>Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless.

This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their efforts towards building this new medium, they require a 30% of cut from end users cost.

- Would publishers/writers be able to publish their content in any other way on the iphone. Of course.
- Would publishers/writers be better off using another way publishing their content on the iphone. Maybe.

Apple provides iOS API for App writers to distribute their efforts (Apps). Apple takes a 30% (or is it 40%?) cut from the App end users cost for their efforts. So far so good, all sounds fair.

Now Apple (for whatever reasons; we'll go through them soon) enforces that:

- All developers use only iStore for any end user transaction. This may be enforced by Apple on the grounds of providing a consistent and safe end user experience. But its is mostly to do with keeping a tight control over the market (end user) and their revenue stream.
- Use only iOS for developing any Applications. Ditto said and actual reasons.
- And now Apple also wants not only a 30% cut of the App sales (which is fair), but also a further 30% cut of the subscription revenue stream (which the App publishers have rightly described as exceedingly greedy. But it is also "monopolistic")

So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that
1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?)
2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.

What about the user community and the society as a whole? What is fair for them?
- It is definitely fair for the user community to have an ability to use their devices (both hard and soft parts of it) in ways that they seem fit, unless of course it harms anyone else. Although I strongly believe in a "take it as it is or leave it" argument for Apple, I also believe in a code for fair conduct (think "consumer rights") towards consumers.
- It is healthy for the society as a whole to have ecosystems for software stacks (iOS), application stacks (iOS API and Apps), and content. It is also healthy for society as a whole to have companies like Apple take profit in certain ways that aid their business. However there is some rights for consumers that must be upheld by society. For instance if an iphone leaks acid causing injury to user, then surely Apple will be held accountable in a court. There is some similarity in Apple leaking because of its revenue share causing financial injury to developers.

All things said and discussed, what all of this really about is, Apple controlling their user revenue stream, and pricing out its competitors in the application stack.
iTunes <=> music store
iBooks <=> book store
so on and so forth.

A lot of those 30% subscription cuts could be going towards development of Apple's competing applications. Apple is most certainly monopolizing its customer base against other developers in its App market. And Apple invited them in the first place and has misplaced their trust. It is a thin line that they have now crossed without much discussion (public).