> these guys claiming to be surprised and disappointed by Apple’s insistence on a 30 percent cut of subscriptions...
They're surprised by the language Apple used, not Apple's insistence. But I guess being accurate would make for a less sensational blog post.
>And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does.
It doesn't serve up unique content, and it doesn't serve up its own content (eg NY Times, USA Today). In that sense, it doesn't serve up content. But I guess not saying that would result in a less-sensational blog post.
> Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.
They don't need Readability. But they do need TinyGrab, Readability, et al. But I guess not making broad generalizations wouldn't make for a sensational blog post.
They're surprised by the language Apple used, not Apple's insistence. But I guess being accurate would make for a less sensational blog post.
>And how can they claim that Readability isn’t “serving up content”? That’s exactly what Readability does.
It doesn't serve up unique content, and it doesn't serve up its own content (eg NY Times, USA Today). In that sense, it doesn't serve up content. But I guess not saying that would result in a less-sensational blog post.
> Readability needs Apple to publish an app in the App Store. Apple doesn’t need Readability.
They don't need Readability. But they do need TinyGrab, Readability, et al. But I guess not making broad generalizations wouldn't make for a sensational blog post.