

Gruber on Readability's App Store rejection - gabrielroth
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/21/readability

======
msbarnett
> 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.

~~~
ebiester
+1

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?

------
rlmw
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.

~~~
b0sk
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.

*pardon the cliche

------
code_duck
Wow, I'm so surprised that Gruber takes Apple's side 100%.

~~~
valjavec
Me neither, but he made a point!

"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?"

~~~
bryanlarsen
The big difference is that Readability is adding value.

------
mickdarling
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.

My Earlier Post Links: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2228804>
[http://mickdarling.posterous.com/apple-just-made-
jailbreakin...](http://mickdarling.posterous.com/apple-just-made-jailbreaking-
mainstream)

------
tghw
Let's follow the logic:

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?

~~~
OpieCunningham
What?

The user gets the content on their preferred device in their preferred format.

That wasn't difficult.

------
jawartak
> 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.

