Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,046
29,811



163325-readability_resubmit.jpg


A fair amount of controversy was raised earlier this week when it was revealed that Apple had rejected an App Store submission from Readability, the popular subscription service that strips away extraneous content from web articles. The confusion continued when Apple CEO Steve Jobs reportedly emailed a developer to say that Apple's in-app subscription requirements were intended for content providers, not software-as-a-service (SaaS) applications such as Readability.

It appears, however, that the issues with Readability have been resolved, as a new Tweet from Readability announces that its application has been resubmitted to the App Store and that an "open love letter to Apple" is coming soon.
The Readability iOS app has been re-submitted. Coming soon: our open love letter to Apple.
It is unclear exactly what events have transpired to patch things up between Readability and Apple, although the tenor of the Tweet suggests that it is happy with the outcome. Consequently, it seems that Apple may have reversed its initial decision or at least required only minor modifications on the part of Readability in order for the app to be accepted.

Article Link: Apple Set to Approve 'Readability' for Inclusion in App Store?
 

Full of Win

macrumors 68030
Nov 22, 2007
2,615
1
Ask Apple
Sad that the only way to get your app approved is to make a public issue over the extreme unfairness of Apple CONsumer electronics

Does not bode well for the ecosystem, not at all.
 

fishmoose

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2008
1,851
346
Sweden
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Full of Win said:
Sad that the only way to get your app approved is to make a public issue over the extreme unfairness of Apple CONsumer electronics

Does not bode well for the ecosystem, not at all.

Yes because the other 1000 of apps per month that never get rejected don't count.
 

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,966
1,463
Washington DC
Sad that the only way to get your app approved is to make a public issue over the extreme unfairness of Apple CONsumer electronics

Does not bode well for the ecosystem, not at all.

Proof?

Seems everyone is confused by the new system. You have proof that readability was not allowed under the original rules and then the noise they made caused Apple to change the rules? (Not just clarify the rules, but actaully change them.)

Would be an interesting scoop if you had such a story.

And if you don't, well then it's kind of lame to make it sound like you do.
 

fishmoose

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2008
1,851
346
Sweden
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

The premise is simple, don't break Apple's rules and you won't get rejected. If a mistake is made (humans work at Apple) Apple tends to deal with it fairly quickly. Sounds fair to me.
 

Popeye206

macrumors 68040
Sep 6, 2007
3,148
836
NE PA USA
Sad that the only way to get your app approved is to make a public issue over the extreme unfairness of Apple CONsumer electronics

Does not bode well for the ecosystem, not at all.

First, we DON'T know the whole story... only what we read here and that was a lot of speculation. Second... even if Apple reversed their decision, that's a good thing. Show's that Apple is learning and adapting to the market.

You know, this is all new... we're watching the business model of the near future be defined like music was redefined in the early days of MP3. Just because Apple is in the lead and trying to set some standards (that others will copy for sure), does not mean they are unfair. It means they're on the cutting edge.

I'm sure all your Android buddies love it though... go to school on Apple... just like they always do. :rolleyes:
 

Krandor

macrumors 6502
Jul 15, 2010
478
80
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

The premise is simple, don't break Apple's rules and you won't get rejected. If a mistake is made (humans work at Apple) Apple tends to deal with it fairly quickly. Sounds fair to me.

Also the subscription rules are new so it will take some time to work out all the kinks and get all the approvers on the same page.
 

dwsolberg

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2003
838
822
Good! Apple is fixing its mistakes, although it would be nicer if they would be more clear to start. Now they just need to come up with something better than a 30% cut from Amazon and Netflix. I actually like that Apple stewards the App Store and prevents a lot of the crap that Android has (sorry, that feature doesn't work on your phone...), but using that as a competitive tool hurts the consumer.

I paid for Amazon books, and I paid for my iPad. Apple is offering a service by having the App Store, and they might deserve a cut, but not even close to 30%. This is exactly why people justify buying their inferior Android phones.
 

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,413
4,047
Isla Nublar
Sad that the only way to get your app approved is to make a public issue over the extreme unfairness of Apple CONsumer electronics

Does not bode well for the ecosystem, not at all.

Actually pretty much every app that went public about being rejected violated the App store guidelines. Apple was simply enforcing them.

The guidelines, while large aren't confusing. Not to mention if your app is rejected Apple tells you why and you simply correct it and resubmit it. Some devs just like attention.
 

leesmith2

macrumors member
Aug 25, 2009
72
16
This article is missing the key part of Jobs quote.

We created subscriptions for publishing apps, not SaaS apps.

Amazon is a retailer. Hulu, Rhapsody, Readability are distributors, not publishers. New York Times, WSJ, Penton, Meredith, HuffPo, AOL... now THOSE are publishers.
 

dantiston

macrumors newbie
May 18, 2010
18
0
Words

It seems to me the intent of the tweet was misread. It sounds like Readability will post an open love letter to apple to woo them into accepting them -- not because they expect to be accepted. This would make a whole lot more sense then expecting that Apple changed their policy because of the noise on the tech blogs.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
Sad that the only way to get your app approved is to make a public issue over the extreme unfairness of Apple CONsumer electronics

Does not bode well for the ecosystem, not at all.

“The only way?” :p

Out of millions of apps, a few are rejected.

Out of those, a very few are rejected unfairly.

Out of THOSE, many if not most bad decisions are reversed by Apple.

And of those that get reversed, only a TINY handful became any big stink in the tech press.

And out of that tiny handful, only an even tinier handful actually needed that big stink to make Apple revisit the decision.

(For Apple, revisiting a bad call is quite common—they really do listen and adapt, contrary to the often-repeated flames. I hope they continue to refine and clarify the issues around subscriptions.)
 

dethmaShine

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2010
1,697
0
Into the lungs of Hell
So are these guys still paying 30% to Apple OR has there been a change?

If there's still a 30% charge for them, I guess the following could have been a possibility:

- Readability knew that they were supposed to pay 30% to Apple.
- $5pm for a subscription like that is expensive in my opinion; they knew that less people would get into it.
- So all they wanted was some free publicity, so everyone knows about them; and more people try out the app; I guess it works.

So if they are still paying 30% Apple, I guess they were just looking for some free publicity.

This is not a shot at anybody; but just one of my thoughts. I hope nobody is offended.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
The guidelines, while large aren't confusing. Not to mention if your app is rejected Apple tells you why and you simply correct it and resubmit it.
No, the rules overall are not too confusing (only somewhat). What is confusing is so many of these rules are not enforced, such that it is hard to know what to expect actually. Case in point, rule 12.2 and the Skype app:
"Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected."
The Skype app uses a system other than IAP to purchase Skype Credit and thus functionality and services, yet it has co-existed with this rule for quite some time.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.