> To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like.
It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial construct.
It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there.
Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it.
A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not run on "your" hardware. But in the current scenario you're buying iron-wrapped software (or I guess plastic-and-glass-wrapped software). Apple is really controlling what happens with the software, not the hardware.
This is an importnat distinction, IMO, because I don't believe any of the "I paid for it so it's mine" arguments out there really pass muster until you also create your own (not jailbroken) software stack.
All contracts are artificial constructs. There are no natural contracts. So the question is simply whether the kind of contract Apple has with its customers is legal or not and if it is whether the law should be changed.
Sure, the hardware belongs to the people buying the device. They can sell it, give it as a gift, break it. But they can't use the device every way they want. The device does only so much. The fact is: everyone bought a device in the full knowledge of all its limitations. Before purchase, Apple never promised a stream of wonderful applications and content at a price that the customer deems appropriate. They did not guarantee a great App Store, they did not even guarantee that they won't shut down the App Store and let the device be just a piece of hardware. The customer knew the limitations and bought the device anyways.
It has nothing to do with the hardware. Apple gives access to a sales platform, similar to let's say Amazon. They charge for the use of that platform. And are now preventing someone to use it as a mere "springboard" to somewhere else. Nothing is stoping anyone from creating a web app to take care of this by them selves, independent of the app store.
If I understand Readability's issue, it breaks down like this:
What they want:
For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of the articles viewed through that $1 sub get $0.70
What Apple requires:
For a $1 subscription fee, Apple keeps $0.30, Readability then has the option of keeping $0.30 (30% of $1) or $0.21 (30% of the remainder after Apple's cut) and then the publisher/writer gets either $0.40 or $0.49, respectively.
Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.
Readability has made a contract with the media suppliers: you get 70% of every dollar from the customer. If Apple takes the other 30%, there is 0% left for Readability.
If they want to make any kind of revenue for themselves in Apple's system, the only option is to give the content creators a smaller percentage and charge a higher price.
It's not really a matter of if Readability deserves 30%, but if Readability deserves any money at all. Apple is basically eating their entire revenue stream.
>Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.
This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their efforts towards building this new medium, they require a 30% of cut from end users cost.
- Would publishers/writers be able to publish their content in any other way on the iphone. Of course.
- Would publishers/writers be better off using another way publishing their content on the iphone. Maybe.
Apple provides iOS API for App writers to distribute their efforts (Apps). Apple takes a 30% (or is it 40%?) cut from the App end users cost for their efforts. So far so good, all sounds fair.
Now Apple (for whatever reasons; we'll go through them soon) enforces that:
- All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream.
- Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons.
- And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic")
So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that
1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?)
2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.
What about the user community and the society as a whole? What is fair for them?
- It is definitely fair for the user community to have an ability to use their devices (both hard and soft parts of it) in ways that they seem fit, unless of course it harms anyone else. Although I strongly believe in a "take it as it is or leave it" argument for Apple, I also believe in a code for fair conduct (think "consumer rights") towards consumers.
- It is healthy for the society as a whole to have ecosystems for software stacks (iOS), application stacks (iOS API and Apps), and content. It is also healthy for society as a whole to have companies like Apple take profit in certain ways that aid their business. However there is some rights for consumers that must be upheld by society. For instance if an iphone leaks acid causing injury to user, then surely Apple will be held accountable in a court. There is some similarity in Apple leaking because of its revenue share causing financial injury to developers.
All things said and discussed, what all of this really about is, Apple controlling their user revenue stream, and pricing out its competitors in the application stack.
iTunes <=> music store
iBooks <=> book store
so on and so forth.
A lot of those 30% subscription cuts could be going towards development of Apple's competing applications. Apple is most certainly monopolizing its customer base against other developers in its App market. And Apple invited them in the first place and has misplaced their trust. It is a thin line that they have now crossed without much discussion (public).
I'm fairly quick to defend Apple, because a lot of the flack they take is BS, but in this case I'm really struggling to find the upside.
Richard says that their 30% would account for a tiny sliver of Apple's overall revenue, but lots of tiny slivers start to add up eventually. The problem though, is that if the cost of those slivers is to drive the developers away from the App Store, then those slivers disappear. Considering that third party apps are possibly the most important feature of the platform, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.
The 30% cut on App sales is understandable, because software generally has high margins, but it doesn't sound like the same is true for content subscriptions. Maybe it's a case of trying to keep their policy too uniform (i.e 30% on everything)?
Does anyone know where the subscription content comes from? From my understanding, the subscription content will usually come from a third party, rather than Apple's CDN, so there's no marginal cost to Apple.
I really don't understand Apple's moves here. They have a terrific platform, and much of the value of their platform comes from third-party apps. If app devs start leaving for WebOS or Android in droves, much of their traction is going to be lost. I think if they would have gone for 10% or 15% they wouldn't have gotten this kind of response.
I predict either reversals or abandonment of their platform. I still maintain that HP or RIM have a great opportunity here to announce that they are going to build app stores that are low fee for subscription apps. I think you'd definitely see a move there from numerous devs.
And I too worry that my beloved Instapaper may be going to face trouble soon as well.
It's because in-app subscriptions are really just recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time.
If you accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for sales of apps, by logical extension you must accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for in-app purchases, because technically one could provide a free app with an in-app purchase to make it a full app, and anything less than 30% on Apple's take would gravitate the market toward this model.
If you accept that 70-30 is fair for in-app purchases, then you must by logical extension accept that recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time would also have this split, because technically one could provide all in-app purchases at a steep discount simply as "subscriptions" that can be cancelled after the first payment.
As far as I can tell, this is Apple's reasoning and rather inescapable at that.
I like to think of Apple's side of all the negative stories, but this time, I can't come up with a cogent excuse for what they are doing - save inept App Store policies/reviewers.
By this logic, flattr will never get a native iOS app. And when are Apple going to shut the Instapaper app down, when Marco decides to let his one-dollar monthly subscribers[1] receive premium benefits?
I think a large chunk of Instapaper's revenue comes from the iOS apps so assuming Apple continues to keep acting like a douche, Marco would probably just as soon cancel the subscription plan rather than let his app get rejected.
Possible Apple's side: App revenues may not make for a sizable part of their revenues as of now but they are expecting a humongous growth in both - iOS devices sales and Apps sales (and hence In-Apps sales). They feel the need to get in right now or before it's too late. They might also be contemplating Apple Television and more iOS based form factors. This can be huge.
Apple's side: Imagine most popular newspapers and magazines sites use Google One Pass to collect subscriptions fees via website, and offer free iOS app to consume the content. Apple collects nothing. I'm not totally with Apple but they have their points.
Perhaps this will be the one that gets enough publicity to make Apple come to their senses and see the collateral damage being caused by their War on Amazon.
The collateral damage? They're making out just fine, what do they care about a handful of app developers?
Maybe this will be the one that gets developers to realize this is not a sustainable game they are playing with Apple, by Apple's rules, in Apple's world.
I picked up an iPhone 3GS when they came out with intent of developing iOS apps. Even at that time it was clear that playing in someone else's yard meant playing by their rules, and that it was highly likely that I wasn't going to like their rules. I decided to not make an app. Simple decision really.
A lot of developers are now complaining that they're getting burned by what is a reasonably obvious profit motive from Apple. They're not offering an app store because they're good guys. They're offering an app store to make money.
They take 30% of purchases. It only makes sense to take 30% of in-app purchases and related subscription services as well. Did anyone honestly believe that apple would fall for the ebay $0.90 purchase with $90 shipping fee-dodging trick? Letting subs through just opens the door for people to ship free apps with subscription "unlocks", thus cutting out Apple.
The simple fact is that Apple owns the mountain, and if you want to mine their gold you can expect to pay their taxes.
Of course the simple solution is to just build a web app (as these guys have done). Why restrict yourself to Apple's yard and Apple's rules when you can target every device without rules, without restrictions and without a 30% tax? The sooner ever developer realizes this the better off we'll all be.
My satellite TV provider has an app I can only use if signed up to them. Do they now need to offer TV subscription through their app? What about the 37signals Campfire clients? Do they now need to offer Campfire subs via inapp purchase too?
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 we 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.
I wish these open letters said, "we are ebaying our iPhones, removing our other apps from the App Store, and switching to Android and Windows Mobile" instead of "we are going to change our business model just because the default icons you guys pick are so great".
Apple does not care about whiney letters. They might care if there are no more apps for or users of iOS.
If the subscriptions policy isn't the absolutely craziest move Apple's ever made, I don't know what is. iOS has converted me into an Apple fan, but not if stuff like this continues.
This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?
From what I understand, it's harder to actually sell on Android: there isn't (yet - Amazon are working on one) a store comparable to the App Store, and, perhaps related, the average user seems to be more reluctant to pay for apps.
There might be more Android phones out there, but you also can't get to them through the Android Market. Not every country that has Android has an App Store that will accept commercial apps. It's getting bigger and growing faster, but Apple is still ahead of Android.
Also, Apple's tools for developing are just superior. The Android SDK is an Eclipse/Netbeans Plug-in. Apple's is an 800MB-1GB version of XCode.
In part because Android's many devices/configurations make it a less predictable development platform. (I'm not saying there aren't reasons to develop for Android, but you asked for one reason people don't do it more.)
I haven't heard anything about this subscription model and Netflix. Will Netflix be able to continue to provide their iOS apps without giving a cut to apple? Seems crazy that they would have to.
Apple, I bought an iPad because I could watch movies in Netflix and read bookmarks in Instapaper, news in Reeder, and books in Kindle. Please send each $37.50 (30% of the iPad sale shared four ways) to each developer for bringing you a customer.
Or, optionally, stop acting like you, as a middle man, provides more added value than the developers that make your platform so damn profitable.
The reason this doesn't work is because Apple had to pick a number - 30%. For some businesses, that makes perfect sense. for others 1% or maybe 70% might make sense. But rigidly adhering to 30% (no doubt because of the massive complexity of the alternative) is going to cut lots of business out just because it doesn't make sense. Apple needs to rethink this - it's clumsy.
They have to pick 30% because in-app purchases are charged at 30%. You can't have two variations of the same thing (one that auto-renews and one that doesn't) charged differently.
Let's say the subscription cut was 10%. Everyone would release their apps as free, and charge for everything as a "subscription" because it's less than the 30% cut for app sales or non-auto renewable in-app purchases.
Basically, there is no other percentage that Apple can use here, for very good reasons. If they lower the percentage for this, they have to lower all the other percentages.
And that's not going to happen, because 30% is pretty reasonable for what they provide. The Android Market takes 30%, and Amazon takes 70% for Kindle subscriptions.
Edit: IMHO, everyone talking about the percentage is missing the point. The problem is the policy itself. It's just too general and broadly applied for a huge amount of stuff out there. Marco nails the issues here: http://www.marco.org/3437484678
I believe what Apple is trying to do is to head off the possibility of being scammed: app writers can give away their apps for free, but unlock the full potential only when you "buy" a (lifetime) subscription. This way the writer can keep 100% of the price of the app, instead of just 70%.
Do I agree with Apple? No. But I think this is where they're coming from.
Apple already had measures in place to block that 'loophole' without these new rules—or new interpretations of the rules, if you will. Apple banned an update to ReadItLater, last year, because the reviewer believed the developer was attempting to circumvent the in-app purchase: http://readitlaterlist.com/blog/2010/08/version-2-2-rejected...
As a developer I made the decision a few years ago to move away from Apple's platforms because of their capriciousness, their extreme secrecy, and their lack of respect for their developers.
I don't know how people invest in their platforms, I'd be constantly scared that Apple would turn around and screw me over.
Readability was trusting enough to release their code with a license which allowed Apple to put the code in their product and then freeze readability's product out of Apple's store.
And now the readability folks don't seem inclined to admit their trust was a might miss-placed.
But perhaps that's because the readability model is aiming for a kinder, gentler version of Apple's monopoly. They distributed a "product" that reworking website in a manner that steals the original site's advertising revenue. And then they "offer" to give the authors a different revenue source (along with "offering" a lack of choice concerning how their product is presented).
Edit: And problem with readability isn't in it just distributing a web-site-rewriter in itself but it doing that AND then asking revenues from content providers...
I don't understand why Apple is putting themselves in this situation.. Bad for business. Apple HAD the market, then Google came along with Android, now they're being snobs and just forcing their own users to switch to Android powered phones just because of this exact thing. Shame really.
The App Store does have the potential to drive a massive amount new business for an app like Readability. Apple believes they should be paid for that publishing and marketing service and it's hard to argue about that, particularly when comparing to the relative poor performance of other "app stores."
If the App Store fails to bring these developers new business then it doesn't cost the developers anything. If the App Store does bring them new business then it's up to the developers to weigh the cost of the App Store vs. the new business it brings.
Is 30% the right price? Ultimately the market will decide that, because if there's one thing this industry doesn't lack, it's competition.
[+] [-] Niten|15 years ago|reply
It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial construct.
[+] [-] brk|15 years ago|reply
Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it.
A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not run on "your" hardware. But in the current scenario you're buying iron-wrapped software (or I guess plastic-and-glass-wrapped software). Apple is really controlling what happens with the software, not the hardware.
This is an importnat distinction, IMO, because I don't believe any of the "I paid for it so it's mine" arguments out there really pass muster until you also create your own (not jailbroken) software stack.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] relic17|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhangen|15 years ago|reply
Maybe it's a stretch, but I don't feel like I own it until my 2 years is up.
[+] [-] adsr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cma|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OpieCunningham|15 years ago|reply
What they want: For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of the articles viewed through that $1 sub get $0.70
What Apple requires: For a $1 subscription fee, Apple keeps $0.30, Readability then has the option of keeping $0.30 (30% of $1) or $0.21 (30% of the remainder after Apple's cut) and then the publisher/writer gets either $0.40 or $0.49, respectively.
Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.
[+] [-] krschultz|15 years ago|reply
Readability has made a contract with the media suppliers: you get 70% of every dollar from the customer. If Apple takes the other 30%, there is 0% left for Readability.
If they want to make any kind of revenue for themselves in Apple's system, the only option is to give the content creators a smaller percentage and charge a higher price.
It's not really a matter of if Readability deserves 30%, but if Readability deserves any money at all. Apple is basically eating their entire revenue stream.
[+] [-] writetoalok|15 years ago|reply
This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their efforts towards building this new medium, they require a 30% of cut from end users cost.
- Would publishers/writers be able to publish their content in any other way on the iphone. Of course. - Would publishers/writers be better off using another way publishing their content on the iphone. Maybe.
Apple provides iOS API for App writers to distribute their efforts (Apps). Apple takes a 30% (or is it 40%?) cut from the App end users cost for their efforts. So far so good, all sounds fair.
Now Apple (for whatever reasons; we'll go through them soon) enforces that:
- All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream. - Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons. - And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic")
So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.
What about the user community and the society as a whole? What is fair for them? - It is definitely fair for the user community to have an ability to use their devices (both hard and soft parts of it) in ways that they seem fit, unless of course it harms anyone else. Although I strongly believe in a "take it as it is or leave it" argument for Apple, I also believe in a code for fair conduct (think "consumer rights") towards consumers. - It is healthy for the society as a whole to have ecosystems for software stacks (iOS), application stacks (iOS API and Apps), and content. It is also healthy for society as a whole to have companies like Apple take profit in certain ways that aid their business. However there is some rights for consumers that must be upheld by society. For instance if an iphone leaks acid causing injury to user, then surely Apple will be held accountable in a court. There is some similarity in Apple leaking because of its revenue share causing financial injury to developers.
All things said and discussed, what all of this really about is, Apple controlling their user revenue stream, and pricing out its competitors in the application stack. iTunes <=> music store iBooks <=> book store so on and so forth.
A lot of those 30% subscription cuts could be going towards development of Apple's competing applications. Apple is most certainly monopolizing its customer base against other developers in its App market. And Apple invited them in the first place and has misplaced their trust. It is a thin line that they have now crossed without much discussion (public).
[+] [-] jammur|15 years ago|reply
Richard says that their 30% would account for a tiny sliver of Apple's overall revenue, but lots of tiny slivers start to add up eventually. The problem though, is that if the cost of those slivers is to drive the developers away from the App Store, then those slivers disappear. Considering that third party apps are possibly the most important feature of the platform, it doesn't seem like a smart idea.
The 30% cut on App sales is understandable, because software generally has high margins, but it doesn't sound like the same is true for content subscriptions. Maybe it's a case of trying to keep their policy too uniform (i.e 30% on everything)?
Does anyone know where the subscription content comes from? From my understanding, the subscription content will usually come from a third party, rather than Apple's CDN, so there's no marginal cost to Apple.
[+] [-] russnewcomer|15 years ago|reply
I predict either reversals or abandonment of their platform. I still maintain that HP or RIM have a great opportunity here to announce that they are going to build app stores that are low fee for subscription apps. I think you'd definitely see a move there from numerous devs.
And I too worry that my beloved Instapaper may be going to face trouble soon as well.
[+] [-] siglesias|15 years ago|reply
If you accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for sales of apps, by logical extension you must accept that the 70-30 split is acceptable for in-app purchases, because technically one could provide a free app with an in-app purchase to make it a full app, and anything less than 30% on Apple's take would gravitate the market toward this model.
If you accept that 70-30 is fair for in-app purchases, then you must by logical extension accept that recurring in-app purchases that can be cancelled at any time would also have this split, because technically one could provide all in-app purchases at a steep discount simply as "subscriptions" that can be cancelled after the first payment.
As far as I can tell, this is Apple's reasoning and rather inescapable at that.
[+] [-] thailandstartup|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|15 years ago|reply
By this logic, flattr will never get a native iOS app. And when are Apple going to shut the Instapaper app down, when Marco decides to let his one-dollar monthly subscribers[1] receive premium benefits?
Apple really hates newspapers and magazines.
[1]: http://www.instapaper.com/subscription
[+] [-] statictype|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zakuzaa|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaiusparx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] statictype|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sofuture|15 years ago|reply
Maybe this will be the one that gets developers to realize this is not a sustainable game they are playing with Apple, by Apple's rules, in Apple's world.
[+] [-] toast76|15 years ago|reply
A lot of developers are now complaining that they're getting burned by what is a reasonably obvious profit motive from Apple. They're not offering an app store because they're good guys. They're offering an app store to make money.
They take 30% of purchases. It only makes sense to take 30% of in-app purchases and related subscription services as well. Did anyone honestly believe that apple would fall for the ebay $0.90 purchase with $90 shipping fee-dodging trick? Letting subs through just opens the door for people to ship free apps with subscription "unlocks", thus cutting out Apple.
The simple fact is that Apple owns the mountain, and if you want to mine their gold you can expect to pay their taxes.
Of course the simple solution is to just build a web app (as these guys have done). Why restrict yourself to Apple's yard and Apple's rules when you can target every device without rules, without restrictions and without a 30% tax? The sooner ever developer realizes this the better off we'll all be.
[+] [-] petercooper|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elehack|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sammcd|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alecco|15 years ago|reply
by Richard Ziade on Feb 21, 2011
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 we 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.
[+] [-] jrockway|15 years ago|reply
Apple does not care about whiney letters. They might care if there are no more apps for or users of iOS.
[+] [-] maguay|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zakuzaa|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EnderMB|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nir|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yannickmahe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redrobot5050|15 years ago|reply
Also, Apple's tools for developing are just superior. The Android SDK is an Eclipse/Netbeans Plug-in. Apple's is an 800MB-1GB version of XCode.
[+] [-] ekanes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MartinCron|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irons|15 years ago|reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-not-affected-by-apple...
[+] [-] nnutter|15 years ago|reply
Or, optionally, stop acting like you, as a middle man, provides more added value than the developers that make your platform so damn profitable.
P.S. WebOS still looks pretty damn nice.
[+] [-] damoncali|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarbazetc|15 years ago|reply
Let's say the subscription cut was 10%. Everyone would release their apps as free, and charge for everything as a "subscription" because it's less than the 30% cut for app sales or non-auto renewable in-app purchases.
Basically, there is no other percentage that Apple can use here, for very good reasons. If they lower the percentage for this, they have to lower all the other percentages.
And that's not going to happen, because 30% is pretty reasonable for what they provide. The Android Market takes 30%, and Amazon takes 70% for Kindle subscriptions.
Edit: IMHO, everyone talking about the percentage is missing the point. The problem is the policy itself. It's just too general and broadly applied for a huge amount of stuff out there. Marco nails the issues here: http://www.marco.org/3437484678
[+] [-] ajays|15 years ago|reply
Do I agree with Apple? No. But I think this is where they're coming from.
[+] [-] jerome_bent|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|15 years ago|reply
I don't know how people invest in their platforms, I'd be constantly scared that Apple would turn around and screw me over.
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joe_the_user|15 years ago|reply
Readability was trusting enough to release their code with a license which allowed Apple to put the code in their product and then freeze readability's product out of Apple's store.
And now the readability folks don't seem inclined to admit their trust was a might miss-placed.
But perhaps that's because the readability model is aiming for a kinder, gentler version of Apple's monopoly. They distributed a "product" that reworking website in a manner that steals the original site's advertising revenue. And then they "offer" to give the authors a different revenue source (along with "offering" a lack of choice concerning how their product is presented).
Edit: And problem with readability isn't in it just distributing a web-site-rewriter in itself but it doing that AND then asking revenues from content providers...
[+] [-] joshmanders|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thought_alarm|15 years ago|reply
If the App Store fails to bring these developers new business then it doesn't cost the developers anything. If the App Store does bring them new business then it's up to the developers to weigh the cost of the App Store vs. the new business it brings.
Is 30% the right price? Ultimately the market will decide that, because if there's one thing this industry doesn't lack, it's competition.