Apple Rejects 'Readability' iOS App, 'Software as a Service' Offerings Jeopardized

[bpaluzzi]

The July part is the date when they will be totally effective the rules.

And the second sentence talks about what happens if your profit margins are below 30%, something not unusual

Then yes, I believe you'll see a nice increase in sales after July.

And if you can't make more than 30% profit, then you can't play ball here. Just like you couldn't get your products into Wal-Mart if you can't afford their commission and still make money for yourself.

 

[gorjan]

It's not tax, you pay subscription if you want to consume their content through TV set. In turn you get the content on web and iOS for free. Now Apple has to force them to put a SUBSCRIBE button on BBC app and you will be able to subscribe for 100 or so punds per year, out of which Apple will take 30%.

That's crazy of Apple. What are they actually doing to deserve the £30?!? That's extortion.

 

[fishmoose]

Why people talk about things that doesn't know nothing and say such stupid things?

The number one support issue I see on Android devices is "How do I root my device?"

 

[deadkennedy]

That's crazy of Apple. What are they actually doing to deserve the £30?!? That's extortion.

Well, you have many Apple apologists here, ask them.

 

[NAG]

And don't forget the bait and switch apps like a certain recipe app that charged for a 'pro' version and then discontinued it to switch to a subscription based app. I am happy to see Apple doing something to reign in the scammers. I really think the whole point of this is that free apps should be free. I suspect this is more about getting rid of the plague of subscription apps than about getting the 30% cut.

To the developers out there, come up with a viable business model or go away. If your service is valuable enough to people to justify subscription fees, then a 30% cut for your sales channel shouldn't be a problem. If you're only surviving because you have no profit margins, then don't come crying to me, and don't expect Apple to keep subsidizing you. Maybe you can re-organize your 'business' as a non-profit. At least that would be more honest.

Lumping Readability in with those scammers is a bit unfair, though. I'm not saying that Readability wasn't a bit naive in thinking they'd be able to escape the new policy. They are offering a legitimate service (remove ads, coerce content produces to stop using their reader base as products and view them as customers). I almost wish Apple would buy them or something so we could have this functionality built-in. It also has the added benefit of giving SEO optimizing sites yet another thing to complain about (I am shocked that these sites were so smitten with Readability when it really has the same goal in mind as Apple).

 

[Oletros]

The number one support issue I see on Android devices is "How do I root my device?"

Something that has nothing to do with buying or installing applications other than the ones of Android Market.

 

[MadIvan]

I think the problem is that the App store is the only way to get the software.

And now Apple is going to block the Apps which don't pay a fee. It's like a Mafia gang asking for a weekly tip; 30% in this case.

I know the App store is great. Something that most enjoy and many benefit from. But don't get that ridiculous and let people call your system closed.

I think thats the reason most of the people refer to iOS as closed. You won't allow apps on the store; you won't allow apps any other way. Not good Apple. Not good.

Yup, it's like the mob in as much as the mob is run like a business. Two differences here though, Apple is actually serving as a sales channel, for which they deserve to be compensated, and they are operating inside the law. Apple isn't sending thugs with guns and baseball bats to developers houses. Yeah, so I guess your analogy is pretty poor.

Apple's app store is like a shopping mall. Google's app store is like a swap meet. Nobody rational would expect to be able to set up shop in a mall without paying. Why should you expect this of Apple's store? They are being very generous in allowing free apps. Now they are just closing the subscription loophole that a lot of developers have been exploiting to make money off of 'free' apps. "No big deal."

 

[Popeye206]

so content creators have another stream of revenue since this app strips their main revenue stream. as simple as that

Okay... but, if it's public content and my browser strips the advertising, isn't that like my DVR skimming over commercial?

To me the payment model and the 70% part seem arbitrary. Why not 50%? Why not 10% How do you calculate who gets what? How do you know to pay someone? Who do you send a check too?

I understand you can track what Apps and Browsers hit your site, but we're talking about millions of potential sites people could visit. How do you calculate the lost ad revenue for each site? Maybe I'm missing a key point here?

 

[kuwan]

when services like readability...

First, calling it a "service" is part of the smoke & mirrors Readability is trying to pull over your eyes. All it is is a static piece of code - you can embed it in an app (which many applications already do), or in a browser (like Safari does). The code does not use the Readability web site - which is my loose definition of what would be required to call it a "service" - all it does is parse the body of an article to remove ads, menus, sidebars & other extra stuff that is not part of the article text. Think of it as the fast forward button on a DVR or Tivo.

is it correct to assume the concent provider/publisher is no longer receiving that income? so we as readers who use these apps are taking money away from them?

Yes, and I really don't care. Does that make me the bad guy, or a jerk because I don't want to see the ads? I just don't care. I also use the fast forward button on my Tivo to skip commercials.

As for content not changing... isn't there always new content on the internet? but either way you're paying for the service not the content...

Readability is like the fast forward button on your DVR or Tivo. Should your cable company or Tivo charge an extra monthly fee to unlock your fast forward button? Would anyone stand for that?

Wouldn't we be the bad guy for using a free service that did the same thing and took away publishers income?

Are we the bad guys for skipping commercials with our Tivos? If so then so what? Call me the bad guy. I still think it's a lame money grab by Readability to charge a monthly fee for what is, in essence, a fast forward button.

 

[sciwizam]

The number one support issue I see on Android devices is "How do I root my device?"

How does that relate to the discussion at hand other than to show your ignorance of how app stores work on Android.

To download apps from 3rd party web stores or sideload apps, all you need is to check a permissions box in the settings.

 

[dgree03]

Apple can solve thise problem realy quick...

Allow sideloading of app or allow other app stores access on ios.

The content makers now have some choices when it comes to developing apps.. they can do android, palm, wp7, and BB. If they leave iOS I am sure there apps wont be hurting.

But hardware like the Ipad would be rendered almost useless without apps. I think med-large devs have the leverage here.

 

[mikethebigo]

Who are "all these" developers that Apple is losing? Stop with the "making me
embarrassed to own an iPhone" talk, we're talking about a single app on a phone, not world peace. Geesh.

This app, Rhapsody, and Sony Books have all explicitly spoken out so far. And Netflix, Spotify, Kindle, etc. will not be far behind. If this policy persists it will be very bad for the app store, which is very bad for me. I don't want to continue to invest in an ecosystem if I have to switch to Android in the future to get all the things I want on my phone.

 

[ericinboston]

Apple is a company built on greed, as far back as the overpriced hack known as the Apple II. And greed will be Apple's undoing.

I hate to sound so negative but:

a)I agree with you and

b)Apple is lined up to shoot themselves in the foot just like they did in the late 80s and early 90's when they practically went out of business. Apple wants everything 100% their way or you can pound pavement. Apple never has and likely never will play well with corporations.

I foresee Apple losing touch with reality very soon in their monopoly ways/style and will lose to other players in late 2011 and 2012 regarding subscriptions...repeating history sometime in the 2013-2015 timeframe when Apple looks itself in the mirror and says "what?! what did I do?! It's <insert a corporation here>'s fault not mine"

All the attention around subscriptions and app rejections is just fueling competitors to offer something better/more open for all while everyone (not just Apple) makes a good deal of money. I'm no guru of content subscriptions but I can tell you I would never buy an iPad content sub as a consumer right now...nor would I want to work with Apple as a content owner right now. The tablet market is extremely young and Apple is going to get hurt big time if they keep acting like dictators. The iPad is well over a year old in design and marketing planning...yet the content subscriptions are not here yet...I wonder why. Cue up Google and/or Amazon and/or WinTel tablets and/or Android to strike content deals and leave Apple dazed and confused sometime late 2011.

 

[gorjan]

Well, you have many Apple apologists here, ask them.

Well, I understand it if the dev want the comfort and ease of using in-app subscriptions so they don't have to set up their own system. But it's extrotion if Apple forces devs to use this. Apple has already made money on the sale of the app and the iOS device.

 

[iCrizzo]

I can't wait for Apple to demand that Comcast give them 30% of my monthly cable subscription fee when I install the Xfinity App on my iPhone

LOL.. someone needs to stick it to Comcast!!

 

[Popeye206]

That's crazy of Apple. What are they actually doing to deserve the £30?!? That's extortion.

No it's not. If the customer is coming from iTunes, Apple brought them the customer. That simple. That has value.

In physical product distribution, most companies allocate 25% of their budgets for advertising and customer acquisition. Not including distribution and channel costs. So again, if Apple brings them a new customer, there is value in that.

So... it's not extortion... it's business. Nothing is free as much as many here think it is.

 

[dgree03]

Yup, it's like the mob in as much as the mob is run like a business. Two differences here though, Apple is actually serving as a sales channel, for which they deserve to be compensated, and they are operating inside the law. Apple isn't sending thugs with guns and baseball bats to developers houses. Yeah, so I guess your analogy is pretty poor.

Apple's app store is like a shopping mall. Google's app store is like a swap meet. Nobody rational would expect to be able to set up shop in a mall without paying. Why should you expect this of Apple's store? They are being very generous in allowing free apps. Now they are just closing the subscription loophole that a lot of developers have been exploiting to make money off of 'free' apps. "No big deal."

Google dev still have to pay a fee, just like iOS devs. So your analogy fails, hard.

 

[kiljoy616]

This new policy is absolutely absurd. Proof of that is most evident here on MacRumors where even the most dedicated fanboys (myself included) don't support it. What is Apple thinking? It's ruining their already poor reputation among fellow companies and developers, something that they inexplicably seem not to care about.

They are thinking money, Apple has grown up, if it can be a monopoly it will be. If it can push higher rates it will, that just how the game is played in business, look at Sony and some of the crazy stuff they come up with RootKit anyone.

Its was nice when Apple was smaller and leaner but now its going to look at its stock options more than what is right or wrong. At the end of the day this is all on the CEO lap since that person is who will give the ok.

That is you Steve, please clean up Apple before it goes in a direction that makes it into another me to company.

 

[saxamoophone]

Apple can solve thise problem realy quick...

Allow sideloading of app or allow other app stores access on ios.

Winner

 

[MadIvan]

Because they can make more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and the backlash isn't that bad (so far).

It's one thing for XBOX/PS3/Nintendo to have this type of closed system..but the iOS devices are COMPUTERS. Users should be able to do whatever the heck they want with them.

I wonder if Google is going to lock down the Amazon App Store or the PlayStation App Store?

I don't fault Apple for the corporate Greed (everyone does it), but it's up to us (the consumer / developers ) to call them out for it. If enough people pull their apps, or buy into other ecosystems they will do a 180.

That's your definition. You do realize that the only reason the Xbox isn't a 'computer' is because of the licensing structure and business model that Microsoft built around it. There is nothing about the physical technology in an Xbox that makes it any less of a computer than an iPad is.

 

[deadkennedy]

Well, I understand it if the dev want the comfort and ease of using in-app subscriptions so they don't have to set up their own system. But it's extrotion if Apple forces devs to use this. Apple has already made money on the sale of the app and the iOS device.

The whole point is that they do deserve something in some cases. But not always in all cases, and always 30%. Subscription businesses and models are way more complex than that. They've been intentionally blind here due to their greed. I hope they pay the price for it.

 

[i.mac]

It's all good but the end result is that Android is getting another feature that iOS lacks. One can argue that Android offerings are already better than those of iOS platform but this new policy will just accelerate the demise of iOS.

Where have I heard this before?

Something like 'sell apple, good for not'ing...' a few years back...

 

[notabadname]

poor analogy. You don't pay the mall. you pay the store in the mall. stores in a mall pay leasing fees, but aren't required to give a cut of each sale to the owners of the mall. mall analogy = DOA

On Mall analogies: Even if there is not a percent of gross sales agreement, and I know there is in many cases, it is simple economics. A business operating in a mall is taking money from Gross sales and paying their rent for that storefront. You have your total of all operating costs (rent, employee, insurance, marketing, everything it costs to run the business) and it is subtracted from you gross sales. The leftover is your net operating profit. The cost of operating in a mall is coming from sales proceeds. Hopefully the sum of all sales exceeds the sum of all operating expenses. But when people say that money from sales in the store don't go to the mall, it is simply wrong. Just because the cost to the mall may be fixed, and not set as a percent of the retailer sales, does not change the fact that a percent of all sales in the retail store are going to the mall. So when you buy a iMac in the mall, a part of the very money you gave at the counter does go to the Mall. It may not be fixed as a percent of Apple's sales, I certainly don't know their arrangement with any Mall, but your purchase funnels to every expense, from employees in the store, to the rent in the mall. Simple economics. And Apple chooses that Mall (and its expense) because of the enormous exposure and foot-traffic their products receive as a result. Much like the exposure and traffic resellers are enjoying via the iPad. You may not agree with the analogy, many don't, but others do. So "DOA" seems a little "self-serving" for your own opinion. But I guess you can happily declare any opinion contrary to yours "DOA" if you like, but if truly DOA, we probably wouldn't have the thread, and Apple wouldn't be requiring the cut.

 

[gorjan]

No it's not. If the customer is coming from iTunes, Apple brought them the customer. That simple. That has value.

Yes, but Apple shouldn't force the dev to sell subscription through iTunes. That's what's extortion. The dev should be able to choose of she/he wants to use in-app purchases (giving Apple 30 % for the ease and peace of mind) or use their own system (which would cost and take time to develop).

 

[JoJoCal19]

The whole problem that most people are missing is that Apple wants 30% of REVENUE instead of PROFIT. Most anything that involves subscription to content is operating at far less than 30% profit margin. Apples cut of 30% revenue eats not only all of the companies profit margin, but costs the company money.

I for one will not buy an iPad and will wait until one day when there is an OSX tablet. Other than my iPhone 4, which I own solely because it functions better at as a phone and communication device than any other phone, I will not invest in iOS. I'll wait for a tablet with a real OS, an OS that I can CHOOSE where to get my apps and content.