> Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.
Pretty short-sighted analysis, overall. In a vacuum, Apple probably doesn't need Readability, or Kindle, or Netflix, or Campfire or any other specific SaaS app, video streaming app, competing bookstore, etc. But it isn't a vacuum; if you drive all of them away, there isn't a lot of interesting stuff left.
Apple seems to be betting that I'll throw away my Kindle account, my Netflix subscription, my interest in Readability, Evernote, et al, in order to stay on iOS.
But for me it seems easier to just replace my aging iPhone with an Android phone and keep using all of these other great programs, OS polish be damned.
I bought my phone because I could use Rhapsody (replaced by Mog), Pandora, and other subscription applications. I'm also the exact type of customer who doesn't blink at spending 5 dollars at an application. Why would Apple drive off its most lucrative customers for a relatively small piece of the pie?
"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?"
Yes and no. For one, Readability isn't a monopoly. Second, Readability isn't prohibiting (so far as I'm aware) authors from selling via other channels at other prices. While Apple and Readability are both offering a service to their various audiences, Apple goes further by demanding that developers on iOS use their IAP API and that they match prices offered via cheaper methods.
> these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple’s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions...
They're surprised by the language Apple used, not Apple's insistence. But I guess being accurate would make for a less sensational blog post.
>And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does.
It doesn't serve up unique content, and it doesn't serve up its own content (eg NY Times, USA Today). In that sense, it doesn't serve up content. But I guess not saying that would result in a less-sensational blog post.
> Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.
They don't need Readability. But they do need TinyGrab, Readability, et al. But I guess not making broad generalizations wouldn't make for a sensational blog post.
Content developers own the content, but without Readability, who made an awesome app, they wouldn't get their content out to nearly as many people, so Readability gets a cut, but without Apple, who owns the distribution channel, they wouldn't get their app out to nearly as many people, so Apple gets a cut, but without the users, who own the devices, they wouldn't have an audience at all.
It doesn't really help that Apple have a huge online digital music distribution business, and are trying to build an online digital book distribution business. Once you take this into account its hard to believe that they're really doing anything other than using their platform control in order to further their business interests elsewhere.
Gruber is entirely correct that Readability wished they had platform control, but I think he's missed the point that not every organisation abuses its platform control in order to attempt to remove competition. Its still right to call Apple out when they do this, especially when for 25 years their marketing has consistently tried to present them as a freedom loving, counter-cultural organisation.
Yes, Gruber's position is hardly surprising, though. He writes that blog specifically to Apple fans who want to be told everday that the company they are rooting for is cooler and better. He's playing to his audience. His sponsors are software, services which run on Apple platform.
I'll be curious if he's really drinking the kool-aid* or feels that Apple is fault but has to defend them due to the nature of his job.
I posted earlier on this and submitted it here a few days ago. Apple is taking myopia into the realm of an artform.
As the app developers find out they can't get to there customers in the "approved" way through the AppStore, they can either give up all or most of their profit to Apple, give up on iOS devices, or start selling in the Cydia AppStore for jailbroken devices and go back to providing their users products they want to use and making money. More "mainstream" apps in Cydia legitimizes it, and more apps and users will follow.
16 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 40.2 ms ] threadPretty short-sighted analysis, overall. In a vacuum, Apple probably doesn't need Readability, or Kindle, or Netflix, or Campfire or any other specific SaaS app, video streaming app, competing bookstore, etc. But it isn't a vacuum; if you drive all of them away, there isn't a lot of interesting stuff left.
Apple seems to be betting that I'll throw away my Kindle account, my Netflix subscription, my interest in Readability, Evernote, et al, in order to stay on iOS.
But for me it seems easier to just replace my aging iPhone with an Android phone and keep using all of these other great programs, OS polish be damned.
I bought my phone because I could use Rhapsody (replaced by Mog), Pandora, and other subscription applications. I'm also the exact type of customer who doesn't blink at spending 5 dollars at an application. Why would Apple drive off its most lucrative customers for a relatively small piece of the pie?
"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?"
They're surprised by the language Apple used, not Apple's insistence. But I guess being accurate would make for a less sensational blog post.
>And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does.
It doesn't serve up unique content, and it doesn't serve up its own content (eg NY Times, USA Today). In that sense, it doesn't serve up content. But I guess not saying that would result in a less-sensational blog post.
> Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.
They don't need Readability. But they do need TinyGrab, Readability, et al. But I guess not making broad generalizations wouldn't make for a sensational blog post.
Content developers own the content, but without Readability, who made an awesome app, they wouldn't get their content out to nearly as many people, so Readability gets a cut, but without Apple, who owns the distribution channel, they wouldn't get their app out to nearly as many people, so Apple gets a cut, but without the users, who own the devices, they wouldn't have an audience at all.
So where's the users' cut?
The user gets the content on their preferred device in their preferred format.
That wasn't difficult.
Gruber is entirely correct that Readability wished they had platform control, but I think he's missed the point that not every organisation abuses its platform control in order to attempt to remove competition. Its still right to call Apple out when they do this, especially when for 25 years their marketing has consistently tried to present them as a freedom loving, counter-cultural organisation.
I'll be curious if he's really drinking the kool-aid* or feels that Apple is fault but has to defend them due to the nature of his job.
*pardon the cliche
As the app developers find out they can't get to there customers in the "approved" way through the AppStore, they can either give up all or most of their profit to Apple, give up on iOS devices, or start selling in the Cydia AppStore for jailbroken devices and go back to providing their users products they want to use and making money. More "mainstream" apps in Cydia legitimizes it, and more apps and users will follow.
My Earlier Post Links: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228804 http://mickdarling.posterous.com/apple-just-made-jailbreakin...