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

[rwilliams]

If this goes through as planned and developers start pulling their apps, I wonder if those of us who already own those apps will lose their functionality? Will the developers prevent the apps from accessing their servers and we lose all content? That worries me more than anything else regarding this situation.

 

[marksman]

There is also the possibility that the new Apple terms might be breaking the law.

You don't know and nor do I. Let's wait and see before passing judgement.

Since Apple's App Store is a retail store and the laws governing retail stores are pretty clear, at least in the US, there is little to no chance this is in any violation of any laws here. Retailers are allowed to make money and set the terms and conditions for products they buy. Both the seller and the retailer have total freedom to accept the othersides terms or not do business with them.

Apple is completely out of control here.

Apple's new policy is the equivalent of Microsoft charging Apple a 30% fee for every song that Apple sells through iTunes for Windows, simply because Apple's iTunes runs on Microsoft's platform.

If only that were the same thing on any level whatsoever.

1. readability is a service.
2. readability removes ads but pays content publishers.
3. 30% is a whole lot for content that apple isn't really helping at all with. they do not host content. They did 'make it possible' but developers made it popular.

Clearly Readability is the greedy one here. They made an app with almost no functionality and want to take 30% cut themselves from people reading contents provided by other publishers while they piggyback on Apple's hardware and distribution system without paying a dime. There is no reason a simple app like this needs a subscription model to be viable unless they want to spawn into some proxy publisher on top of the content provider's effort. Unlike Apple they don't even host any contents or serve to advertise. It makes no difference to the consumer, and it makes little difference to the content providers to be distributed directly by Apple's system.

If this could be allowed then every tiny app and game on the store will appear to be free while they redirect you to a hundred different websites for "subscription" payment to screw you later. This is really the same situation as the in-app purchase 30% cut that is necessary so developers will state upfront how much they want the consumers to pay instead of creating all these loopholes.

All this outcry are simply from publishers who have been leeching on content providers for years but now find that they no longer have any reasons to exist because all contents can be easily sent to every consumer's hands by apple's system. And somehow people join in even though the publishers have been screwing them forever.

I agree 100%. Readability seems to be the real greedy one here. Once again it is the extra greedy middleman who is getting upset here. Sorry no sympathy for them... Yes Apple's system will end a lot of relationships with middlemen, because they are no longer required. So they either take less money or they go out of business. I don't have a problem with it.

And the rules are what people have a problem with.

Developers should be able to write their programs without Apple's approval.
I (the user) should be able to use any program without Apple's approval.

I already paid Apple for their "services" years ago when I bought the iOS device.

You bought these devices knowing these are the rules. So I don't see what your complaint is? The IOS environment has always been closed. So if you don't like it you have nobody else to blame.

10s of millions of people actually like the control and closed environment Apple provides and consider it something of great value. They are providing a service both for the end user, and for the publisher/developer. Both sides will have more than enough people willing to pay for that value to make it worthwhile for everyone.

So you and readability will not be there.. So long!

 

[mikethebigo]

This ****** is almost making me embarrassed to own an iPhone. C'mon Apple, get it together. You can't afford to lose all these developers right now as Android continues to exponentially expand.

 

[fishmoose]

And again, nothing wrong with creating an alternative service. IAP is great for people who don't have a payment infrastructure but want to offer DLC/subscriptions in their iOS apps. Heck, It would be a nice addition for indies to the Mac too.

And again, if you only trust Apple with your CC/paypal info, that's your perogative. Take it up with the developers/content providers/publishers so they do start using a payment processor that you do trust. Having payment processors force themselves unto these people is not the right course of action.

I fail to see how they are forced, yes they have to use iTunes but iTunes isn't the only option. Why shouldn't Apple make this awesome thing for consumers? Why are people on the side of publishers instead of themselves? These new rules are great for consumers yet consumers get's fed into the publishers hype and bitching.

 

[mdatwood]

You also won't find a free TV or Fridge in Walmart. Just pointing that out.

And what part of my iPhone was free? Oh wait, Apple got $500+ from me for my iPhone. And what part of listing an app on the app store was free? Oh wait, someone had to pay a developer fee for that too. Basically Apples wants to tax any content that shows up on an IOS device regardless if it goes through Apple or not.

Only for the large companies people know about but most of the apps in the App Store are from small devs and a lot of them are on the map (ie. Rovio) because of Apple.

No one is saying they shouldn't be able to use IAP. The problem is being forced to use it and being forced to maintain the same price as outside the app.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

They can still offer subscription or payment outside iTunes, they simply need to make it more compelling to subscribe or pay outside iTunes instead of within iTunes. Do that and nobody will pay via iTunes.

problem is they can not do that. Apple banned them from doing it.

It is the force threw iTunes issues on why US and EU are looking at them and why I believe they will get nailed for Anti Trust.

Apple is doing its same mistakes all over again and I fully expect some big name developers to leave over this in droves. In terms of PR they can, will and should point the finger right back at Apple for saying that the model Apple is requiring them to use is unsuitable.
Take for example Amazon. 30% of the book sale goes to Amazon rest to the publisher. Apple now wants the 30% and Amazon gets less than nothing. It has to pay to host and send the file. Apple does nothing but process the payment. On top of that Amazon is block from getting very valuable user data that is can use for internal advertisements of goods. I have found Amazon suggested items more than once directed me to something I would of liked. All that based on my purchases history compared to others. Apple is not blocking that information as well and I can promise you Apple is going to abuse what it gathers to sell iAds at even more money because low and behold they are the only ones who hold all the info on iOS users.

5% should be the absolute MAX apple should be charging. Given the fact credit cards charge between 1-5% of the money. 5% being the high end and given the fact that Apple is huge it has to of gotten down the rates to 2.5% max and that max would be from AMEX and Discover. Master/Visa are in the 1% range if not lower. Apple is still getting a 2.5% of free money for doing next to no work plus it is getting the very valuable user data. Data that really they should pass on to the one who subscribe.

 

[dethmaShine]

This ****** is almost making me embarrassed to own an iPhone. C'mon Apple, get it together. You can't afford to lose all these developers right now as Android continues to exponentially expand.

That's how you call your parents as well I guess?

 

[neilw]

Having previously argued against the rules, I'll offer a defense of them.

In theory these rules are structured to eliminate loopholes. That is, they come as close as possible to preventing an iOS developer from making money off an app without giving Apple a cut. The only exception here is that you're still allowed to offer content outside of IAP, but as we know the rules ensure that the very vast majority of iOS users would be most likely to use the IAP to acquire content, because it would be the same price and much more convenient.

In the absence of such rules, there would be nothing to stop every developer from distributing its apps for free, and then referring to an external content acquisition system where they don't have to pay Apple. Obviously Apple doesn't want this. Nor does it even seem fair to Apple, when you take it to this logical (?) conclusion.

Given that, I still think they need to figure out a better way to do this without repeatedly antagonizing the developer community, and stirring up a storm of negative press.

 

[KnightWRX]

Since Apple's App Store is a retail store and the laws governing retail stores are pretty clear, at least in the US, there is little to no chance this is in any violation of any laws here. Retailers are allowed to make money and set the terms and conditions for products they buy. Both the seller and the retailer have total freedom to accept the othersides terms or not do business with them.

This is not about the App Store or retail stores, this is about IAP, a payment processor and Apple's tying of this service as non-optional to gain entry into their App Store.

Tying is not always legal in face of anti-trust legislation. Let's see what the US and EU comes up with before we declare all of this A-OK and not in violation of any laws or the opposite. No one can come outright and declare the legality or lack thereof of this move.

We can only discuss the ethical and moral nature of it for now.

I fail to see how they are forced, yes they have to use iTunes

They have to use the IAP but they are not forced. Kind of contradictory statement here. You fail to see it, yet you completely see it. Is it just that you are blinded by your own agenda of getting all your payments through Apple that prevents you from seeing the obvious ?

IAP is being forced unto publishers/content providers/developers that might not want to use it. That much is not really in question.

but iTunes isn't the only option.

It is for iOS apps.

Why shouldn't Apple make this awesome thing for consumers? Why are people on the side of publishers instead of themselves? These new rules are great for consumers yet consumers get's fed into the publishers hype and bitching.

Apple is not doing this for consumers. They are doing this for their bottom line. Introducing IAP to enable more developers/content providers/publishers to give consumers access to DLC/subscriptions was for the consumer. Forcing IAP unto unwilling parties isn't.

And while these new rules might be great on the surface for consumers, it won't be so great when content providers/publishers/developers leave or get rejected out of the App Store for failure to follow these rules. "There used to be an app for that" might become the new Internet meme.

 

[hexx]

I really don't understand what's wrong with this. So Apple should change their business model to suit their needs? Shouldn't it be the other way around that if you wan to be part of a business you play by the rules of the business you'd like to be part of?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

If you don't like the rules, shove off or comply.

 

[fishmoose]

problem is they can not do that. Apple banned them from doing it.

It is the force threw iTunes issues on why US and EU are looking at them and why I believe they will get nailed for Anti Trust.

Apple is doing its same mistakes all over again and I fully expect some big name developers to leave over this in droves. In terms of PR they can, will and should point the finger right back at Apple for saying that the model Apple is requiring them to use is unsuitable.
Take for example Amazon. 30% of the book sale goes to Amazon rest to the publisher. Apple now wants the 30% and Amazon gets less than nothing. It has to pay to host and send the file. Apple does nothing but process the payment. On top of that Amazon is block from getting very valuable user data that is can use for internal advertisements of goods. I have found Amazon suggested items more than once directed me to something I would of liked. All that based on my purchases history compared to others. Apple is not blocking that information as well and I can promise you Apple is going to abuse what it gathers to sell iAds at even more money because low and behold they are the only ones who hold all the info on iOS users.

5% should be the absolute MAX apple should be charging. Given the fact credit cards charge between 1-5% of the money. 5% being the high end and given the fact that Apple is huge it has to of gotten down the rates to 2.5% max and that max would be from AMEX and Discover. Master/Visa are in the 1% range if not lower. Apple is still getting a 2.5% of free money for doing next to no work plus it is getting the very valuable user data. Data that really they should pass on to the one who subscribe.

They said you can't offer a better deal in terms of money outside the iTunes Store but there's more ways than offering a cheaper alternative that's more compelling than iTunes.

 

[satyrica]

Really?

This ****** is almost making me embarrassed to own an iPhone. C'mon Apple, get it together. You can't afford to lose all these developers right now as Android continues to exponentially expand.

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.

 

[deadkennedy]

If only that were the same thing on any level whatsoever.

And why it is not? All MS has to do is FORCE Apple to use their PayPal account for any sale done on Windows. Then they will route 70% to Apple and keep 30%.

 

[QuarterSwede]

And what part of my iPhone was free? Oh wait, Apple got $500+ from me for my iPhone. And what part of listing an app on the app store was free? Oh wait, someone had to pay a developer fee for that too. Basically Apples wants to tax any content that shows up on an IOS device regardless if it goes through Apple or not.

What does that have to do with what I responded to? I was pointing out why the argument was weak. Walmart doesn't give away their products like a lot of devs do in the app store. It's an awful analogy.

No one is saying they shouldn't be able to use IAP. The problem is being forced to use it and being forced to maintain the same price as outside the app.

I'm in agreement but a lot of people here are making pretty awful arguments. I've been in retail for 11+ years and can say there is nothing new here. You want to sell in Walmart? They pretty much dictate the price at which you will sell to them and you can bet that price will be far lower than anyone else can afford to sell at. Apple takes it one step further and spells it out in public. That's the only difference.

 

[NAG]

And why Amazon has to give anything to Apple. Tehy're promoting their own books, they're hosting they're own books, they're processing the payment and they delivering the books.

If I buy a iBook while at a B&N store Apple has to pay anything to B&N?

Funny, I don't recall saying Amazon owed Apple anything. Maybe you should read what I wrote again.

Don't be under any illusions that Amazon would not be doing the same exact thing to Apple. Amazon had a much higher split for Kindle before Apple showed up. If someone does the same thing Apple is doing but with a more favorable split Apple fall in line.

I'm not one of those greed is good people but pretending that the other companies aren't doing the same exact thing is ridiculous. Part of the reason we are hearing so much about Apple instead of Google is that Apple is trying to upend the consumer as product, advertiser as customer status-quo in publishing (bias) while Google is embracing it. It is ironic that Apple has unfortunately hit someone with the same goals as them (Readability is threatening advertisers just like Apple).

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

And who is going to buy a subscription via a website when they can just do it in the app? Apple damned well knows this.

Ah, the power of competition.... for a 10 to 20% savings I might... while a 50 cent savings on one app might not mean much but multiply that by 10 or 10 apps then it adds up...

Add to that there are developers of an app like Instamatic that I might prefer to do web based purchases from since their 60 cent take from Apple means a lot.... sort of like the folks on the web that will shop only on price on Amazon or others for the stuff my shop sales.. I am thankful for those that want to support their local stores....

 

[Full of Win]

Many of these free apps give access to services that have existed outside of the App Store before the App Store even existed. It doesn't seem right somehow that Apple is demanding a cut of these subscriptions just because their service can be accessed by their hardware/software.

Spotify for example has to pay a certain amount of money to the record companies. If Apple's taking away 30% of that, they need to recuperate that loss. They're not allowed to charge more in the app store so this means increasing the price for all users. We lose. And that's why we as consumers have the right to be complaining about this situation. It affects more than just the App Store.

Who ever said Apple CONsumer Electronics was fair? I guess they expect the providers to raise prices and/or reduce functionality to give them more money.

Makes one sick to think that some here slop this up as a 'good thing'

 

[hexx]

I really don't understand what's wrong with this. So Apple should change their business model to suit their needs? Shouldn't it be the other way around that if you wan to be part of a business you play by the rules of the business you'd like to be part of?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

If you don't like the rules, shove off or comply.

I'd be with these guys on this matter if 100% of subscription fees goes to content owners (to compensate for the missing revenues from ads). but they take 30% of it. so simply just build your business model around current conditions, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[fishmoose]

Who ever said Apple CONsumer Electronics was fair? I guess they expect the providers to raise prices and/or reduce functionality to give them more money.

Makes one sick to think that some here slop this up as a 'good thing'

What would you like Apple to be if not a consumer company? Making tools for the industry? Your whole Apple CONsumer Electronics parade makes you look silly and uneducated.

 

[saxamoophone]

You bought these devices knowing these are the rules. So I don't see what your complaint is? The IOS environment has always been closed. So if you don't like it you have nobody else to blame.

LOL what planet do you live on?

Apple just CHANGED the rules & are enforcing the ones they didn't before.

I (and 10s of millions of other people) decided to purchase an iPhone4 because they had great apps like Netflix, Hulu & Pandora. So now it's MY fault because apple changed the rules AFTER I bought the device???????

10s of millions of people actually like the control and closed environment Apple provides and consider it something of great value.

I like the ease of installing through the App Store. I'll give you that.

They are providing a service both for the end user, and for the publisher/developer. Both sides will have more than enough people willing to pay for that value to make it worthwhile for everyone.

Except for those publishers/developers who can only turn a profit it they "cut out" the middleman (Apple).

So you and readability will not be there.. So long!

And Netflix...And Amazon..And Hulu...And Pandora...And 10s of millions of others who will then switch to another OS in a few years.

Have fun with that .

 

[marksman]

How about this....

Apple "unlocks" the Iphone. Do with it as you please. Download other AppStores from Amazon, Google if you want. Go to a website, any website, and download a native iOS app if you want.

This removes Apple as a "Partner"

Of course the official AppStore will be the first stop for most users, so they would WANT to use it......but what's wrong with having a choice?

I already paid for the damn iPhone....why is it still "locked down?"

It has always been "locked down." Since the day the original iPhone came out. Nobody ever said it would be anything but locked down. Why would you think otherwise.

Like I said, this is actually something of value to a lot of consumers. That you don't agree with it does not matter. A lot of consumers like the IOS environment because Apple does keep such a tight leash on it.

LOL. What "Valuable" service? Companies only have to go through the AppStore because Apple LOCKED your device down to give the consumer only ONE choice: the Apple App Store.

Ask the developers of Angry Birds how valuable Apple's services have been to them.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ah, the power of competition.... for a 10 to 20% savings I might... while a 50 cent savings on one app might not mean much but multiply that by 10 or 10 apps then it adds up...

You can't get savings. Apple has specifically introduced language preventing these kind of incentives. They have really made it non-optional for developers to use IAP and have made sure users would almost always go with that option by stopping developers from promoting the alternatives.

 

[Atheistpaladin]

And why Amazon has to give anything to Apple. Tehy're promoting their own books, they're hosting they're own books, they're processing the payment and they delivering the books.

If I buy a iBook while at a B&N store Apple has to pay anything to B&N?

Amazon shouldn't, but then Amazon is the problem here. They could just go sell their Kindle and let Apple sell their iPad and iBook. iBook is not on Kindle store and Amazon is already given a separate platform to profit on while offering essentially the same service of channeling books to the readers.

Many people already pointed out profits from the app purchase do little to Apple's bottom line, so I don't see how they could simultaneously argue this is down to greed. In the end Apple has little incentives to let other business sit in the middle and feed from the ecosystem.

Not only does Apple's subscription cut at the worst make little difference to the consumers, probably both the consumers and the content originators lose out when there are more layers of middlemen profiting from the sale in the middle, and I don't know why people are clamoring for a return to that. The 30% cut is great for actual developers, just not middleman who used to live on that cut themselves.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

They said you can't offer a better deal in terms of money outside the iTunes Store but there's more ways than offering a cheaper alternative that's more compelling than iTunes.

Yet kind of hard and add in the fact that Apple is VERY untrustworthy and more than likely would ban unless it offers it in both. Apple is good at screwing over its partners at a drop of the hate. Readability is just the latest.

Also goes back to for example Kindle. How is Amazon to make any money on sells that go threw Apple. 30% straight revenue is more than Amazon makes off the sale. Amazon only gets 30% and Amazon has to pay for hosting, submitting of the books. Apple does what processes the payment and Apple gets more money.

 

[DrPhilmancool]

Lets see, App Store is a store.

Lets see, App Store is a store. Most stores have to pay for their infrastructure and therefore do not buy things and then turn around and sell them at the price the paid for it. Why should the App Store be any different. I see a mentality out there that says the internet provides a free service once I have access to the web. I think that one should have to pay in some form for the service they get, whether it is a newspaper or other service. I am just amazed that I can get what I get on the web for free. Buck up boys and accept the fact that you have to and should pay for what you get.