Marco really nailed it. He was also exceptionally level-headed considering that his application, Instapaper, is likely to find itself in exactly the situation he outlines. Marco's plans for Instapaper are based around paid accounts for API access, which would enable third-party apps for paid users. It would be an absolute shame if Marco's app weren't allowed on iOS. Quite honestly, if Instapaper, Dropbox, and Evernote are under threat to be removed from the App Store, I won't even consider a new iPhone until Apple revises its policy.
Even more level-headed when you consider that the Readability app that was rejected today was written by him along with the fact that he's an advisor for the company.
I wonder if you'll see under the table deals where 3rd parties write apps for these services FOR the company to bypass the restriction, assuming 3rd party apps are still allowed by Apple's new policy.
That would be a horrible business decision, in my opinion. "Under the table" deal is just another way of saying "violating the agreement I signed". Two wrongs don't make a right, etc, etc. But more importantly, operating in the background would just enable Apple. Cutting Apple out of the revenue won't really hurt them, but it will increase dependence on their platform, which gives them more leverage.
Under the table deals would be extremely short sighted and dishonest.
Yeah, I think you are right.. I was commenting on the third party part more than the under the table part.
I was thinking more along the lines of Amazon creating an open or liscensed API for it's ebooks, so that someone can make an app for me to log into and read books that I own. Users could still read their kindle books on their iphones, and amazon could keep it's position as the best book store for iOS users, expand to other devices, etc..
I don't think it is worth it for someone like Amazon or Pandora to stay off of Apple's platform just to give them less leverage, but I agree that they would have to be upfront about it.
Too level-headed for my taste. Since he wasn't going to write this to Apple, he really shouldn't be afraid to show some passion. What good is a startup with a founder who isn't passionate about his product.
I agree with all the points except for the one that believes it's within Apple right to do whatever they want because it's their hardware and platform. Let's forget that the hardware really belongs to the iPhone/iPad owners for a moment, but if it's defensible because it's their platform then it's more reasonable for Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to take a cut from all sales and profits happened via their network. It's their platforms, which took them decades to build. And surely there's value added when they offer preferentially faster speed and more secured transaction to whichever companies agree to pay them. It would be hilarious if an ISP starts demanding 30% cut from every sale Apple makes that originates from their network.
And then every ISP will demand a cut of every sale that happens on the Internet part of their network. Finally, the telecos implement some good natural language processing and demand a cut of every sale you negotiate over their voice network...
...Their network, their rules...
... that will work well till the Oxygen cartel starts making demands....
Indeed. Whatever happened to "With the internet, we can cut out the middlemen"? Suddenly, every corporation wants to set up tollboothes along the way and starts demanding their cut.
If this continues, in small steps, we'll be back at the old way, in which the content creator gets only a minimal share of the pie, and it's the distributors that get rich.
I'm all for an open, "flat", neutral infrastructure, so there is no way I'll be buying any Apple products.
I really like how he moves the argument from "Does Apple have the right to do this?" to "Should Apple do this?" I'm really surprised: this is what I've always been taught to call bad revenue. I could understand a bit better if they were a struggling startup looking for any possible profitable business model, but they are printing money already. I'm left shaking my head here. Even the folks who often rush to Apple's defense seem to agree this is a mistake. For me, this is the first time that I've looked around Apple's walled garden and wanted out.
I'm really surprised: this is what I've always been taught to call bad revenue.
Interesting. Do you mean it is more like a move to squeeze the last available dollar out of an existing business rather than a move to grow a business?
I am interpreting it more as revenue that actually ends up indirectly costing you more to obtain than it's worth in the long run, so that you come out net behind. For instance, this App Store policy will bring in revenue but if enough developers and customers leave the ecosystem because of it Apple will end up a net loser.
I think one very interesting case is services like directv, dish networks, comcast, tivo etc. They all offer services but their apps are ancillary to the subscription service that they provide. Does Apple want Directv to offer subscriptions within the app?
Only if the content being paid for is delivered through the app. If the app is just something like a remote control or a channel guide then I'm guessing Apple would let it slide.
If I develop an enterprise ipad application and track down the customers myself, it is possible to sell to them and take 100% of the revenue still?
I can do this by offering the app for free on the app store and requiring activation through my own external signup system. However, I must also offer the option to sign up using Apple's API and Apple taking 30%?
I just need to be on the phone to the customer when they download the app and ask them politely to not use the Apple method?
I was also thinking about something similar. If users find your service on your website, you should encourage them to subscribe through it, no through in-app purchase. I think all app developers should educate people about that, so the number of in-app purchases will be as low as possible, so the apple cut of all sales will not be 30%, but less.
What's going to be interesting to me, now, is whether or not this will cause developers (more specifically, service and not game developers) to start to look more seriously at web-only apps, as opposed to native.
You're thinking, "the performance of web apps doesn't at all compare to native apps," and you're (mostly) right. Web apps tend to feel a bit slower and less responsive. But if we can get one "hero" (i.e., popular web-only app) then people will learn to accept/ignore that the performance isn't quite the same as what they get when they download an app — and that would be good for the whole mobile web ecosystem.
And, of course, as mobile browsers (fairly quickly) advance, the performance will increase significantly and the difference will be less noticeable.
The problem isn't the performance of mobile apps. We're about to release an ipad app that could've easily been a webapp—it is 90% implemented via javascript+HTML, animated with CSS transitions, all in a UIWebView controller. We do a lot of app-side caching, but I think a sufficiently-motivated javascript dev could do something similar.
The problem is that by not making it a native app, you're cutting yourself off from "the way people get apps" for their devices. The app store is a distribution mechanism that just can't be ignored by a serious mobile developer.
My biggest problem with web-only apps is that in many places in the UK, if I am travelling by bus, train or plane, I will only get intermitant access to the web.
I refuse to use any system where I can't get access to my data without a speed internet connection.
Is it interesting timing that in-app subscription rollout is happening as Steve Jobs is taking a step back? I wonder if this says anything about the potential PR fallout to happen that Steve would handle better than most others just as he did when the iPhone prices were lowered.
Considering the main press release quotes Jobs[1], this is unlikely.
[1] “Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing.”
Except that Steve's quote is a good argument for the conservative interpretation, which says that if you don't use an iOS app as advertisement for non-App Store payment, nothing changes. Because to me it seems like there's no necessary IAP option implied and if the publisher isn't using Apple's means (including the iOS platform itself), it keeps its 100%.
That battle of interpretations rages on, unless I've heard different. It looks like Marco is taking the liberal interpretation (apps must accept IAP as a form of payment for any services they offer).
Marco didn't mention the possibility that more people would begin to jailbreak their phones and use Cydia or another site, where Apple can't control the applications on offer. Am I underestimating the difficulty of jailbreaking an iPhone and setting that up?
You're overestimating peoples inclination to fuck around with cruddy hacks. The vast, vast number of iPhone users aren't nerds, and have no desire to become nerds.
