Marco Arment just released Instapaper 3.0, and it’s a big release.

“Starring” articles is now “liking” them, and you can browse your friends’ liked articles. This is incredibly exciting.

Instapaper’s going places. Big places.

Mike Rundle just announced Design Then Code, which are his iOS app design and development tutorials.

Mike is a fabulous designer, and based on past articles he’s written on his weblog about iOS development, I think it’s safe to assume his development tutorials will be top-notch, too.

Aaron Mahnke:

Do I imagine bouncing ideas off of Kyle or chatting with Chris about coffee in a few years? Or do I envision a future where this was all just a phase and I have lost touch with everyone in favor of “real” friendships?

I think you know the answer.

Great piece by Aaron. I know it’s something I don’t do nearly well enough—fostering and growing friendships that have sprung up with some truly wonderful people I’ve met through writing TightWind and Twitter.

Marco Arment comments on the success of Instapaper’s subscription option:

“That was a huge surprise to me how well it’s doing given there’s no real incentive to do it besides good will. But it ends up that good will is powerful,” Arment said. “It shows that people will pay for something they like because they want to ensure its future.”

Alex Payne describes what Simperium, the company behind SimpleNote, is working on:

What Simperium will eventually offer is an easy-to-use platform for building apps that sync. I’m happy to announce that I’m now an advisor to and a (very minor) investor in Simperium.

Exciting.

Mandy Brown:

Moreover, it is an opportunity for readers to vote—with their cash—for a better reading experience on the web. Even readers who are skeptical that it will raise enough money should participate, inasmuch as it publicly and financially demonstrates your hope for the future: a web designed for reading, not a web where reading happens despite the design. No reader can argue with that.

Exactly right. When readers support their favorite writers directly, rather than through intermediaries like advertisers or sponsors, incentives are ideal for the reader. When writers and readers have a direct relationship, the writer’s only incentive is to delight themselves and their readers. There’s no one else to worry about. And that’s a good thing.

Seth Godin:

For content to be fabulous, for tablets to be more than game platforms, folks like Apple need to do two things:

• Reward creators instead of taxing them.
• Create promotional channels so that curated great stuff (not merely things from big companies) has a chance to reach a mass audience.

The second point is what I think publishers themselves need to become—curators in the sense that they collect great writing and make it available. The web means there is always more supply than we can handle, so what we need is groups that can sift through the muck and find the people worth reading. Instead of publishers being merely the people who provide printing and distribution, completely irrelevant to the end-user, they should become someone whose taste we trust.

That’s a much harder game but it also would have huge benefits for publishers and users.

Shawn Blanc announced today that he is taking is weblog full-time. As in, this is his I’m-supporting-my-family job.

To do so, he’s set up a membership for his website. It’s $3 a month, and for that, you get to support one of the best writers around.

Shawn’s interview with John Gruber, and a number of other articles he wrote, heavily inspired me to start TightWind. I wish him the best—he’s blazing a trail many of us hope to tread down ourselves, and I can’t think of someone that deserves to succeed at it more.

In response to Apple’s rejection of Sony’s ereader application earlier this month, Kontra wrote an article that’s quite insightful into the subscription rules controversy.

He wrote:

Just as I can’t see how Apple could have become a $300+ billion company by making iTunes an “open for all” playground of its competitors’ commercial interests — given Google, Microsoft, Adobe, RIM, Samsung, Nokia, TimeWarner, NBC, Universal, Amazon and a host of other competitors suing or attacking Apple on a daily basis — I can’t see a way for the App Store to prosper by turning itself into a “neutral zone” app and media hosting platform.

Why then should Apple subsidize companies like Sony to park a free app in the App Store as a simple conduit to sell their own properties outside of the App Store? Some would argue that the mere presence of such apps enhances the value of the App Store which then sells more iOS hardware devices where most of Apple’s profit comes from. By that logic, unfortunately, Time Warner could also give away and heavily promote a free app in the App Store that whisks away iOS users to various Time Warner properties to purchase music, videos, movies, books and magazines. Apple gets nothing for footing the App Store platform expenses while Time Warner gets to leech on the huge Apple ecosystem for free. Now multiply this by thousands of other companies bypassing Apple’s cut, and see how attractive App Store becomes for Apple.

That’s exactly right; by building the iOS platform, and gathering tens of millions of users who are more than willing to pay for good applications, Apple has created incredible business opportunities, and they deserve to share in the money generated from their platform.

There’s a trade-off here, though; as that share increases, the platform becomes decreasingly profitable for third-parties. Set that share low enough, and everyone wins; Apple gets a revenue stream from third-parties that they helped create, third-parties get an entirely new business, and users enjoy a better platform. This creates a positive process; more users join the platform, which is good for Apple, and is good for third-parties, too.

Set that share too high, though, and no one wins; the platform is no longer viable for those third-parties, Apple doesn’t receive that revenue (and their platform loses value as it loses third-party services), and users are offered a less compelling platform (and maybe even switch to a different one as a result). That’s bad for all parties involved. The exact opposite happens here. As third-parties leave the platform, users likely will, too, which decreases Apple’s revenues and third-party revenue, which makes it a less attractive platform, and…

Kontra acknowledges this, but points out it hasn’t been an issue thus far:

Of course, there is a balance. Without sufficient and competitive content, the App Store would fail to ignite iOS device sales. Strategically, however, all the App Store controversy to date has not dampened the enthusiasm of app submissions or iOS device sales, which Apple can’t manufacture enough of. Digiterati teeth gnashing hasn’t been reflected in actual sales figures appreciably.

He’s right, but the controversies so far haven’t resulted in the App Store losing a serious content provider. What I’m arguing is Apple’s new subscription rules tip the balance too far, and they may end up losing one, or a new budding service, and the positive feedback loop described above will transform into the negative one.

That’s the danger Apple is in. I am not arguing that the App Store should be a neutral market where Apple takes no part in revenue generated by third-parties; that’s ridiculous. I’m arguing that the terms they have set for it, 30 percent of all subscription and in-app purchase revenue, and requiring all applications to include the same offers in the app as they do outside, may cause a current large service to leave or a future new service to not bother with the platform.

I have a feeling Apple will adjust the rules before Amazon, Netflix or another similarly large service abandons the platform, but as they stand, this is very much possible. And that’s a poor position for Apple to be in.

John Gruber comments on Apple rejecting Readability’s app:

Maybe I’m missing something, but these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple’s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions when their own business model is to take a 30 percent cut of subscriptions strikes me as rich. And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does. What they’re pissed about is that Apple has the stronger hand. Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.

No one is claiming—not even Readability—that Apple doesn’t have the right to take 30 percent of all subscription revenue. The argument is that it’s a bad decision for developers and Apple.

And no, they’re not pissed because Apple has the stronger hand—they’re pissed because this destroys their business model. And because it’s idiotic on Apple’s part; the iOS platform’s strength lies in being, well, just that: a platform, something that others can build their services on top of. With their new subscription and in-app purchase rules, Apple is effectively making a number of businesses very difficult, like music streaming.

Gruber’s position is that Apple shouldn’t care, because they don’t “need” Readability. But they most assuredly do, in the aggregate; Apple needs Readability, and Pandora, and Netflix, and Instpaper¹, and Rdio, and all other businesses put in a precarious position by Apple’s new rules. Apple needs them because a large part of the platform’s value is in having access to all kinds of media and services.

This isn’t just because it’s nice to have Netflix and Pandora: it’s because the iPhone and iPad’s magic is the idea that it becomes whatever application you’re using. What good is it if you can’t use a number of services that you really love using? Not much. The iOS platform will become dramatically less useful and exciting if there are only a limited number of services available.

Just try explaining to a new potential iOS user why their favorite service isn’t available. “Oh, well, Apple has these rules that, uh, they have to take 30 percent of all subscription revenue, and they don’t want to pay it…”

Yeah. Potential new customers will love that, I’m sure. I have a sneaking suspicion the next words out of their mouth will be, “What phone does it work on?”

Apple marketed the iPhone based on the number of applications available for years. The implicit point there is that whatever you want to do, you can find it in the App Store. If Apple doesn’t adjust their rules, that will no longer be true. So, yes, Apple does need Readability. And everyone else they represent.

1. Instapaper allows users to subscribe, too, and only subscribers will be able to use third-party Instapaper clients when they are developed; will all applications using Instapaper’s full API be rejected, too, since they won’t offer a subscription option? [↩]

Marco Arment:

The discussion shouldn’t be whether Apple can enforce this policy, but whether they should. And if you look at what this does to developer relations, big and small, it’s easier to argue that this is likely to result in more harm than good to the iOS platform.

Apple rejected Readability’s new application based on their new subscription and in-app purchase policy.

Readability’s new service allows readers to “subscribe”—pay them however much a month the reader wants, and Readability gives 70 percent to any websites the user adds to their queue or uses their minimizing functionality on. Apple rejected their application because they do not use their in-app purchase functionality.

This isn’t very surprising and will not be the last of its kind until Apple revises their policy.

From Ian Hines’ interview with Shawn Blanc:

I write because I enjoy it. I enjoy taking complex systems or ideas and turning them into something simple and understandable. The reviews I write are like puzzles that I get to solve. Taking a problem and a solution and communicating that in a way that is engaging and understandable.

Jeff Croft writes about creating Lendle:

About a month ago, I got a call from Brian Ford, who happens to be my cousin. Brian’s wife, Carolyn, had come up with an idea and Brian wanted my thoughts. Amazon had recently rolled out a new feature that allows users to lend Kindle books to others using their e-mail address. This, in effect, means you can really only lend books to people you know (because you probably don’t know many stranger’s e-mail addresses). Carolyn’s idea was simple: what if there were a site that could hook you up with a stranger that has the book you want, so they can lend it to you?

I’ve been using Lendle for about a week now, and it really is fantastic. It’s well designed and makes it simple to lend or borrow Kindle books.

Today, Apple announced a subscription service for iOS that will allow users to subscribe to publications or other content, like video or music. Publishers can set the subscription price and length, and can sell subscriptions outside of their application and retain 100 percent of their revenue, but any subscriptions sold from within their application are subject to Apple’s 30 percent share.

Apple’s reasoning on this is quite simple; they are providing a platform for other companies to not only make money, but make a business, and unless they take a percentage from subscriptions (or in-app purchases) made from within applications, they will be providing the platform without a way to make money from it.¹ They would be paying substantial costs to allow others to make money from their platform but will not share in it.

So it’s not hard to understand Apple’s position, and I think it is certainly valid they want to take a cut from each subscription or in-app purchase made from within an application.

While that is true, there are two objectionable elements. The first is the 30 percent rate. Apple is not only taking 30 percent on the initial subscription payment, but all subsequent payments; that is, simply, too much. Publishers are already under tremendous pressure to keep their prices as low as possible, and this will cut deeply into their margin. From this perspective, Apple shouldn’t just be concerned for publishers out of some kind of empathy; a prohibitively-large cut will discourage publications from using iOS as a platform (even if the large user base provides them a reason to overlook it), and could provide a competitive advantage to other platforms. Google and HP could provide much less stringent terms and gain exclusive content partners.

Second, Apple prohibits publishers from placing links in their applications that will allow customers to purchase subscriptions or content outside the application. Amazon’s Kindle application, for example, does this; you must purchase Kindle ebooks from their online store. This move effectively forces publishers to sell content in their applications using Apple’s in-app purchase mechanism, because most regular users will be unaware they can purchase content outside the application, let alone understand how to do so.

Publishers might bite their tongue in the short-term, because iOS has so many users and so many of them are willing to purchase content, but this isn’t a smart move for the long-term. Just like Apple needs third-party developers for iOS to be a success, Apple needs content-providers, too. Pissing them off for some short-term economic gain isn’t a smart move. Apple should be courting them as much as possible, not trying to generate a bit more income. Sometimes, it’s worth it to trade a small income stream for a much larger one—the success of the iOS platform.

Apple certainly has a right to set the terms for their platform. I am not contesting that; Apple is providing the platform, the SDK, the users, and an easy payment mechanism. But that doesn’t mean that onerous terms are justified. Reducing the rate to 10-15 percent of revenue would likely be acceptable to publishers and seems fair, considering what Apple’s providing. But as it stands, this is an unfair deal for publishers.

1. Yes, they would still make money from hardware sales in this case, but that’s cold comfort when there’s companies making, potentially, tens of millions of dollars using their platform and they aren’t seeing a cent of it. [↩]