

A Rare Disagreement - iamclovin
http://www.marco.org/3627726252

======
raganwald
I've already commented on this subject:

<https://raganwald.posterous.com/the-freedom-to-eat-pizza>

The tl;dr is where I say "Cry me a fucking river." When will people learn? A
closed, proprietary system is a closed, proprietary system.

Marco is arguing that the Massah is being too rough on the sharecroppers, he's
beating them inconsistently and in ways they couldn't reasonably predict. Let
me see if I understand: These poor indentured servants built a business around
what they perceived as a loophole in Apple's iOS terms. Their plan was to make
millions of dollars off their "free" iOS apps while Apple got nothing. Then
Apple shook them down for 30%.

Well I couldn't have predicted exactly _how_ Apple would react, but I don't
imagine anyone ought to be surprised that they did _something_. They're the
landlord. That's what landlords do: They extract rents from the sharecroppers,
and if rents aren't enough they kick the sharecroppers out and take over the
land for themselves.

You can bitch and whine, you can figure out how to make money while Apple
tolerates your presence, or you can stop building on proprietary platforms.
Arguing that Apple is illogical or ought to be smarter or is shooting itself
in the foot... A waste of electrons. Does Apple look like the kind of company
that takes our advice on how to run a business? If it listened to people like
us, it would be selling Windows PCs right now.

iOS and Kindles and Java and everything else controlled by a profit-seeking
corporation are all the same things to developers. Of course Apple markets
your work to end users and pretends you're happy with your cut of the two
billion dollars in app store revenue. That's like a dating site marketing you
to other users.

The bottom line is this: If you are developing for a proprietary system, you
aren't in the business, _you are the business_. Trying to argue that Apple's
proprietary system ought to be less closed or more free or have more pixie
dust than Amazon's is wishful thinking. If you develop for _any_ of these
proprietary platforms, you are a sharecropper. You work at the landlord's
pleasure to improve the land he owns.

Period.

~~~
apike
_Arguing that Apple is illogical or ought to be smarter or is shooting itself
in the foot... A waste of electrons._

In my experience, employees at Apple care very much what users and developers
are saying. Many of them read Marco and Gruber. Quite a few even read the
Apple support forums. Although they can't publicly respond to them, it helps
inform their thinking about future decisions.

Remember when Apple reversed its decision on 3rd-party developer tools and
languages? Rational feedback and criticism can work.

~~~
oconnore
This isn't really a refutation of what he said. If enough of the proverbial
sharecroppers complain, it MAY be worth it for Apple to improve conditions.
You are still at their mercy, however.

Also, it's ridiculous that people are voting raganwald's comment down. What's
next, covering your ears and yelling "la la la la"?

~~~
shawndrost
"What he said" might vary by reader, since reganwald's comment rambled
somewhat. But, the gp did refute this line in reganwald's "bottom line"
summary:

 _Trying to argue that Apple's proprietary system ought to be less closed or
more free or have more pixie dust than Amazon's is wishful thinking._

It's not wishful thinking, it's a tactic that has proven effective in the
past. I voted reganwald down because his line of argument seems to have been
refuted.

~~~
oconnore
Arguing with the faceless Apple executives via the internet is wishful
thinking, whether you succeed or not.

Also, you don't downvote comments because you consider them wrong or refuted,
you downvote because a comment was not beneficial to the discussion. It's
people like you that slowly chip away at what HN is intended to be.

~~~
true_religion
The argument isn't with faceless executives, or Apple at all---its with people
like you and I, the developers at large.

If we are convinced that what is Apple is doing is wrong, we might be turned
away from their ecosystem--thus denying them of profit---or better still we
may stand in solidarity if the current complainers try to take more drastic
measures such as shifting to another platform all together.

------
jonknee
> So why aren’t those who are criticizing Apple for taking a 30 percent cut of
> subscription revenue criticizing Amazon? My theory: everyone understands,
> intuitively, that the Kindle is a closed proprietary platform; but many
> people view iOS (incorrectly) as a platform like the Mac or Windows, where
> third parties are free to do what they want.

This seems like laziness or intentional dishonesty on Gruber's part. There are
huge differences between the two. The biggest being Amazon doesn't have a
Kindle app ecosystem so there isn't the [huge] problem of requiring a
subscription option (which is the real issue--charge 90% if you want, it just
becomes unfair when you require me to use it). Amazon also funds the delivery
of the content to the subscriber, which considering it's often over 3G can be
considerable.

In the current state of things if you are a publisher with an iOS app, Apple
changed the rules to either require you to cough up 30% of your business or
stop being a publisher. Also, you get the joy of delivering all content,
that's not included in your 30% vig.

~~~
technomancy
> This seems like laziness or intentional dishonesty on Gruber's part.

What do you expect from the freelance Apple PR department?

~~~
jonknee
He's too consistent to still be freelance.

------
fpgeek
I have zero sympathy for developers in all of this. Apple has made it clear
_from day 1_ that you are only permitted on iOS at their pleasure and that
they can change the rules at any time. For those of you who were slow, the way
Apple banned Adobe Flash CS5 apps right before CS5 was going to be released
should have been a wake up call. Maybe you bet that your corner of the world
wouldn't be interesting to Apple or maybe you didn't realize you could get
caught in the crossfire of an unrelated Apple objective. Tough. This is what
you signed up for. If you don't like it maybe you shouldn't have been
developing iOS apps in the first place.

The people I do have sympathy for are users. They are not going to understand
why some of their favorite applications and services on iOS stop being updated
/ eventually disappear altogether. Among other things, Apple sold devices
using the availability of apps. I didn't see any fine print saying "your
favorite apps might get rejected in the future" in those ads. And I can't
think of a similar platform that might have given users those expectations. So
users have a genuine beef. Developers are just not being honest with
themselves about the consequences of their own choices.

~~~
A1kmm
People (users and developers) have a right not to be adversely affected by
unfair competition.

Apple has a monopoly on selling iOS devices because of Copyright law - and
that is how Copyright law is supposed to work. Apple develops iOS, and so
aren't breaking any laws by making their App Store the default. Apple operates
their App Store; selling access to the App Store under reasonable terms is
also perfectly legitimate.

However, a particular sequence of actions can be illegal even though each of
the individual actions that makes it up are legal. It is legal to ask someone
nicely to stand in front of you (obviously they don't have to), and it is
legal to move a knife and twist it in front of you; that doesn't mean it is
legal to do the first then the second!

IANAL, but Apple's conduct around the 30% charge, while made up of
individually legal actions, appears to be a straightforward breach of US anti-
trust law. 15USCs14 (part of the Clayton Act) says that it is illegal to sell
something on an agreement that someone won't purchase something else. So
making developers agree that they can buy App Store services unless they don't
buy payment processing for use within their app from anyone except Apple is
not allowed in the United States, if the effect "may be to substantially
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce".

Even if it wasn't illegal, it would still be wrong to try to lessen
competition for their advantage, and it would be entirely appropriate for
developers to criticise Apple heavily for it.

------
tomkarlo
There's an other point in this Apple/Amazon comparison that's not being
raised: If you own a book, and you don't want to stick with Kindle's format,
it's trivial to offer that same core product on other platforms like the Nook
or Apple's store.

Whereas if you've developed an iOS app, transitioning that to another platform
is often going to be a large amount of work where you're basically starting
over from the spec and not bringing over any code.

Which means you're going to generally hear a lot more squawking from iOS
software vendors than book vendors, because their migration costs are
prohibitive relative to those of book publishers.

~~~
jad
_Whereas if you've developed an iOS app, transitioning that to another
platform is often going to be a large amount of work where you're basically
starting over from the spec and not bringing over any code._

It's much harder to find a substitute for the App Store ecosystem than it is
to replace the code. The proverbial rock and hard place.

------
technomancy
> So why aren’t those who are criticizing Apple for taking a 30 percent cut of
> subscription revenue criticizing Amazon?

Who says people aren't criticizing Amazon? Their DRM-infested marketplace is
very customer-hostile. The difference is that you can use the hardware without
using their marketplace.

~~~
ugh
Isn’t that equally true for iOS devices?

What can you do with a Kindle except buying books from Amazon? As far as I
know, you can read books without DRM and you can surf the web. That’s equally
true for all iOS devices. What else does a Kindle allow you to do that you
cannot do on an iOS device sans apps?

~~~
trotsky
It seems to me that the difference is what you purchased the device for. Based
on advertisements, I'd say the usual goal of an iOS purchase is to run apps
and the usual goal of a Kindle purchase is to read books. You can read books
on the kindle that amazon doesn't approve of, but you can't (reasonably) run
apps on an iOS device that Apple doesn't approve of.

------
ROFISH
I think part of the reason why there is such a "user revolt" (opposed to a
tech or developer only revolt) is the prospect of functionality of _current
apps_ such as Amazon Kindle or Netflix or Hulu will go away, and that Apple
hasn't provided any assurance that they'll stay.

Right now I'm in "wait and see" mode where I don't want to invest in the iPad
2 unless I know for sure that Hulu will still be able to function.

~~~
joebananas
Where is this "user revolt" you speak of?

------
netcan
Building a business on iOS similar to building a business on a single client.
It's an issue, but it is done.

------
danilocampos
I feel as though Marco is remiss in not disclosing that he has ties to a
company that has a real dog in this hunt (Readability):

<http://www.marco.org/3044068415>

Context:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/02/21/readability>

It doesn't invalidate his points at all but as an advisor to a company deeply
affected by this policy, the honest thing to do would be to make that agenda
clear. If he wants the trust of his readers, it's worth letting them decide
"Is he saying this because he believes it or because it benefits his
associates to convince people this is true? Both?"

~~~
kmfrk
_First they came for the fart apps ..._

The problem with Apple's recent fumblings is that it leaves the iOS platform
wide open to slippery slope scenarios. While Readability was flat-out denied
upon app submission, others were yanked post-approval, which creates a
Damoclean sword in the minds of every current and prospective app developer.

You don't need to play the degrees of separation game; Marco's Instapaper
subscriptions can be rendered null and void at the whims of Apple's
incongruous and incomprehensible "policy".

\---

As a user, it's also unsettling, because I honestly don't know where this
leaves current and future apps. I recently read that Apple allowed a tabloid's
app that contains a daily photo of a nude woman. What happened to Apple's no-
pornography policy? Remember Steve's e-mail that replied that people looking
for such filth could try out Android?

This is the App Store brouhaha all over again, except it now affects approved
apps as well, meaning that we as users and developers will live in perpetual
fear of a trap door opening beneath the most cherished apps. Not for sake of
consistency or "policy", but the behest of whatever incomprehensible whims the
guys at Infinite Loop have.

~~~
danilocampos
That's a little fuzzier, though. Steve said he's not trying to get a chunk of
SaaS. So is Instapaper a content subscription or SaaS? Seems closer to the
latter to me, but definitely concede the point that this uncertainty is bad
for the platform.

At the same time: Paying out $2 billion to devs and having 200 million credit
card accounts means never having to say you're sorry.

~~~
jonknee
> Steve said he's not trying to get a chunk of SaaS.

Yet. He can change his mind at any time. If SaaS looks as promising as
publishing does, who's to say he won't?

------
Tichy
Can't you buy ebooks through some other service and then display them on your
kindle?

~~~
jonknee
Displaying books on your Kindle has nothing to do with Apple's iOS terms.
Apple could disappear entirely and you'd be able to continue buying ebooks and
reading them on your Kindle. The discussion is over iOS and under the latest
statements from Apple it appears the iPad's Kindle app cannot exist in its
current state.

------
S_A_P
I have to say I side with marco on this one. I really think that apple needs
to focus on the ecosystem and let the content creators create their own
markets.

------
Ataraxy
Well, that's the down side to relying on an app store rather then helping
shape the mobile web.

While I understand the appeal for wanting in on the app store for a variety of
reasons, this is going to keep happening over and over again.

For content distributors, app stores are a short sighted vision.

------
rimantas
So, which apps were banned and business ruined because of the new rules? Or is
this just some wild guessing?

~~~
stonemetal
He is one of these guys <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2245692>

~~~
joebananas
Which was submitted _after_ the rule change.

------
asnyder
Personally, I don't feel it's the freedom, or anything of that nature. A 30%
cut of anything is just too much. 5%, 10%, ok, maybe even 15%, but 30% to be
listed in an app directory, come on. The payment processing is at most 2-3%.
Demanding 30% of your revenue is outrageous and borders on mafia-like.
Terrible.

Unfortunately, all the above applies to Android, and others. Apple gets the
blame IMO because they set the precedent. There's no reason they couldn't have
made their initial cut 10%. 10% is still high, but reasonable.

Furthermore, it wouldn't be so outrageous if they provided some value or
tangible services for it, but they don't. They don't give advice, or
contribute in any tangible way, it's essentially an outrageous tax without any
real services in return.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
You mean aside from bandwidth, a marketplace of literally hundreds of millions
of ready buyers for your chosen platform, all with credit cards conveniently
stored for ease of purchasing your product?

Sounds like Python's Life of Brian.

~~~
asnyder
We're talking 30% here. You think 30% is a just price for that service? Lets
not forget that you still have to pay taxes on the remaining income. If there
was a startup here on HN whose business model was 30% of your revenues for
hosting of your app + credit card information storage (usually done via 3rd
party PCI compliant service) it wouldn't be taken very seriously.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but 30% of your revenue for that service is absurd.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
Man, I still remember (and everyone who was even cursorily interested in
mobile development should) when carriers not only controlled the conduit but
the device and the marketplace. You had to either apply for the privilege of
being in their "market" or had some form of marketing agreement with them
(iow, you had to have a big stick to play that game). Even then, carriers
pocketed up to 75% of sales. It was disgusting.

30% is like a godsend in comparison. And, with competition heating up with
Android and Amazon, app stores will either compete on payouts or cartelize and
price-fix.

------
njharman
Amazon has pulled books, and for not good reasons IIRC.

~~~
jonknee
They have deleted books, but I only remember for good reasons. The famous 1984
deletion was because the publisher didn't actually have copyright, which seems
like as good as of a reason as a company can have.

~~~
wladimir
In my opinion, there cannot be a good reason for pulling books that you
bought, ever.

Imagine that happening to dead-tree books, someone shows up on your doorstep
to reclaim the book 'because it violates copyright'. You'd tell them to bugger
off, and it's no different in this case.

Once you bought a book, digital or analog, it should stay in your possession
for as long as you want.

~~~
allwein
Um, the police do this all the time with stolen property.

~~~
wladimir
Yes. But never with books that you buy in a respectable bookstore, and pay
for. Which was my point.

Also, Amazon is not the police. If they take something you rightfully bought,
they are the thieves.

------
lotusleaf1987
"Developers are being shown that their apps — and their months or years of
hard work, and in many cases, their entire businesses — can be yanked by
Apple’s whim at any time for reasons that they couldn’t have anticipated or
avoided."

Exactly, it's the classic bait and switch. Now after spending the time, money,
and effort involved in developing the apps developers are forced to either cut
their losses and abandon ship, or continue giving into Apple's demands.

~~~
ojbyrne
Not just developers, but users as well. 90% of my ipad usage is with 2 apps -
Netflix and Kindle, and now Apple is threatening to mess with them. I am not
amused.

~~~
kenjackson
Apple won't mess with Netflix. No way. Any phone/tablet without Netflix is a
non-starter. Apple knows this. Netflix gets an exemption.

Kindle is a tougher call. I think Apple may try to pull them and see if they
can do it or not.

~~~
jonknee
I don't disagree, but that's also how you get sued/investigated for anti-
competitive behavior.

~~~
andyman1080
Seriously? Did I miss the part where iOS obtained 95% mobile OS market share?

~~~
Natsu
> Did I miss the part where iOS obtained 95% mobile OS market share?

That depends on whether or not you believe what Steve said in the keynote
about having over 90% of the tablet market.

~~~
mhw
Did I miss the part where first-mover advantage became anti-competitive
behaviour?

~~~
Natsu
I'm not making any claims about who is and isn't an illegal monopoly, that's a
legal matter and IANAL.

I was addressing the claim about market share and only that.

~~~
mhw
Neither was I really. I was making a point about the speed with which people
are jumping to claims of anti-competitive behaviour before the competition
have really got out of the starting blocks, and in some cases before they've
even got their running spikes on. I think it would be a very bad move to
regulate a market that's only really existed for 3 years and hasn't yet
reached a point where anyone can be said to have an established monopoly. Must
remember not to try being pithy on HN in future.

