4 ms·

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 oth

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".

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".