You'd be wise not to argue with LTD - if Apple ran it's new MacBooks on children's tears he'd spin it positively.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rejects 'Readability' iOS App, 'Software as a Service' Offerings Jeopardized
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You'd be wise not to argue with LTD - if Apple ran it's new MacBooks on children's tears he'd spin it positively.
I wouldn't worry too much. Remember the last time "Apple was smarter than us" with their developer terms ? Yes, I'm talking about the whole "Apps must be written in C, Obj-C, C++ or Javascript as interpreted by Safari's engine" tidbit. A few posters heres were claiming this was for the best, as any other programming language resulted in garbage. Of course, these weren't developers, they had no clue that garbage is not made with a language, but made by programmers. Garbage can be written in Obj-C as much as the next language.
Remember then the problems faced by Unity, MonoTouch and other framework providers that enabled many developers to make great iPhone apps ? Remember the outrage ?
It's all the same as this time. And you know what, I bet the conclusion will also be the same : Apple knows it needs the developers to maintain the ecosystem. Apple will make the right move in the end and will change their terms to a more friendly agreement and none of the posters you see in this thread claiming "Apple knows best, is smarter and is right in this" will come to those threads to apologize to the people they insulted here.
Readability needs to put their app on Cydia. The jailbreaking community is showing Apple that people are not the sheep that blindly follow Steve Jobs' dictates on what the user experience should be. If rejected developers would place their products on Cydia, then Apple would see that developers also have a choice. Competition is good for the people. Apple is doing everything it can to make sure that competition does not exist. This benefits only Apple.
I was an Apple user with the Apple IIe and then Macintosh. But Apple couldn't keep up. Windows was a superior platform. I, like most others switched to PCs. Steve Jobs returned to Apple and now Apple has superior products. I made the switch back to Apple. But if Apple keeps driving developers away, the tide could turn again. If you can only get good apps on Android, then I'll turn in my iPhone and make the switch. I don't want that to happen (being an Apple shareholder).
I was an Apple user with the Apple IIe and then Macintosh. But Apple couldn't keep up. Windows was a superior platform. I, like most others switched to PCs. Steve Jobs returned to Apple and now Apple has superior products. I made the switch back to Apple. But if Apple keeps driving developers away, the tide could turn again. If you can only get good apps on Android, then I'll turn in my iPhone and make the switch. I don't want that to happen (being an Apple shareholder).
And not making anyone any money. Yes, we're seeing it.
Hot Apple devices are bought because they're hot Apple devices, not just for the platform, though by now that's as good a reason as any.
Throw a great Apple device out there with Apple design and a spiffy UI, and consumers will want one. It's hard to get around that sort of sex appeal.
Whereas I agree with you, about the spirit of Cydia, the one disadvantage jailbreaking has is being out of date, since we wait for a release, then an exploit, then a tested implementation and release of that exploit. It's a huge hurdle for making anything monetizeable jailbreak-side.
So let me get this straight, you are so disturbed by Apple's perceived monopolistic and unfair business practices that you are considering purchasing a computer running a Microsoft OS. Wow, the irony.
This policy simply isn't going to work. It could be applied to magazines but things like Readability, Netflix, hulu will just kill them.
WE can break it down into two groups. Enterprises like magazines that expect 70% revenue after distribution and Enterprises that get 30% after distribution.
If you are a 30% business, this simply just wont work. Basically if you are a content reseller, not the actually producer, this policy just simply doesn't work.
I think apple will retool it so that it only applies to 70% business. Some magazines have already signed up for it because that is their usual revenues anyway.
Customer demographics are another issue.
WE can break it down into two groups. Enterprises like magazines that expect 70% revenue after distribution and Enterprises that get 30% after distribution.
If you are a 30% business, this simply just wont work. Basically if you are a content reseller, not the actually producer, this policy just simply doesn't work.
I think apple will retool it so that it only applies to 70% business. Some magazines have already signed up for it because that is their usual revenues anyway.
Customer demographics are another issue.
I've read through the thread and did post earlier, which is why I didn't bother to express my specific opinion and instead went straight for the summary of "it sucks."
I understand what people are saying about this not being a bad thing. Saying it gets rid of the middlemen and lets content providers deal directly with Apple, etc. And I'll tell you, if everything works out fine, well, that's just super. But really, no one can fully guarantee that this will have good consequences.
I see the alternatives available in the world. Microsoft is going to explode with Nokia, Android has surpassed iOS in marketshare, and WebOS is, well... trying too. I know that the whole "open" thing with Android is a thinly veiled way for Google to just get the most users for the best data mining, but it still seems much more acceptable to me in this current situation than the closed Apple system.
The thing is, Apple (and other tech firms) learned from the computer revolution that you want to lock people into your ecosystem to keep users. This is what Microsoft did with PCs. Think the non-standard display ratio is just a coincidence? Or that Apple tried to block 3rd party app layers and require that everyone write only in Obj C with their tools? Of course, all mobile ecosystems are now guilty of this, you can't get a program for one and expect it to work on another.
Now that's all fine and good, I understand that, but it turns into a huge pain in the ass for me once I've heavily invested in one platform over the other. I see public opinion turning more negative against Apple every day. Their policies are ridiculous sometimes, their design decisions have led to serious hardware issues that they refuse to acknowledge or correct, and the whole "big brother" thing is more true than ever before. Also, public opinion is generally pretty fickle and whenever one thing becomes too popular, people turn against it.
So, with the threats from Readability, Rhapsody, and Sony, you have to start thinking. You have to start thinking about all the other, more important app developers that are keeping their mouths shut for now but are thinking the exact same thing. If major apps that I care about and use every day are pulled from the app store, that makes the ecosystem no longer good for me, and when I have to switch, I have to rebuy all my programs again. So, looking in the long term, I am concerned because I start to wonder when I should pull the plug on investing in Apple's iOS.
This is so remarkably reminiscent of Apple v. Microsoft it's not even funny. Apple innovated first (/stole from Xerox first), and Microsoft copied with an admittedly inferior product that they just managed to throw on more devices. Microsoft took over. At the end of the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley," there's a great quote where SJ says to BG "our stuff is still better," and BG just replies, "it doesn't matter!"
Every time Apple makes a decision that could be harmful to their ecosystem, whether it be out of greed (this one), some kind of personal vendetta (flash), or any of the other things they do, it makes it seem more and more that the more open and less controlled platform will win in the consumer's eye. Which, again, makes me VERY hesitant to continue to invest in iOS.
So there you go. Less of a detailed assessment of the business of this situation, and more a generalized statement about the direction of Apple and iOS. I think the competition is strong as ****, and Apple can't afford to make stupid, egotistical decisions that would drive users, developers, or any companies away.
No, no one wants to leave, but they may not have a choice.
I could be wrong/misunderstanding it and this may only apply to self publishing, but Amazon cannot stay on iOS with the Kindle app.
The way I understand it to work is the publishers set the prices for there books on the Kindle. Amazon takes 30% and the publisher gets 70%. That's how it works on the iBook store too. Here is Amazon's problem. They cannot set the price, and they cannot get more than 30%. They cannot charge more for the book than the publisher wants, nor can they take from the publisher more than 30%. So for Amazon to stay on the App store, they have to give 100% of their margin, 30% of the price, to Apple if someone wants to buy a book on the Kindle app. I would be willing to bet, a lot of other content providers (Pandora, Netflix, etc..) work the same.
Here is what I think. I don't think Apple cares if Pandora, Netflix, Amazon and others leave. They are all direct competitors with Apple. Apple has services to replace all of them. Maybe not exactly the same, but if your looking at it from entertainment dollars stand point, they all compete.
"Readability" is just a casualty of Apple capitalizing on their dominant market position. Apple wrongly in my opinion, thinks we are loyal to Apple and not to Amazon, et al.
As will I and many others.
Even those who are very pleased with Apple now will be sour over such a move ... so much so that I doubt Apple would do it ... that much greed would (I hope) cause them to loose too many loyal customers.
So where is everybody going? To Microsoft and Google? Truly two companies that have consumers best interests in mind.
They don't have consumers best interest at heart, but if you're the underdog, your'e willing to make concessions. The biggest thing though, Google nor Microsoft are content providers. I take that back Google is not a content provider.
I fortunately have my own best interests in mind, and if those involve leaving iOS for an ecosystem with more options, I'll do it.
So developers make more bread off the (typical) Android user?
Good, i'm glad that Apple's getting some worthy competition.
I switched from the moto droid to an iphone... my biggest qualm with android was the lack of quality apps. So I strongly believe apps make the device just as much as its hardware. If google gets their act together...i believe their main problem with apps is fragmentation... and apps start disappearing from ios i might consider switching back. maybe not for a phone as I prefer apple's hardware and media consumption like netflix and amazon isn't my priority on a phone, but if i am ever in the market for a tablet i will definitely consider other options as those kind of apps (netflix, amazon) would make or break my experience.
Developers the main cause of this
If developers would stop the "race to the bottom" with pricing and actually price their apps above free then they would not have to try to charge things this way. Put the price in the app rather than on the content.
In the case of subscriptions (or any content), which this is, would you expect to go to a store, say Sears, and have people selling things inside of it without giving Sears a cut? How is it that selling apps in a virtual store is somehow magically different?
The only real problem here is that the maker of the app doesn't own the content. Trying to make a business off of selling other peoples content is going to be problematic (see the App store for an example.
If developers would stop the "race to the bottom" with pricing and actually price their apps above free then they would not have to try to charge things this way. Put the price in the app rather than on the content.
In the case of subscriptions (or any content), which this is, would you expect to go to a store, say Sears, and have people selling things inside of it without giving Sears a cut? How is it that selling apps in a virtual store is somehow magically different?
The only real problem here is that the maker of the app doesn't own the content. Trying to make a business off of selling other peoples content is going to be problematic (see the App store for an example
.
Comcast does LOL.
Since this doesn't harm the consumer but helps them, I don't see the issue. You are dreaming if you think this is a lock in the US. Nothing will happen with regulators and this in the US. it is not in violation of any business practice statute applicable in the US.
If you think this violates any part of Anti-Trust, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Per person. And it is unlikely that those who are already signed up will all jump ship and start paying via iTunes. So for possibly dozens or hundreds of cases, they will make a little more
Last edited:
Imagine if Wal-Mart sold you a really nice house for $700 that had these magical connections for all the appliances and items in your house where you could easily just press a button to install or replace any appliance or electronic device in your home.
I know more than one person who while aware of Netflix would have never subscribed to it until it was available on the iPhone. The only reason they have a subscription is because of the iPhone. Netflix finds value in that, and I am sure they will figure out how to capitalize on it. In Netflix's case the percentage of subscriptions they will get through the iPhone app versus their normal methods (especially considering how much advertising they do), will be small enough that it is unlikely they leave the IOS platform at all. Maybe over time it will be integrated in a price increase, but in the last several years Netflix's prices have gone up close to 100% anyways, so I am not sure it would even be noticed by anyone.
The point being Netflix will likely continue on the IOS platform because it will make them money. They will have money happy subscribers who they signed up themselves who appreciate the free IOS access, and they will have some subscribers who sign up who they would have never had at all if not for Apple.
Good businesses will make these decisions on business and numbers, not on wild and crazy emotions like a lot of the people here are doing.
Actual sale clauses are not uncommon in retail leases, especially in mall stores.
In these cases the actual lease payment is increased based on sales levels reached or not reached.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice post.
Not quite sure what to say... perhaps hang in there and we'll see how it plays out. I don't think the current war for the mobile marketplace can be (fairly) compared to mac vs. pc battlefront of the 80's. [and i do think that Apple has learned from that experience. perhaps they are acting a little like microsoft did... but windows is still on top of the desktop world, isn't it?]
There's a game of chicken under way right now, and someone will be the first to blink... eventually. The question seems to be: do apps draw users to iOS? (and thus Apple should coddle developers because they help Apple sell more iPads) —or— does the iPad sell itself? (and thus developers should bend to Apple's demands, because they benefit more by virtue of Apple's well-established, highly-devoted and ever-growing user base).
--
Post#1 links to Readability's blog. The comments there are worth reading. On the one hand is a group who basically chant "Apple sux, go Android", and on the other hand the pro-Apple faction point out the hypocrisy of what Readability is doing. They don't create content, they leech and redistribute it... and charge (the same 30%) for that "service".
As one commenter there notes...
$5 a month for something that is offered free on a regular PC?
Are they out of their minds?
Who is the maker of this? The same guys that did Hulu + ?
I happily paid for Instapaper, this is another thing entirely.
I'm guessing Apple rejected the app on that point alone.
Are they out of their minds?
Who is the maker of this? The same guys that did Hulu + ?
I happily paid for Instapaper, this is another thing entirely.
I'm guessing Apple rejected the app on that point alone.