5 ms·

If I understand Readability's issue, it breaks down like this: What they want: For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of t

If I understand Readability's issue, it breaks down like this: What they want: For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of the articles viewed through that $1 sub get $0.70 What Apple requires: For a $1 subscription fee, Apple keeps $0.30, Readability then has the option of keeping $0.30 (30% of $1) or $0.21 (30% of the remainder after Apple's cut) and then the publisher/writer gets either $0.40 or $0.49, respectively. Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.

krschultz 16y ago
I think its a little different. Readability has made a contract with the media suppliers: you get 70% of every dollar from the customer. If Apple takes the other 30%, there is 0% left for Readability. If they want to make any kind of revenue for themselves in Apple's system, the only option is to give the content creators a smaller percentage and charge a higher price. It's not really a matter of if Readability deserves 30%, but if Readability deserves any money at all. Apple is basically eating their entire revenue stream.
- frossie 16y ago
  It's actually worse than that. Readability is passing money to publishers for FREE CONTENT. Its model is not a purchase or even a subscription - it is essentially a donation. I don't have to pay to see this content, I choose to. I wonder how this affects the Instapaper "back door" to Readability (which is what I use) I am also wondering where this is goingn to end. Why not ask for 30% off Evernote subscriptions too? Or every cloud accessing iPhone app? This isn't going to end well.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    It's not free content, it's ad supported content. Readability is a service that, among other things and perhaps primarily, removes ads.
    - frossie 16y ago
      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?
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
        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?
        s3graham 16y ago
        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.
        kennywinker 16y ago
        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).
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  I understand that Apple has thrown a wrench into Readability's plans. I'm trying to understand why I should believe that Readability's plans are "fair" whereas Apple's plans are not. Readability has made a contract with Apple, so I'm not clear how establishing a contract with media suppliers matters (have they? or have they taken it upon themselves to distribute a portion of their revenue due to eliminating the existing revenue model the publisher uses, without the publishers explicit consent?). Readability's contract with media suppliers is firstly contingent on Readability's contract with Apple, if Readability intends to leverage iOS app distribution. Readability cannot provide a contract to media suppliers that is in opposition to Readability's contract with Apple (again, if Readability intends to release an iOS app). Fundamentally however, Readability's value is derived from processing articles. Readability decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service to readers. Apple's value is derived from supplying an eco-system and they have decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service. Why does one of those service providers "fairly" get to receive 30% but the other does not?
  - DougBTX 16y ago
    In my opinion, the old AppStore 30% cut for apps and in-app purchase was fair, but the new subscription cut is unfair. Here's my reasoning: AppStore provides distribution and one-click payment processing. Selling access to a web app is painful because you have to ask people to enter credit card details, or sign in to a third party payment processor, lots of hassle. With the AppStore, it is just as easy to take people's money as it is to give away your app for free. So, Apple is providing a service, and it seems fair that Apple would get paid for that service. The main issue with the AppStore cut is that Apple doesn't allow direct competition to the AppStore on iDevices (I think that 30% would be smaller if users were not locked in to the AppStore) however the value added is real. With the new subscription rules, the value added by Apple is much less clear, since Readability was already taking in money without Apple's help. So, the assumption is that Apple's subscription tools won't provide a boost to sales large enough to cover Apple's cut, hence unfair. With Readability's 70%-goes-to-authors business model, they will never be able to make up the loss by selling more content. I've not tried out Readability, but the argument is probably that they fall into the first category along with the AppStore, since they make it easier to give money to creators without having to look at ads. So, they are providing value, and a 30% cut is "fair".
writetoalok 16y ago
>Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless. This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their efforts towards building this new medium, they require a 30% of cut from end users cost. - Would publishers/writers be able to publish their content in any other way on the iphone. Of course. - Would publishers/writers be better off using another way publishing their content on the iphone. Maybe. Apple provides iOS API for App writers to distribute their efforts (Apps). Apple takes a 30% (or is it 40%?) cut from the App end users cost for their efforts. So far so good, all sounds fair. Now Apple (for whatever reasons; we'll go through them soon) enforces that: - All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream. - Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons. - And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic") So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple. What about the user community and the society as a whole? What is fair for them? - It is definitely fair for the user community to have an ability to use their devices (both hard and soft parts of it) in ways that they seem fit, unless of course it harms anyone else. Although I strongly believe in a "take it as it is or leave it" argument for Apple, I also believe in a code for fair conduct (think "consumer rights") towards consumers. - It is healthy for the society as a whole to have ecosystems for software stacks (iOS), application stacks (iOS API and Apps), and content. It is also healthy for society as a whole to have companies like Apple take profit in certain ways that aid their business. However there is some rights for consumers that must be upheld by society. For instance if an iphone leaks acid causing injury to user, then surely Apple will be held accountable in a court. There is some similarity in Apple leaking because of its revenue share causing financial injury to developers. All things said and discussed, what all of this really about is, Apple controlling their user revenue stream, and pricing out its competitors in the application stack. iTunes <=> music store iBooks <=> book store so on and so forth. A lot of those 30% subscription cuts could be going towards development of Apple's competing applications. Apple is most certainly monopolizing its customer base against other developers in its App market. And Apple invited them in the first place and has misplaced their trust. It is a thin line that they have now crossed without much discussion (public).

krschultz 16y ago

I think its a little different. Readability has made a contract with the media suppliers: you get 70% of every dollar from the customer. If Apple takes the other 30%, there is 0% left for Readability. If they want to make any kind of revenue for themselves in Apple's system, the only option is to give the content creators a smaller percentage and charge a higher price. It's not really a matter of if Readability deserves 30%, but if Readability deserves any money at all. Apple is basically eating their entire revenue stream.

frossie 16y ago
It's actually worse than that. Readability is passing money to publishers for FREE CONTENT. Its model is not a purchase or even a subscription - it is essentially a donation. I don't have to pay to see this content, I choose to. I wonder how this affects the Instapaper "back door" to Readability (which is what I use) I am also wondering where this is goingn to end. Why not ask for 30% off Evernote subscriptions too? Or every cloud accessing iPhone app? This isn't going to end well.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  It's not free content, it's ad supported content. Readability is a service that, among other things and perhaps primarily, removes ads.
  - frossie 16y ago
    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?
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      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?
      - s3graham 16y ago
        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.
      - kennywinker 16y ago
        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).
OpieCunningham 16y ago
I understand that Apple has thrown a wrench into Readability's plans. I'm trying to understand why I should believe that Readability's plans are "fair" whereas Apple's plans are not. Readability has made a contract with Apple, so I'm not clear how establishing a contract with media suppliers matters (have they? or have they taken it upon themselves to distribute a portion of their revenue due to eliminating the existing revenue model the publisher uses, without the publishers explicit consent?). Readability's contract with media suppliers is firstly contingent on Readability's contract with Apple, if Readability intends to leverage iOS app distribution. Readability cannot provide a contract to media suppliers that is in opposition to Readability's contract with Apple (again, if Readability intends to release an iOS app). Fundamentally however, Readability's value is derived from processing articles. Readability decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service to readers. Apple's value is derived from supplying an eco-system and they have decided they deserve 30% of any revenue they can acquire from offering that service. Why does one of those service providers "fairly" get to receive 30% but the other does not?
- DougBTX 16y ago
  In my opinion, the old AppStore 30% cut for apps and in-app purchase was fair, but the new subscription cut is unfair. Here's my reasoning: AppStore provides distribution and one-click payment processing. Selling access to a web app is painful because you have to ask people to enter credit card details, or sign in to a third party payment processor, lots of hassle. With the AppStore, it is just as easy to take people's money as it is to give away your app for free. So, Apple is providing a service, and it seems fair that Apple would get paid for that service. The main issue with the AppStore cut is that Apple doesn't allow direct competition to the AppStore on iDevices (I think that 30% would be smaller if users were not locked in to the AppStore) however the value added is real. With the new subscription rules, the value added by Apple is much less clear, since Readability was already taking in money without Apple's help. So, the assumption is that Apple's subscription tools won't provide a boost to sales large enough to cover Apple's cut, hence unfair. With Readability's 70%-goes-to-authors business model, they will never be able to make up the loss by selling more content. I've not tried out Readability, but the argument is probably that they fall into the first category along with the AppStore, since they make it easier to give money to creators without having to look at ads. So, they are providing value, and a 30% cut is "fair".

writetoalok 16y ago

>Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless. This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their efforts towards building this new medium, they require a 30% of cut from end users cost. - Would publishers/writers be able to publish their content in any other way on the iphone. Of course. - Would publishers/writers be better off using another way publishing their content on the iphone. Maybe. Apple provides iOS API for App writers to distribute their efforts (Apps). Apple takes a 30% (or is it 40%?) cut from the App end users cost for their efforts. So far so good, all sounds fair. Now Apple (for whatever reasons; we'll go through them soon) enforces that: - All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream. - Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons. - And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic") So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple. What about the user community and the society as a whole? What is fair for them? - It is definitely fair for the user community to have an ability to use their devices (both hard and soft parts of it) in ways that they seem fit, unless of course it harms anyone else. Although I strongly believe in a "take it as it is or leave it" argument for Apple, I also believe in a code for fair conduct (think "consumer rights") towards consumers. - It is healthy for the society as a whole to have ecosystems for software stacks (iOS), application stacks (iOS API and Apps), and content. It is also healthy for society as a whole to have companies like Apple take profit in certain ways that aid their business. However there is some rights for consumers that must be upheld by society. For instance if an iphone leaks acid causing injury to user, then surely Apple will be held accountable in a court. There is some similarity in Apple leaking because of its revenue share causing financial injury to developers. All things said and discussed, what all of this really about is, Apple controlling their user revenue stream, and pricing out its competitors in the application stack. iTunes <=> music store iBooks <=> book store so on and so forth. A lot of those 30% subscription cuts could be going towards development of Apple's competing applications. Apple is most certainly monopolizing its customer base against other developers in its App market. And Apple invited them in the first place and has misplaced their trust. It is a thin line that they have now crossed without much discussion (public).