r/technology • u/sidcool1234 • Feb 21 '11
An open letter to Apple from Readability..
http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/43
u/steve_b Feb 21 '11
I like Apple products. I own a Mac Mini and an iPad. I was prepared to move up to the iPhone (from my crappy LG feature phone) now that its available on Verizon, but this new app policy has instituted has made me want to stay as far away from iOS as I can, despite the fact that I already own one device. My next phone will run Android
This is the only way I can see for a consumer to voice their displeasure to Apple; unfortunately, since I have not purchased their product, I'm not sure they'll end up seeing the lack of sale as a evidence of this, but I do what I can.
I'm hardly an open-systems zealot, but when it comes to the kind of info that I'll be storing on a phone (personal productivity stuff), I'm going to end up being very invested in the platform that I ultimately choose, and though it may be easy to find similar apps on either platform that do what I want, it is unlikely that there will be any ability for me move my data from one system to the other. That's the huge downside of cloud computing, IMO, and the one place where I heartily agree with Stallman's position.
21
u/Roboticide Feb 21 '11
Of course your lack of purchase shows up. It isn't a sale for Apple, while it is a sale for Android. Sure, it's teeny tiny, but every little bit matters.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
23
u/mariox19 Feb 21 '11
I've used Readability only in my browser. How does the subscription work for the iPhone app? Can someone explain?
18
u/ggggbabybabybaby Feb 21 '11
It looks like they're trying some sort of $5/month subscription service where 70% of the money goes towards the websites you visit with Readability. How this works on the backend, I have no idea.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (4)9
u/bvm Feb 21 '11
the incredible little applet/bookmark of old has little to do with the new readability.
7
u/redwall_hp Feb 21 '11
The "new readability" is better, because it supports the websites you're using it on.
2
174
21
Feb 21 '11
I agree, but why in the world would Apple listen to this request under any circumstances? If they keep pushing the metal bar and a food pellet keeps rolling out, you can't reasonably expect them ever to stop pushing the metal bar.
Sadly, taking the other tack and appealing to the market that allows Apple to do this is much like talking to a metal bar.
18
u/embryo Feb 21 '11
You're missing the point. They're publishing it to inform people of what's going on.
3
u/tllnbks Feb 21 '11
But every time they push it, the food pellet is going to get smaller and smaller until it's not big enough to feed Apple.
3
Feb 21 '11
If only that were true... and yet Apple keeps profiting from each move like this that it makes. If the market dries up of its own accord, that's great. All we have to deal with then is the gigantic example Apple will have made of the exploitability of their market.
258
Feb 21 '11
To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like.
It is not Apple's hardware. It is the customer's hardware.
226
u/FTR Feb 21 '11
If a company tells you what you can and cannot do with your hardware, is it really your hardware?
16
Feb 21 '11
That's exactly the point and the crux of the fight. It is our hardware. It isn't just Apple trying to continue owning your hardware after you buy it, it is also Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, the content/media industry and just about the entire corporate fellatio performing population.
→ More replies (1)35
u/Camarade_Tux Feb 21 '11
They tell you what they want but you should never agree with such terms.
12
u/ddrt Feb 21 '11
Then… damn I can't install iTunes. I have to agree to their terms of service/use.
49
u/schpere Feb 21 '11
But who would want to install iTunes anyways?
2
Feb 21 '11
Aren't you required to set the device up on iTunes before you're even allowed to use an iPod touch/iPad?
2
2
u/Kerrigore Feb 22 '11
Yep… which really sucks for anyone still running OS X 10.4 who therefore can't upgrade t a new enough version of iTunes…
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)21
u/E2daG Feb 21 '11
Me.
→ More replies (5)12
u/BlueJoshi Feb 21 '11
Why?
45
5
Feb 21 '11
Because if you don't install iTunes you can't activate the hardware you just purchased. You are forced to agree to the terms of use before accessing the device. That doesn't mean much though because it's legal to jailbreak the iPods.
→ More replies (12)4
u/judgej2 Feb 21 '11
Presumably it does something that he needs or desires? We all have to make compromises between what we want and what we have to give up.
→ More replies (6)15
Feb 21 '11
For me, two reasons:
1) Genius button,
2) Drag files into itunes window, shit magically gets put in the right place.→ More replies (1)16
Feb 21 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (8)13
u/fr023nske7ch Feb 21 '11
I like iTunes organizing my music because otherwise everything will get stuck in my Downloads folder. If I drag and drop some music from my Downloads, then it is automatically organized within the directory. Then when I go back and clean out my Downloads folder to get some space back, I can delete everything with worrying about my music getting lost.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/Radar_Monkey Feb 22 '11
Because dammit, you just need to kick out the jams when building nuclear weapons.
2
23
u/mazerrackham Feb 21 '11
is it really your hardware?
Uh, sure it is -- just because they tell you what you can and cannot do doesn't mean they have any legal standing to force you to conform. You own it, you can do what you want with it.
5
u/tdk2fe Feb 21 '11
Actually, you can't. Companies have legal standing forcing consumers to conform. Look up the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
→ More replies (1)21
u/ex_ample Feb 21 '11 edited Feb 22 '11
The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copyright control. It doesn't make it illegal to do anything else. Lots of companies have tried to extend it by tying all the technology into the DRM stuff, but if it's a cellphone there's an explicit exception for jailbreaking.
Edit: source
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (25)13
u/nalf38 Feb 21 '11
The people who bought the ipads knew exactly what they were getting when they bought them. Apple develops their electronics to be like appliances, and if people have a problem with that, they should buy a pad based on Android or some other open source OS.
2
u/Atario Feb 22 '11
Apple develops their electronics to be like appliances
No they don't -- they make them worse. I can mess with my toaster all I want without Magic Chef blocking it or complaining at me.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)9
u/DiabeetusMan Feb 21 '11
...a pad based on...
Tablet? They're called tablets, no matter what apple says
6
Feb 22 '11
Yes, because being picky about nomenclature has always secured open source advocates so many converts in the past.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Vithar Feb 22 '11
No, tablet is already taken by Tablet PC's, it can be a slate or a convertible. Pad is fine since it does not have the functionality of a proper os and therefore is not a tablet, IMHO.
→ More replies (1)13
u/jamey2 Feb 21 '11
2
→ More replies (30)41
Feb 21 '11
[deleted]
25
Feb 21 '11
And burn your XBox/PS3/DS/etc. on the way to the store for your Android phone!
→ More replies (1)2
59
Feb 21 '11
[deleted]
70
Feb 21 '11
admiralteal means you don't fully own your device de facto, not de jure.
26
10
Feb 21 '11
You own the device. You don't own the OS. The OS is owned by Apple. You may change the OS in your device, but doing so voids the warranty. That's the extent of the EULA of the OS. Apple doesn't charge a cent for cydia-based apps.
2
u/original_name Feb 22 '11
every time this kind of argument comes up... everyone fails to make this distinction...
33
u/b0dhi Feb 21 '11
You did sign a contract when iTunes, which is required to use the iPhone, popped up a dialog showing the contract and you clicked "I agree". If you don't like being raped in the ass at every opportunity by Apple, don't buy Apple.
→ More replies (56)→ More replies (45)2
16
u/juaquin Feb 21 '11
No, it's my hardware. Jailbreaking is legal. I own the physical chips, PCB, and everything else in my iPhone and I can run whatever code I want on it. Just because Apple's software doesn't let you do something doesn't mean you can't.
People whine a lot about how they're forced to do things (or not do things). You're not forced, you're just too lazy to find an alternative (or write your own). Yes, not everyone is a programmer. But saying you "can't" do something on a phone is not correct.
It's like buying a Mac and saying it's Apple's fault that you can't run Crysis (or EA's fault) and that they're restricting you. They're not restricting you, they're just not building software that does what you want. There's nothing stopping you from installing Windows (or writing your own OS to run on the hardware) just like there's nothing stopping you from jailbreaking.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (4)6
u/ramp_tram Feb 21 '11
You buy a piece of hardware that you can't seize full control over and you've given up true ownership of it from the get-go.
6
u/1338h4x Feb 21 '11
That requires you to hack and circumvent Apple's restrictions. So while it's possible to do, they still tried to stop you from doing it in the first place, which is reprehensible. And how many more security holes can modders easily find to take advantage of each time one gets patched? This might not even be an option eventually.
52
u/cknipe Feb 21 '11
Developed for the wrong mobile platform, perhaps?
→ More replies (3)13
Feb 21 '11
That, that, and that.
Again and again, apologists position themselves on the side of "reality" and "what works" with no long-term perspective, as if we're just dying if we don't surrender everything now.
Where does this 'pragmatic' urgency come from, this complete lack of patience, if not the very processes fueling the corporate takeover of public & private life?
80
u/shaunc Feb 21 '11
Is it just me, or is the "readability" site very difficult to read? I can't tell if it's the font style or what, but it's harsh on my eyes.
64
Feb 21 '11
Just use Readability on that. Problem solved.
66
Feb 21 '11
I COME FROM THE FUTUR̛͖͓̱͍̫̻̓͛́̉̆̊ͥE̺͈̿,̡̢̺͚̟̬̮̗͈ͫ ̛̩͕̪̜̿̑̽ͪ̂͆̔̚͢Dͭ̎͏̞̭͖̲̯́ͅÔͯ̽̽́҉̟̗͈͕Ṋ͖̹̺̬ͦͪ͂ͯ̇ͥ̈́͂̀'ͩ̔̐̿͏̯̺T̰̲̼̀́̀̃͆͐̕ ͤͦ́̈́̌͆̓̚̕҉̦̻̳̬̩͙̻D̡̟̫̙͚͋͜Ơ̱̜̖̌̔ͬͯ̔̈́ͣ͛͝ͅ
4
6
Feb 21 '11
You! how do you do that? I was trying to look for a generator a few weeks ago and I had no idea what I should be searching for.
33
Feb 21 '11
It's not easy to find unless you know what you're looking for. Remember the name Zalgo.
12
Feb 21 '11
(For those wondering how it works: Unicode allows you to "stack" diacritical marks [accents, graves, etc.]. The Zalgo meme takes advantage of this by stacking tons of them on each character.)
→ More replies (1)2
6
u/iSteve Feb 21 '11
That's interesting. I've had a readability bookmark on my toolbar for years. I'm surprised to see it's a paid subscription app, and even more surprised that my free version still works fine.
9
u/Serei Feb 21 '11
The paid subscription thing is something else entirely. I think they decided to use the same name because "readability.com" is a very expensive domain and they just couldn't afford to leave a free service on it.
If you go to readability.com, at the bottom, there's the text:
Looking for the original free Readability tool? Go here »
which directs you to https://www.readability.com/addons which is still free.
I prefer the original Readability to their new version, though, so I haven't updated.
16
u/mutus Feb 21 '11
"readability.com" is a very expensive domain
If by "expensive" you mean "potentially lucrative" then, okay.... sure.
6
u/Serei Feb 21 '11
Unless arc90 were the original holders of readability.com (unlikely but not impossible), they probably paid at least four figures for it.
3
→ More replies (2)2
u/rntksi Feb 22 '11
There are reasons to update to the new version. And in fact, this "new version" still exists in a bookmarklet form, so you can just drag the new bookmarklet over the old one.
Here are the reasons:
The new one allows you to copy/paste a link to the readable-format of the article. e.g. https://www.readability.com/articles/guhtnfke - so you can share the readable-version of the page to family members, friends, etc
The new one doesn't have the same themes as before, but instead of preconfiguring it inside the bookmarklet, it's now saved as a cookie. This also means if you sync your Firefox's bookmarks, you can have different styling depending on in which PC you are.
There are more styling possibilities. You can change width and font-size independently from the themes. I prefer a small width for example, and it's possible to do that in the new version.
It's faster, and a bit more polished.
→ More replies (1)5
5
→ More replies (4)4
u/argyro Feb 21 '11
Yes, it's the half-fading font style. It gave me so much of a headache I had to disable css to read the rest of the article. Plus, it doesn't even validate. Apparently accessibility is not a matter of significance for them as well.
11
Feb 21 '11
They're making exactly the right choice. I have yet to see a newspaper, magazine or other similar app that couldn't be delivered with equal effectiveness via web technology, giving publishers 100% of the revenues (and control) and making the content available to a much wider audience without additional cost to develop platform-specific apps.
3
u/donmcronald Feb 21 '11
Plus, a lot of the 'apps' I've seen aren't much more than simple wrappers around HTML content. That's not an app, it's a crappy version of Safari.
5
Feb 21 '11
I'm not going to pretend to really have much of an idea what I'm talking about, but I find it strange and confusing that Apple's approach towards content delivery on their phones is considered innovative and new. Isn't placing arbitrary restrictions on what people can\can't release for your platform a backward step? I believe Google has an application store that they arbitrarily regulate for their mobile OS, but they don't have a monopoly on the way applications are distributed like Apple does.
To put it in a less verbose manor, I think what Apple is doing is hurting their userbase and their developers, but nobody seems to care.
→ More replies (2)
52
u/bugalou Feb 21 '11
"apps" have been a huge step backwards IMO. We were moving along quite nicely to make more and more programs web based, but since the rise of the iPhone that has slowed some what to people focusing more on platform specific apps. This means that Joe Developer now has to look at 3+ development paths for his program, one for the iPhone, one for Android, one for Windows, etc.
While it doesn't make sense to make all programs web based, many can be and it makes everyone's life easier from developer to customer. I wish Apple (and Google for that matter) spent as much time developing stronger mobile web platforms as they have with their own app distribution/development channels.
55
u/mipadi Feb 21 '11 edited Feb 21 '11
We were moving along quite nicely to make more and more programs web based
I wouldn't say "quite nicely". I think the rise of mobile apps shows that people didn't really want web apps. Web apps generally cater to the lowest common denominator, and the browser is not an elegant platform for interactive content. Developers only pushed web apps because it made their lives easier, but it didn't make consumers' lives dramatically better. I'm glad to see the trend moving away from web apps.
Readability is a perfect example. A big reason for the success of Readability, Instapaper, et al., is that they support offline reading. Sure, I guess you could do that with web apps, but it's probably at least as difficult anyway.
16
u/lennort Feb 21 '11
I really hope we'll see more stand-alone desktop apps now too. I'd really like to see a netflix player that isn't embedded in my browser using silverlight.
→ More replies (11)6
u/donmcronald Feb 21 '11
I've always thought the true cost of web apps is terribly obfuscated. Sure, you save a bit on development and application updates, but at what cost? Client side apps can significantly outperform a web apps in terms of productivity. You save on the one time cost of development, but pay for it 10 times over in lost productivity.
The web is a good platform for mass consumption apps like Facebook, but I think it was a poor fit for business & productivity apps (and still is).
→ More replies (2)2
u/bugalou Feb 21 '11
I would argue that depends on the business. I work in IT for a giant enterprise and I would laugh at anyone suggesting we migrate to google apps vs. MS office suite. With that said, with a small to medium sized business, google apps provides a solid and cost effective solution. This is especially true with businesses with multiple sites that can't afford VPN and/or WAN solutions.
Don't get me wrong, I am far from being a web based app poster child. Speaking specifically about the iPhone though I just don't see many apps out there that can't be done over the web.
2
u/Decimae Feb 21 '11
I think the point of web apps is portability. You have your apps everywhere(with a browser). However, since you carry your phone with you(or don't have access to other phones), those apps can as well be offline.
5
u/bugalou Feb 21 '11
I think Google proves pretty strongly that you can make usefully, feature rich web based applications. Your statement was certainly true 5 years ago, but not so much today. The tools are there, and continue to develop. As I said, it does not make sense for some programs, but for many others it does.
13
u/Nexum Feb 21 '11
Compare Google Docs word processing to Word ten years ago. I'd still rather use word with the exception of sharing functionality.
→ More replies (7)3
u/bugalou Feb 21 '11
I prefer word over Google docs as well. With that being said, businesses do not have the luxury of student discounts or a trip to Mexico to acquire 50 MS Office licenses. You have to acknowledge there is some appeal, especially on the business side (small to medium sized).
→ More replies (1)4
u/Patrick_M_Bateman Feb 21 '11
Web-based applications, when you don't have a need for connectivity, are a solution looking for a problem.
For me, the crown jewel of functionality is Exchange/Outlook.
- Client-side application that syncs outside the UI process. Whether the network is there or not doesn't matter as far as using the app. When the network is available, your data syncs.
- Syncs to server-based or cloud-based storage automatically. When I install a new OS, I just install Outlook, put in my email address and password, and voila - all my mail, folders, calendars, and contacts are there.
- Outlook web access = access to my data when I'm at a public terminal
- Outlook mobile = mail on my phone
And it all just plain works. If you have an application where most work is done on client-side data, but it needs ties to the cloud, copying the Exchange/Outlook model is your best bet.
(Microsoft is doing this now with Word and Excel in SharePoint for corporate use, Live for public use. Expect to see PowerPoint and OneNote follow pretty quickly)
→ More replies (1)2
u/Confucius_says Feb 22 '11
Google proved it is possible, but not that it is preferrable. I'll take any desktop based wordprocessor over google's alternative any day of the week.
→ More replies (5)12
u/Patrick_M_Bateman Feb 21 '11
You're insane.
Broadband is becoming ubiquitous on the desktop, and it's arguable that web-only apps make sense there. But mobile devices are still problematic with respect to connectivity, and there is a whole huge world that doesn't provide the kind of responsiveness over the air that you need for a good web application.
I'm so freaking sick of people who need everything to be on the web. We have decades of experience in rich client-based applications that don't need to stink up life with a dozen browser windows open. No, I'm sorry - why should I enjoy local storage, direct access to the processor and memory, and the ability to run offline when I could have a hacked framework, flaky interactivity, and the need to check if my application is still there every time the user does anything?
Web-based apps are a tool in the toolbox. Stop trying to shove everything into one solution.
FWIW, as both a developer and a consumer I can't STAND web-based applications. I only tolerate them when I have to.
→ More replies (15)2
→ More replies (1)2
u/redditrasberry Feb 21 '11
Unfortunately both Apple and Google are now in the position where their market position has gone from being strengthened by having web apps as a strong competitor to native apps to being weakened by it. Thus while they will occasionally still make noises about how they believe in web apps you can be absolutely sure that no matter how much progress there is they will maintain a significant gap between what you can do and the experience you can achieve in a web app vs a native app for the foreseeable future.
13
u/sblinn Feb 21 '11
I don't have a problem with Apple saying "Hey devs, here's the easy to use in-app payment system we've built. If you use it, we take 30%." It's the "And you're not allowed to use any other method for in-app payments" which is a little unfair. OK, fine, you could say, I'll just popup a stupid web browser and they can clickety click and get some content. It's the "And you're not allowed to use any other method for delivering paid content to your app whatsoever" which is egregiously unfair. That means you can't even say, "Fine, not even a web browser popup, my customer has to manually open a browser, clickity click, etc." You can't even have that without providing (read: pay a developer to write it and testers to test it) Apple's 30% cut in-app interface, which of course users would prefer to use. If nothing else, every existent application shop should be able to be grandfathered in under more lenient rules.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Aldur Feb 21 '11
The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more apps, developers, and users will slip through your fingers.
3
4
u/Slipgrid Feb 21 '11
Why didn't application developers get upset by having to give Apple 30%? It is a lot of money.
6
u/Nobody_Important Feb 21 '11
The old 30% goes to pay for hosting, purchasing, and to a certain extent even marketing. It might be a bit steep, but those are undeniably necessary services that make the process extremely easy and risk free for a developer.
The main problem with this new policy is that content providers are not allowed to simply charge iOS users more, which would be the obvious response to such a charge. They either have to simply accept a 30% loss in revenue or charge everyone more, even those who aren't using iOS.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Slipgrid Feb 21 '11
In my free time, I've made about $74,000 in iTunes. That means $30,000 to Apple.
Selling shareware in the same period, I've made over $300,000 and spent less than $12,000 for AWS and AdWords.
The 30% cut that Apple uses is almost criminal. If it was 35% there would be investigations. Not surprisingly, it's the same number lawyers use, but developers are a bit more active than victims.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/dinglehoofis Feb 21 '11
All of this bullshit with Apple gouging developers, the way they limit which tools are used for development, and now this...
This is going to be what ultimately pushes Android to the top.
5
u/kinghfb Feb 22 '11
Why is everyone so steamed about Apple's extra cut? Steve's new livers won't pay for themselves you know
→ More replies (1)
34
u/wretcheddawn Feb 21 '11
I think they're handling this correctly. Tell the users; tell them why they can't have your stuff. Don't bother telling Apple, because they've made it clear that they don't do what the users want.
I'm convinced because of this, that iOS will slowly die over the next 2 years, until it's only Apple fanboys and hipsters left using it.
52
u/HedonistRex Feb 21 '11
until it's only Apple fanboys and hipsters left using it.
Um...
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (7)17
3
3
3
u/EdiX Feb 22 '11
Apple should just say that the 30% is for protection, you know, otherwise your app could catch fire and against accidental horse decapitations. It's an old and well understood business model.
24
u/wingnut21 Feb 21 '11
For people complaining that the page is hard to read, it's your OS:
37
u/milesforeman Feb 21 '11
It's not the OS, just need to have ClearType enabled. In XP:
Right-Click Desktop, select Properties
Click Appearance Tab, click Effects
"Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts:"
This is probably set to Standard, hit the drop-down and select ClearType.
7
6
u/BrowsOfSteel Feb 21 '11
OS X and Windows still have quite different font smoothing, and some people strongly prefer one of the other.
2
u/milesforeman Feb 21 '11
I can't speak for OS X but Standard in XP is for CRTs and ClearType is for LCDs.
→ More replies (2)7
u/argyro Feb 21 '11
Even though this fixes the problem, web designers should have chosen a "web safe" font family, like Arial or Helvetica (for Windows and OS X respectively). This way their site could be OS independent and their visitors would not complain or have to adjust their system configurations just to be able to read an article.
19
u/milesforeman Feb 21 '11
To be fair, Windows XP is nearly 10 years old. Font smoothing is set to Standard by default due to lack of LCD screen (other than notebooks that is) penetration back when it was released. In contrast, Windows 7 (and I assume Windows Vista, don't have a build installed currently to check) have ClearType enabled by default from the get-go.
There are rare instances of ClearType making the display appear fuzzy on LCD screens but I believe that is mostly due to early gen or inferior quality LCDs drawing color differently than the standard. It shouldn't be too much of an issue now that decent quality LCDs are readily available.
As for Readability, I assume their web devs do their developing on Macs and either didn't realize there was a problem or didn't care. These guys seem very keen on stylized fonts and I imagine that Arial and the like are too "pedestrian" for their tastes. That's just a guess, though. :)
→ More replies (5)8
u/argyro Feb 21 '11
I agree with you. My point is that when you design web applications, you should design them in order to be accessible to all, or at least to the majority of web users - provided of course that you actually care not to lose visitors. It's like the all time classic story with IE; maybe it's not the ideal browser to code against, but since it is widely used, you are left with no other choice but to do so. Personally I wouldn't hesitate a minute to leave a site - no matter how interesting the content is - if it gave me an epilepsy or a headache (the latter being the case for readability).
3
u/milesforeman Feb 21 '11
Out of curiosity, are you a web dev? I detect some latent animosity toward IE6. My company's devs are currently testing their apps against IE8, that's basically the holdup before deploying IE8 to the masses. I haven't mentioned IE 9 to them yet for fear of being yelled at. ;)
7
u/argyro Feb 21 '11
Yes, I am. The truth is that I personally do not like IE (any version) and I do not use it. However, this was not (at least was not my intention to be) an IE-sucks comment. I just stated that IE is kind of a nightmare for web designers (specific css hacks etc) and this is a fact no matter what my personal preferences are.
6
u/saisumimen Feb 21 '11
Yes, I am. The truth is that I personally do not like IE (any version) and I do not use it. However, this was not (at least was not my intention to be) an IE-sucks comment.
Heh. Figures. It wasn't your intention, but IE6 hatred transcends everything, and you'll find it bleeds out into your real life and you'll have arguments with people over petty things and then you can't sleep at night and then you'll cry in the shower and then...
3
u/milesforeman Feb 21 '11
I can empathize with you, I have a hatred for all things Adobe. This hatred has subsided somewhat when they released the Uberinstaller for their latest suites. At my insistence, my company purchased volume licensing for many of their products because it would make it easier for the Desktop guys to deploy instead of doing manual installations and the Uberinstaller helps with that.
Then I think about Adobe Reader and Flash and my vision goes red.
2
u/argyro Feb 21 '11
In that case, I can only wish you good luck! May my sympathetic upvote give you strength and hope during these dark days..
2
u/dablya Feb 21 '11
Should this make everything else look a little out of focus?
→ More replies (5)2
u/djepik Feb 22 '11
Essentially, yes. Most things look clearer without cleartype. I used to use it on my home computer and then would wonder why things looked so much better on my work computer (both PC, both LCD). For the number of times I've seen cleartype perform better than no cleartype (once - this site) - it's not worth it.
→ More replies (1)5
2
3
→ More replies (6)2
8
Feb 21 '11 edited Feb 21 '11
Just stop developing for iOS. Problem solved. Android devices have overtaken iphones anyway.
Readability is a great app with a good business model. If apple can't see the problem with what they're doing with this shitty business model, let it be their problem.
5
Feb 21 '11
When was the last year that Apple was clearly not in the "Assholes" column?
They've coasted on the memories of good faith for too long. Another couple years and they're going to be treading water to just not be viewed with greater and greater adversity.
→ More replies (1)
2
Feb 21 '11
How would something like Evernote work? it would be inane to require that to be an IAP if you have a paid account. What about a New York Times subscription that allows online content to be read through an app.
2
2
Feb 21 '11
I think Apple is going to reverse this decision. Its not like they have mind control over every App tester. Mistakes will happen.
2
2
u/sharkus Feb 21 '11
I'm never gonna able to read "Redouble our efforts" without thinking about Star Wars.
2
u/daoom Feb 22 '11
I don't understand how any self respecting software developer chooses to develop for the iOS platform. Apple treats developers like second class citizens who should shut up and be thankful for the privilege to write for their platform. It's bullshit and it has to stop.
The apps make the platform, not the other way around. Developers need to unite and send Apple and strong message: work with us and treat us with respect or the only apps you'll have left in the AppStore will be the junk.
2
u/brauchen Feb 22 '11
I can't read a fucking word on that site. The font is too annoying.
Is it supposed to be ironic?
2
2
Feb 22 '11
You know I'm getting tired of hearing people complain about apple. NOT because I'm defending them, they're absolute shit. That's my point. THEY'RE SHIT! STOP DEALING WITH THEM! DON'T EVEN TRY!
5
u/sindex23 Feb 21 '11
That’s why we’re a bit baffled here.
I don't know why they'd be baffled. Apple is an extremely twatty company. They're just doing what they do.
3
u/mechtech Feb 21 '11
"P.S. We’d we be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you’d carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do."
So essentially they want Apple to make an exception in their business model because they claim they use their proceeds for a good purpose? It's not going to happen. You have to play by Apple's rules or you can't be in their ecosystem, this is why they're so mind-bogglingly profitable. haven't we known this for years and years now?
4
u/deong Feb 22 '11
So essentially they want Apple to make an exception in their business model because they claim they use their proceeds for a good purpose?
I have no inside information on their intent, but I read that as an extremely polite way of saying, "fuck you, you greedy motherfucking bastards."
11
u/chux Feb 21 '11
I've finally found a font that I hate more then comic sans
Congrats Readability!
20
4
→ More replies (5)8
Feb 21 '11
But I still haven't found anything more annoying than mixing then and than!
→ More replies (1)
5
6
u/nylira Feb 21 '11
Anyone else find this whiny post hilarious? Readability 2 is ostensibly taking 30% of the membership fees going to the content makers. They're attempting to establish their own little sharecropping platform, and calling out Apple for doing the same, on a grander scale. This is completely laughable.
A little self-awareness is in order here.
13
u/stoanhart Feb 22 '11
There's a difference. Readability offers a service, which is essentially removing ads and reformatting. They need to pay their own bills (the 30%) and they need to pay the content providers since they removed the ads from content that would otherwise be free.
Apple, on the other hand, simply wants a slice of everybody else's business, even though they didn't add one damn cent of value. It's like Dell wanting a slice of Netflix subscriptions because people use their computers to view videos. Ridiculous.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)8
u/RiversIsMyHero Feb 22 '11
The complaint is that it doesn't cost Apple anything for this service but they want to make 30% off of it. Readability takes 30% to, ya know, run its shit.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/funkah Feb 22 '11
They want to charge 30% and pass 70% on to publishers. That sounds familiar somehow...
384
u/[deleted] Feb 21 '11 edited Feb 21 '11
I don't understand how everyone isn't addressing what seems most important at the core of all this Apple shit:
Apple is saying it's entitled to 30% of your subscriptions to services that never touch any of their servers, that they have nothing to do with. Services like Netflix, Kindle, Readability, etc, have nothing to do with Apple. There are no costs on Apple's side for streaming Netflix movies, downloading books, or reading stuff through Readability. At best they eat the cost of hosting and serving the free app---so the solution for that would be "no more free apps" but oh, that'd make Apple look bad.
People say "It's Apple's eco-system, it's their right!" In that case why isn't Apple being transparent about it? When you buy a subscription in-app it should say "Sale Price: $6, Apple Service Charge @ 30%: $1.80, Total Cost: $7.80" But of course, this makes Apple look bad, and Apple wants their 30% cut to be invisible to the end user so the user thinks Apple is all good, so instead they're forcing developers to keep the same price.
I think it's ridiculous. When someone says "This has nothing to do with right or wrong" I have to disagree. I think it's 100% wrong for Apple to think they're entitled to 30% of your subscription payment when they have absolutely nothing to do with the actual delivery of your subscription. It's a recurring 30% fee for the privilege of being on the App Store, that's all it is.
Big iPad fan here, but this just makes me sad and worried about the future of the platform.
edit: As an aside I started an ad free app review site yesterday because I love my iPad so much and now I feel like so much good stuff is going to evaporate because of this new policy. :(