Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The content is free to the end user. In the event it has ads (certainly not all I donate to do), my access through readability is no different from using AdBlock on my browser or even, in my case, completely failing to notice ads.

The point is that unlike, say, Netflix, I am not paying anybody to serve me licensed content. I am donating (extremely selectively in my case) to specific publishers. It's hard for me to see how Apple needs to be involved here.

I should add that I never used Readability and used Instapaper extremely rarely prior to this scheme. My only interest here is that this is the first content micro-donation scheme that I have seen that allows me to pay for content I like. I don't see where Apple fits into this, morally.

Let me ask this question: if there was a free Red Cross app that allowed you to make donations, should Apple get 30% of that?




The content is not free to the end user and it's not given away for free by the publisher. The end user doesn't pay cash for it, but they do pay by becoming a target of numerous ads and a demographic metric for selling additional ads.

Let me answer your question with a question: Does Visa take a percentage of donations made to the Red Cross using a Visa credit card?


People would be a lot less upset if apple was charging a small processing fee, instead of a 30% cut.

If Readability wants make an iPhone app, and keep giving $7 for very $3 they make, they'll have to make their in-app purchase price $14.99. Also they can't charge less anywhere else.

IAP price = regular price / 0.7 then rounded up to the nearest integer (less a penny).


I guess that's supposed to be rhetorical, but I recall that Amex and Visa both waived fees for donations to Haiti after the earthquake.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: