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.
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.
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"?
"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.
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.
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.
It doesn't refute the argument about controlled platforms, which I think most people are very familiar with the costs and benefits of.
It does, however, refute the much more insidious argument that criticizing the company that controls your platform is not worthwhile. It is worthwhile, and in fact vital to the health of the platform.
>Remember when Apple reversed its decision on 3rd-party developer tools and languages?
This is essentially comparing apples and oranges, though. That decision was (presumably) based on maximizing application performance for users - but plenty of non-obj-C applications can perform quickly enough, so they went back and allowed them. And more applications means more sales means more money for Apple.
It's equivalent to sharecroppers first preventing use of externally-developed tools, then discovering that they could make more money if they allowed them. I don't see a comparable situation in Apple pulling 30% from subscriptions.
I do think that 30% is a bit high, as they're recurring sources of revenue and people tend to decide "$1/month? sure. It's cheaper than that $10 app." and then keep it for two years rather than switch to the $10 and waste a buck. People are pretty predictable in this manner - just look at WoW.
I'm sure it was rational feedback and criticism that changed Apple's mind about tools and languages. Adobe's complaint to the FTC (and the subsequent probe) had nothing to do with it, right?
The hole I see in your argument is that I have never seen developing free apps on the App Store as some sort of loophole.
Apple has supported the existence of free apps. On paid apps, they get their 30% cut. On free apps, they get a token $99/year fee and all the profits from their hardware sales.
The above arrangement is both profitable and sustainable for Apple. And Apple's interests are in keeping their end users and developers happy in a virtuous cycle.
I just don't agree that developers should be called foolish unless they adopt the utmost cynical view of things.
What kind of "free" apps are you talking about? I'm talking about a "free" app where I download it for free, then I click a link in my "free" app that takes me to Amazon's web store where I pay with my credit card to buy stuff.
Is that the kind of "free" app you're talking about? Or are you talking about something else? Because I don't think Apple is taking 30% of the other kind of free apps, the ones that don't involve me paying for things with my credit card.
I admit I was talking about the latter. I went with the tl;dr, didn't read your blog post, and made the assumption that you were talking about all free apps, not just the apps with paid subscription content being served through them.
That still leaves a lot of app developers who aren't Amazon or a large publishing house. Could be a pure SaaS company (whatever that means) that later came out with a native app. Or an app that falls in the gray area of charging a subscription for functionality but yet still handles "content," such as Readability or Instapaper.
Were all these developers expected to assume that they would become targets? I imagine this is where we still disagree. But do let me know if you were only talking about Amazon and other large content publishers.
Your opinion isn't the one that counts. Apple's is. A loophole is whatever Apple says it is.
Yesterday, an ebook reader tied to your store wasn't a loophole, today it is. Today, SaaS may not be a loophole, but who knows about tomorrow? Today non-Apple ads aren't a loophole, but some have speculated that iAds may be required in the future. And so on.
I don't substantially disagree with you, but I would be very displeased if folks took to replicating your tone on HN. Can we change the dial back to "Robust but civil disagreement", please?
It's not a soundbite, it's quoting Tim Bray. If you don't like it, go ahead and call it a strategic partnership, or a mutually beneficial symbiosis, or whatever else floats your boat. Meanwhile, Apple is yanking the rug out from under people.
Given that I'm using this term in the middle of a debate where the subject being debated is Apple's draconian behaviour towards iOS developers, I think that if you want a different analogy, the onus is on you to find one that is a better fit, not on me to defend it.
That the sharecropping analogy can be applied so well at all is fairly disturbing. Even considering that they have the legal right to do that, it doesn't make them any less annoying. And as a platform vendor, it's a bad idea to tick off developers.
It won't kill them, but it will have a negative effect, especially as people have more and more choices of platforms. The landlord will be better off if he treats his tenants well.
While I won't argue that Apple has the right to change the terms for future buyers of the products, I am upset because it changes the terms for the current owners of the products. I bought my iPhone under a set of assumptions, and they are being changed. Remember, the customer is the one who is handing over money, which for Apple is mostly the people actually buying the iOS devices.
While Apple naturally might like to get money everywhere it can, it should also be obvious that the most important thing is to get people to keep buying their devices. Without services such as Spotify available, I have many friends here in Sweden in all age brackets and from non-technological back-grounds who would not buy an iOS device. In the long term, it might very well be in Apples interest to actually let a good deal of sharecroppers exist.
"It’s incorrect to expect iOS to be as “open” to developers and their businesses as Mac or Windows"... Unless there are fundamental limitations, why shouldn't it be as open as Mac OS X? I should be able to download apps directly and purchase them through a curated app store. I should be able to download apps through somebody else's app store. If people value the benefits of a curated app store over the looser conventional OS model, they'll vote with their dollars and only then will developers follow. But I don't buy the notion that iOS should be less free because of arbitrary market conditions and rent-seeking Quasi-monopolies, or that that's just the way it is, and we should just grin and bear it.
Do you have some kind of axe to grind? You write a lot of interesting comments/posts but this comes off as something more than a little hostile. Especially considering Marco didn't write anything remotely inflammatory.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
You'd be hard-pressed to call the Kindle a general-purpose computing device; its hardware limitations make it more or less useless for anything but reading. Apple's limitations on what you can do with your devices are artificial and arbitrary.
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.
In a sense, policies that affect current apps are somewhat preferable. If new policies kill existing apps altogether Apple and consumers will know the consequences of the policy. This means the policy may change to avoid them or motivate competitors to differentiate with policies that allow these apps to exist.
Killing unborn applications is more speculative. Who knows which apps didn't get built for what reason?
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?"
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.
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.
Anytime a journalist, reporter or blogger has a possible conflict of interest regarding the topic they are covering, it should absolutely be disclosed each and every time as a matter of transparency.
Expecting every reader of this post to know who Marco is, who he consults for and which of his previous posts references his employment situation is a bit much.
Also, your self-aggrandizing condescension is not appreciated here.
Anytime a journalist, reporter or blogger has a possible conflict of interest regarding the topic they are covering, it should absolutely be disclosed each and every time as a matter of transparency.
No. A traditional journalist has a conflict of interest when their personal investment or other relationship conflicts with their duty of care to their employer the newspaper or magazine or whatever. That's the conflict: Between their interest and their employer's interest.
If any of these people are self-employed or representing their own personal views and not speaking on behalf of their employer, they have no conflict of interest because they have no second interest. There is only their own interest.
You as a reader may have an interest and it may conflict with a blogger's interest, but the blogger owes you nothing unless you pay them to give you impartial research, in which case you are a client, not a reader.
A blog is no different from one of those ghost-written business hagiographies, full of self-serving writing and written to further the author's interests. If you want to be sure you are getting an impartial viewpoint, then please do your research and decide for yourself whether a particular blogger's viewpoint is biased or not.
One of the nice things about a blog is that you have the author's entire post history to peruse in order to judge bias. Much different than an isolated article in a third-party publication.
That's a bit like saying the only people who should wash their hands after using the john are those who work in food service. Just because the duty exists in a profession doesn't mean it doesn't also exist elsewhere.
The duty to disclose happens any time you want to maintain the trust of others in your objectivity.
Example: Say I'm having a beef with my girlfriend. My fictional co-worker Billy really wants to date her. If he gives me advice to break up with her while keeping his desire a secret, he commits a breach of trust. His interest in advising me soundly has now conflicted with his interest in hooking up. When I later discover this breach, the trust is eroded.
He doesn't have to disclose anything. But if he wants people to continue reading his blog while trusting his position comes from ideals instead of self-interest, it might be a good idea.
Hey, if you want to gain people's trust by disclosing your investments whenever you write a blog post, tweet, or comment on HN, go wild. I never said don't do it.
However, I reject the suggestion that failing to do so is like serving unclean food. If writing is like food, it is clean or it isn't and washing your hands is like spell-checking or fact-checking, not like disclosing your personal interests.
Otherwise, I accept the analogy that writing a blog post is like using the john. Or at least, looking at my writing, I see the comparison is apt.
Fair enough. The comments here bring up some excellent points; my background in journalism probably colored my perspective a bit. Also, I appreciate your rephrasing your original comment, much better :)
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.
Kindle supports a number of formats (though notably not ePub), so if you can buy a DRM-free ebook then you can get it onto your Kindle. There are plenty of stores out there[1] which are happy to sell you such ebooks, as well... though there's certainly some titles which are only available DRM-encumbered.
Not really, as the Kindle doesn't support any other vendor's DRM. If you can buy a DRM-free ebook, then sure, though you may have to convert it to a different format.
I don't understand the Android alternative argument.
Android is an alternative for users, not developers. Users can go and buy an android phone (or tablet, sort of) if they want and use most of the same apps.
Developers need to go to where the buyers are. This probably means both platforms. It certainly means iOS. They are in the business of selling (or distributing) apps not developing them.
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.
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.
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?
> 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?
For subscriptions at least the bandwidth is funded by the publisher. Yes you get access to lots of customers, but you have to charge them the same as ones you sell yourself and if you want to have an app you are required to let your users purchase from within it. It adds up to 30% being ridiculously high. If it was opt-in and/or non price matching I don't think many would care, but as it stands it's a huge tax that if enforced will mean the end to many of the killer apps of iOS.
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.
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.
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.
They also said they'd never do something like that again. Bezos personally apologized for the way Kindle users were affected by the 1984 incident.
AFAIK, Apple has never owned up to one of its policy decisions having been a mistake, let alone apologized for it. They've changed their policies -- witness the short-lived language choice terms -- but never issued anything even suggestive of a mea culpa.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
No, the point is who knows what types of apps will be deemed undesirable next?
IE. What if Apple decides that they'd rather have only the top 1 or two apps for a category? That having only one throwing physics game, or one tower defense game, is what customers really want? Sure, that's ridiculous, but it's not THAT far from Apple's history.
Or, maybe apps that let you play musical instruments compete too much with the new Garage Band.
The point is, there is no limit to what Apple can change.
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.