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

[NAG]

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.

Your DVR or Tivo doesn't then pay the producer of the show you just watched sans-ads. Readability is a service. It is like the opposite of an ad company. Instead of the readers being the product, the readers are now the customer. That is a huge deal if you care about presentation. Just look at the difference between Android and iOS devices. If you don't care, have fun on Android. (really)

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.

Doesn't make you bad. It makes you short sited in your cheapness, though. If you like something you pay for it. Either you pay for it by selling yourself with ads or you pay for it with cash upfront. By not paying for something there is no incentive for it to continue to be produced.

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?

I pay Apple in iTunes for TV shows without ads. Many people pay Netflix for TV shows without ads. This isn't the fast forward button. This is a service to pay for content rather than view ads and then get the content. The fast forward button is more like scrolling down 100 pixels at macrumors.com so I don't have to see the ads. And no, I don't think people would appreciate scrolling being removed either.

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.

I think it is lame too. Lame that the publishing industry needs to have it's rear saved by third parties (Readability or Apple, take your pick, they're both trying to drag the publishing industry into the new century).

 

[PhoneI]

I love my Apple products (and in no way am I threatening to punish myself by switching to Android over this), but I cant see how Apple has a legal right to tell companies like Netflix to hand over 30% or they can no longer offer their program in the app store. Its not like Netflix has another avenue to get their software on iOS devices. Maybe get rid of the 30%, and just force apps that require a subscription to not be given away for free in the app store.

 

[i.mac]

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

This is an apple forum, what d'ya expect?

Any way, from the tone of your post, there may be many more that hate apple in this forum than otherwise...

Apple is making it easy for any one that does not like them to get the heck out. May be you and yours should do the same? This way we would not have to hear from the likes of you around this apple forum?

 

[jp102235]

On Mall analogies:

A friend of mine moved his clothing store from the mall because they demanded 10% of proceeds (I can't remember if it was gross or profit)
just saying
-not all malls are the same and this may or may not apply to all localities-
j

 

[hexx]

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?

well, you should really ask them

 

[saxamoophone]

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.

Agreed. And I guess my points also applys to any closed system like the xbox/ps3.

The main problem I'm having with Apple here is the fact that a lot of us "bought into the ecosystem" with 2-year contracts because of their great app selection. If those great apps (amazon, netflix, pandora) suddenly go away, well, I have a $600 lemon.

I didn't buy Netflix because of Apple. I bought Apple because of Netflix. Maybe 30% of the iPhone cost should go to Netflix (kidding kidding..)

 

[hexx]

Ok, care to explain how they will make British Government pay them 30% of subscriptions for BBC that the British citizens pay? Or will they ban BBC app? Or will they make an exception in this case?

nah, not gonna happen, tv license isn't for bbc iplayer. tv license has got nothing to do with this

 

[deadkennedy]

nah, not gonna happen, tv license isn't for bbc iplayer. tv license has got nothing to do with this

Well, BBC then has to offer a big Subscribe Through iTunes button, no? They are selling their subscriptions outside iOS. Otherwise why would Readibility have to do it?

 

[nonameowns]

android sucks

yay apple fanboyism

 

[MadIvan]

Another reason for the regulatory agencies to step in and clear this up now.

Yes they really should. They should step in to stop Google from using their search monopoly to leverage their way into other markets. Why is Android licensing free exactly? Is that a fair market price or is that dumping?

While those regulators are at it they should take a look at MS and Sony operating their game console businesses at a loss to try and dominate that market. Maybe they should investigate whether the defacto monopolies of only having one choice of cable provider determined by where you live is really a good idea. Oh, and what about the media consolidation problem. And globalization, and global warming, and nuclear proliferation, and election fraud, and the housing market, and ...

Seriously, Apple asking for a 30% commision on sales they generate doesn't seem to rise to the level of something that 'regulators' need to be concerned with. As far as the stipulation that prices from other sales channels not be lower, this is also not unusual. Apple is saying that they can bring in a lot of sales. In exchange they want a 30% commision and a level playing field. That's all this is.

 

[fishmoose]

Richard Ziade of Readability, in an “Open Letter to Apple” regarding their app’s rejectiong:

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.

I can see how many people, including content providers like Readability, wish that Apple had not instituted these new rules. But, given these rules, how can anyone be surprised by this rejection? 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.

Daring Fireball

 

[MadIvan]

Didn't we compensate Apple when we bought the iPad, iPhone, iPod?

Should Apple get 30% off of MAC OS X software too?

Only if they are operating as the sales channel. Don't you think Apple takes a cut when they sell OS X software in the Apple store?

 

[0092762]

Here's what will happen:

Netflix, etc will introduce different levels of service for iOS consumers. You want streaming to every device except iOS? That's $7.99/month just like it is now. Do you want iOS as well? Then it's $10.99/month. The people with $7.99/month service will not be able to stream to Apple devices but they'll be able to stream to every other device, and only the $10.99/month service is offered through in-app purchase, so there is no breaking Apple's guidelines, since the $7.99 service will not work on iOS devices and has nothing to do with Apple.

We'll see how many idiots will still remain willing to pay 30% extra to stream the exact same content to their iDevices compared to every other platform out there and then let the market take care of the rest. Sales of AppleTV would tank so bad that it would never recover.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Daring Fireball

Damn ironic indeed.

 

[Oletros]

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.

I didn't know Readability forced anyone to use their Application as is forcing Apple with IAP system.

 

[hexx]

Well, BBC then has to offer a big Subscribe Through iTunes button, no? They are selling their subscriptions outside iOS. Otherwise why would Readibility have to do it?

what subscription? tv license is a fee for receiving tv signal, from that are funded nr of channels that's why you've got so many documentaries on bbc and so on. this isn't 'subscription' but a license fee

 

[Atheistpaladin]

Ok, care to explain how they will make British Government pay them 30% of subscriptions for BBC that the British citizens pay? Or will they ban BBC app? Or will they make an exception in this case?

It is not even a valid point. The BBC news apps are either free or require a front payment now regardless of whether you are a British subscriber. If BBC decides to use the subscription model for the iOS app in the future they could either require a log in or they could advertise for their purported 100-pound subscription in their app to send people to their website while providing an in-app purchase option at the same time. Since the in-app purchase goes through Apple Apple takes 30%. They could maybe appeal to people and say please click the other link so I get more of your money. It makes no difference to the consumer's wallet. There is no change to any pre-existing subscription whether it is Netflix Inc. or the British crown we are talking about

 

[QuarterSwede]

what subscription? tv license is a fee for receiving tv signal, from that are funded nr of channels that's why you've got so many documentaries on bbc and so on. this isn't 'subscription' but a license fee

Sounds like a subscription to me. Calling it a fee doesn't change what it is.

 

[NAG]

I didn't know Readability forced anyone to use their Application as is forcing Apple with IAP system.

They force publishers to opt-in to their system and not ads if their readers use Readability. And that is pretty much the entire point of the system. Apple is doing the same exact thing. You can't really like one and hate the other.

 

[H. Flower]

Apple is REALLY shooting themselves in the foot here; Everyone can see it.

 

[kuwan]

Readability is a service. It is like the opposite of an ad company. Instead of the readers being the product, the readers are now the customer. That is a huge deal if you care about presentation. Just look at the difference between Android and iOS devices. If you don't care, have fun on Android. (really)

No, Readability is a button, just like the fast forward button. Ever tried Reeder on the iPad or the Mac? Check out the Readability button. Used the "Reader" button in Safari? Again a button. These just use static code that Readability released to provide a simple feature. Neither of these features phone home to the Readability web site to get content from somewhere. They're just a simple fast forward button - one that can be added to any other app that wants to implement the same feature. That is not a service.

My guess is that Readability saw that their button was very popular and wanted to figure out a way to "monetize" it and thus their lame subscription model was born. If people want to feel warm and fuzzy inside by subscribing to their "service" then please go right ahead. That still doesn't make such a "service" any less lame.

Doesn't make you bad. It makes you short sited in your cheapness, though. If you like something you pay for it. Either you pay for it by selling yourself with ads or you pay for it with cash upfront. By not paying for something there is no incentive for it to continue to be produced.

Blah blah blah. I'm probably "short sited" [sic] too when I read a website's RSS feed?

 

[deadkennedy]

You should be reported for repeating this so many times. And it is not even a valid point. The BBC news apps are either free or require a front payment now regardless or whether you are a British subscriber. If BBC decides to use the subscription model for the iOS web in the future they could either require a log in or they could advertise for their purported 100-pound subscription in their app to send people to their website while at providing an in-app purchase option at the same time. Since the in-app purchase goes through Apple Apple takes 30%. There is no change to any pre-existing subscription whether it is Netflix Inc. or the royal crown we are talking about

I'm paying to BBC outside iOS. Yet, they let me use the free reader on iOS. Will they get a free ride and continue to offer a free app without the option of subscribing for the same money as outside iOS?

 

[NAG]

Apple is REALLY shooting themselves in the foot here; Everyone can see it.

Just like Amazon shooting themselves in the foot charging up to 70% with the Kindle right up until Apple released iBooks. Damn you evil Apple!

Simply put, the market will decide what the going rate will be in this instance because there is healthy competition.

 

[MisterK]

Somehow almost everyone is right.

Apple IS being greedy, devs SHOULD go elsewhere, and Apple shouldn't be forced to do anything by the government.

Apple is doing fine by the numbers. They're in the no.1 spot (as far as profits go), but they're certainly not playing like it. They have everything to lose at this point. Their biggest money makers (the iOS devices) have a crazy amount of competition coming out and, starting with the tablets, it seems like their competitors have finally figured out a little of the Apple magic. The Playbook looks like a good device, Web OS looks pretty good, and I think that Honeycomb is a decent contender. They should be doing everything with their massive profits to try and keep this spot and keep all the devs happy (within reason).

30% for app purchases is fine. They've been doing it and have a solid app store. Maybe even lower that a little to celebrate their position and bolster their dev community. Maybe if they lowered their subscription rates to 5-10%?

All of this is to say that I don't agree with the way Apple is going about this. I think they have more to lose and more competition than they are seeming to realize. What I feel even more, though, is that the government has nothing to do with this. Apple has every right to shoot themselves in the foot. There are options for developers to develop for other platforms and they should absolutely use that right. People have a right to complain and leave, but building a product/service is not a communal affair. We don't all get a say. They sell something and it's up to us if we want to buy it or not.

 

[*LTD*]

Two possibilities:

1) Apple has gone crazy

2) Apple knows exactly what they're doing and have already perceived the intended outcome long-term.

I think #2 fits pretty well in line with their performance in the market over the past decade.

Apple is usually right, folks. Let the numbers speak next quarter and thereafter.