Linked List: April 2, 2012

Monday, 2 April 2012

Readability and Time-Shifting 

Martin McClellan:

Readability failed when they brought the concept of commerce for content into play.

Agreed. That’s the line they shouldn’t have crossed.

What the Betamax Case Teaches Us About Readability 

I really enjoyed Mike Davidson’s take on Readability:

The anger about the financial side of Readability seems to come from the opinion that the company is “keeping publishers’ money” unless they sign up, but I guess I look at it differently: I don’t think it is the publishers’ money. I think it is Readability’s money. Readability invests the time and resources into developing their service and they are the ones who physically get users to pay a subscription fee. It’s hard to get users to pay for content and they are the ones who are actually doing it. They realize that the popularity of their service is a direct result of content creators’ efforts so they are voluntarily redistributing 70% of it back to publishers in the only way it is feasible to: based on pageviews from publishers who register themselves.

I think Davidson accurately describes what it is that people like about Readability. My beef isn’t with the concept, it’s with the framing and execution. Michael Sippey, on Twitter:

My issue with @readability is this line: “70% of your monthly contribution is earmarked for the writers you read” https://www.readability.com/readers/register/contribute

For example, I’d be happy if 70% of my sub fees went directly to the four pubs that had registered (Awl, Dashes, Millions, Morning News).

I.e., Readability should make it clear that it’s really up to 70 percent of subscriber contributions that are paid to publishers, and that in reality it’s far less because most websites aren’t in their program. Or, they should pay 70 percent and split it only among those publishers who are registered. The way they’re doing it now is misleading at best, and arguably dishonest.

Anil Dash on Readability and Instapaper 

Anil Dash, over the weekend, regarding my calling Readability “scumbags”:

A few people have asked why I say John’s being a “bully” here. There are a few aspects, mostly related to his unique place in the Apple/iOS media realm. First, because he routes so much attention through his links, lesser blogs will compete to restate his opinions (such as criticizing Readability) ever more pointedly, in hopes of earning a link. This is already taking a place.

I think that’s a deeply cynical perspective. I suspect most people joining in my criticism of Readability’s practices are doing so simply because they disagree with Readability’s practices, not because they think I’m going to link to them. It seems beyond Dash’s ken that there are many of us who feel the same way. If it seems as though there’s a bit of piling on in the wake of my brief but sharp criticism, perhaps it’s because a lot of people were in a sort of “Hmm, am I the only one who thinks these guys are doing some sketchy stuff?” emperor-has-no-clothes situation. Even I didn’t break out the guns until A.T. Faust published his detailed critique of Readability’s shared-links-point-back-to-their-own-hosted-copy behavior.

More broadly, instead of conceding that he merely has one of the possible positions on Readability’s publisher program, he encourages his Twitter followers to believe that Jeffrey Zeldman and I are motivated by a greed we’re attempting to hide from people rather than that we come about our opinions honestly.

All I did was point out that Dash and Zeldman are Readability shareholders and advisory board members, which I believe to be relevant. It’s about perspective, not motivation. I do not believe either Zeldman or Dash are involved with Readability for the money; I think they’re involved because they genuinely believe in Readability’s stated ideals. I simply think they’re wrong.

That’s not to say that folks like John and Merlin aren’t sincere in their reasons for supporting Instapaper and criticizing Readability — I think the points they use to back up their arguments are their honest beliefs. But their motivations? It’s their wonderful, horrible personal loyalty.

“Wonderful, horrible personal loyalty” is a splendid turn of phrase, and — I’m self-aware enough to realize — apt. And indeed, Marco Arment is a dear friend. But I didn’t mention Instapaper at all in this discussion, and if Marco were to fold up shop and retire tomorrow, it wouldn’t change a bit of my criticism regarding Readability. It’s Dash and some of Readability’s other defenders who keep bringing up Instapaper.

Canada Kills Its Penny; Can We Please Be Next? 

I don’t understand why anyone thinks we should keep minting pennies. Even nickels and dimes are practically worthless.

Stamen Maps 

Gorgeous alternative map tiles for OpenStreetMap. Very cool. (Via Jason Santa Maria.)

Incremental Change 

Glenn Fleishman:

Apple makes its money over the long term not just by introducing disruption, which would mean flash-in-the-pan products that spark and then fizzle, but by seeing disruption through into stable releases, each with significant improvements that appear to be incremental to a product’s design and capabilities.

Whole article is smart, but the above sentence perfectly captures Apple’s central strategy.

The Macalope: Fools of the Year 

Imagine a conference where the speakers are all culled from this list.

So Good It Doesn’t Need to Make Money 

Brian S. Hall on Tom Krazit’s argument that Google isn’t and needn’t worry about generating profit from Android.

Mac McClelland Was a Warehouse Wage Slave 

Terrific story by Mac McClelland for Mother Jones:

The gal conducting our training reminds us again that we cannot miss any days our first week. There are NO exceptions to this policy. She says to take Brian, for example, who’s here with us in training today. Brian already went through this training, but then during his first week his lady had a baby, so he missed a day and he had to be fired. Having to start the application process over could cost a brand-new dad like Brian a couple of weeks’ worth of work and pay. Okay? Everybody turn around and look at Brian. Welcome back, Brian. Don’t end up like Brian.