, Panasonic etc for the content you view on your TV’s or DVD’s. New electronic equipment lets me stream from Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster and if these manufacturers wouldn’t give me that functionality as a consumer I would buy the one who would. Apple is clearly flexing its monopoly muscle its one thing to offer a means of convenient payment and another to insist that it be used. The customer always has the choice for not subscribing to the service if they don’t like the complicated method of payment
As an example:
Your in app purchase cost = £1
Apple cut = 30p
Leaves you = 70p
Of which you give = 49p to writers and publishers
Leaves you = 21p profit
Problem is?
S5tlVt http://gdjI3b7VaWpU1m0dGpvjRrcu9Fk.com
nice way to expalin dear i like it and i think to send this blog of ma frnd
This supports what I said earlier in the post below. Apple can be a generous and difficult master.
http://chimac.net/2011/07/08/the-3-competitive-advantages-apple-enjoys-and-the-rest-of-us-suffer-with/
this is a really big problem with the big giants, they can do anything they want, without specifying anything and taking into consideration the outcomes that may result in
Wow.
I don’t have an opinion about whether Apple should bend for contributors like Readability.
But I am amazed by the calls for Obedience, and the derision for They Who Do Not Obey — but talk back a little, and ask for an exception. Wow.
I’m also amazed by the innumeracy of the American public. Or is it the World public here? Probably. The function of a business, to make a profit, is taken to mean they can ask for any size cut they want. There’s no distinction made at all between a profit that would be thought reasonable in years past and — wow — a 30% cut.
But hey, they’re big. So Obey.
Interestingly, an open letter, part of a small player’s negotiating tool set, is seen as whining. It is somehow objectionable to so much as object. A Command Economy is a Bad Thing when it is put over on a helpless population behind the Iron Curtain. But in our halls of glory here, a Command Economy is something to swoon over.
Obey.
Take it or leave it. And forget about the quantity of that profit. Who asked you to count?
P.
Mi piace molto per voi agli ospiti la pubblicazione sul tuo blog
Здравейте, аз обичам вашия блог. Има ли нещо, което мога да направя, за да получават актуализации като абонамент или някой нещо? Аз съжалявам, че не съм запознат с RSS?
Ez a blog fantasztikus. Itt gyakran minden szükséges információ a javaslatokat az ujjaim. Köszönöm, és fenntartják a kiváló munkát!
No worries, just bookmark a bit of javascript code in your Safari favorites, and call it to activate Readability… easy, simple and free. Why bother with apps and revenue sharing?
The one trying to be greedy is readability as all it does is strip the un-needed parts of a website, it achieves a simple task – why the heck bother charging for that? If I had better programming skills and time on my hand, I could probably program that myself in a week. Why the fuss?
Persevere, remember as with all such platforms, these companies, including Apple depend on the developers for innovation. Apple may have been innovative in providing such a platform, and using various methods which may or may not be agreeable depending on what side of the fence you are on, it is the developers that will carry it forward. You need to try new things, many developers will follow suit or are working on similar things, and as such they will start to filter through into the store when apple realise they have been short-sighted.
Closing comments.