European publishers feel 'betrayed' by Apple's iOS app subscriptions

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
Though Apple has not officially revealed the terms of its new recurring application subscription service, publishers across Europe reportedly feel "betrayed" and have planned a summit in London later this month.



As reported Wednesday by mocoNews.net, publishers in Europe are upset with Apple and its apparent rejection of Sony's e-reader application for iOS devices. Sony revealed to The New York Times this week that its digital bookstore was blocked from the App Store by Apple.



In response, the head of the International Newsmedia Marketing Association, which represents about 5,000 members in 80 countries worldwide, reportedly plans to meet with the European Online Publishers Association in an invitation-only roundtable on Feb. 17 in London. It was said that the two organizations plan to "compare notes" on Apple's subscription rules for iOS software.



"Some say they feel betrayed," said Grzegorz Piechota, European resident of the INMA. "They believed that it would be a great way to access content from newspapers and magazines. So they hyped the iPad, and many of them invested in apps for it."



"By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market."



Piechota claims that Apple has been inconsistent in communicating and implementing new policies. He noted that Apple denied that it has changed its policies on the App Store, but is instead now enforcing already established rules.



"We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase," Apple spokeswoman Trudy Miller said.



Publishers in Europe first caught wind of Apple's plans last month, when a number of daily newspapers revealed that they were told by Apple they could no longer offer paid print subscribers free access to an iPad edition through the App Store. By offering free access to existing subscribers, newspapers can avoid charging for access through the iPad, and can avoid paying Apple a 30 percent cut of all transactions on the App Store.



Apple's head of iTunes, Eddy Cue, was asked on Wednesday about Apple's new recurring application subscription plans, which debuted with the launch of the new tablet-only newspaper The Daily. But Cue declined to reveal any details on the new application subscription feature, and said that Apple would reveal more details in the near future.
«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 163
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 2 of 163
    Once again, a failing industry moaning about the lifeline being thrown. Let em drown.
  • Reply 3 of 163
    The print media better hurry up and figure it out or their collective "goose is cooked!"



    I think the first thing they need to agree on is that subscriptions on the iPad should be a lot cheaper than print subscriptions. If not people will forgo both iPad and print subscriptions and seek out free content on the web.



    Jobs showed with iTunes/music that "easy" sometimes trumps "free!"



    The print media has been belly-aching about this for years....with 14 million iPads sold, looks like we have reached a tipping point. Again, much like the decline in traditional music/CD sales.
  • Reply 4 of 163
    Can't we all just get along?



    Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.
  • Reply 5 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "By promoting these apps, they promoted the device. Publishers in fact helped to make the iPad successful on the market."



    Yes, these publishers MADE the iPad successful. They in no way wanted to attach themselves to the Apple Gravy Train.

    In fact, if it wasn't for these publishers, Apple would still be beleaguered!

    How DARE Apple ask for compensation for it's work!!!???

    We publishers need to have a nice retreat to a resort somewhere to talk about how powerful we are.
  • Reply 6 of 163
    isaidsoisaidso Posts: 750member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post


    Yes, these publishers MADE the iPad successful. They in no way wanted to attach themselves to the Apple Gravy Train.

    In fact, if it wasn't for these publishers, Apple would still be beleaguered!

    How DARE Apple ask for compensation for it's work!!!???

    We publishers need to have a nice retreat to a resort somewhere to talk about how powerful we are.



  • Reply 7 of 163
    tjwtjw Posts: 216member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Once again, a failing industry moaning about the lifeline being thrown. Let em drown.



    Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.



    Also why is apple forcing publishers to charge for the subscriptions through iTunes? I still don't understand why a subscriber to a physical magazine will not be allowed to access the iPad version too.



    Luckily with honeycomb getting rave reviews from today's preview there is going to be another viable option very soon.



    Why is it that as android is getting better and better, apple is getting more and more draconian?
  • Reply 8 of 163
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    They don’t like Sony’s e-reader being rejected... so they’re getting together to discuss the new subscription capabilities? Isn’t that two separate things?



    I too think Apple’s policy that affects Sony’s app needs to be refined if not majorly overhauled.... but that’s not about app subscriptions per se.



    Not that both issues aren’t relevant.
  • Reply 9 of 163
    quevarquevar Posts: 101member
    I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.



    Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.



    Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.
  • Reply 10 of 163
    as big as sony is shouldn't they be able to have their own effing system to put of media like the ipad?

    All these tech managers want a free ride on Apple so they won't have to accrue certain business costs. Remember the EU and itunes?

    Sony is fu***** lazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
  • Reply 11 of 163
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjw View Post


    Lifeline? Are you joking? Basically submitting all their business to one man, one company, one platform.



    ...



    This is a gross misrepresentation of what Apple requires. Apple requires that apps that direct users to download paid material outside the app also allow users to purchase paid material from inside the app. They must give the user the choice.



    Of course choice when enforced by Apple is bad, isn't it?
  • Reply 12 of 163
    Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?
  • Reply 13 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quevar View Post


    I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.



    Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.



    Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.



    iPad stands to bring in much more revenue and ultimately cut down the overhead for publishing companies tremendously. Apple isn't required to support other companies in an aim that is counter-intuitive. Obviously, print magazines aren't something that Apple intends on distributing. Digital magazines are. If you want to get behind the revolution, and invest in the future, play by the rules that Apple has instituted. If you want to live in the past, and watch as more and more of your competitors flock to a primarily digital or all digital model... then by all means, no one is forcing you to use App Store. Let a hackneyed platform like Android try to serve your needs and see how many of those customers are willing to pay for content.
  • Reply 14 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quevar View Post


    I side with the publishers on this one. Many of the publishers allow electronic copies of their magazines when you pay for the print version. How does Apple expect this to work for the consumer? I pay a yearly fee for access to the content (in print and now in electronic media) and it sounds like Apple will then require me to also pay for the downloaded magazines for the iPad. I won't do it as I'd just revert back to the print edition, as annoying as that would be.



    Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? That is extortion and I would not put up with that if I were the publishers either. Maybe it could be legitimate if Apple was actually hosting or helping the publishers to design the content, but they are not. To bring up the trusty car analogy, this is like a manufacturer getting a 30% cut of an oil change that occurs a your local repair shop. OK, so Apple hosts the free app that allows them access to the content - it would make sense for Apple to require these types of apps to sell for some non-zero amount.



    Apple needs to tread on this carefully as they could boycot the iPad and have a pretty nasty ad campaign against Apple for their restrictive app policy. In general, I agree with their app policy, but this is one case where I think they have gone too far and are on the verge of making the publishing world very angry with them.



    You can't just use Safari?
  • Reply 15 of 163
    Reported in this month's MacWorld Magazine, a University of Missouri survey found that 58% of those who subscribe to print newspapers and spend more than an hour reading news on their iPad said they were very likely to cancel their print subscriptions in the next six months; 10% said they had already cancelled.



    Hmmm.
  • Reply 16 of 163
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,310moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase," Apple spokeswoman Trudy Miller said.



    I think it's quite a good rule to enforce. That's one thing that put me off using Stanza. It would take you out of the app and onto a browser to buy books with Paypal and then they end up sending you marketing emails.



    More than anything, it was just a cumbersome process to actually buy a book and get it into the app to read.



    Publishers would be wise to play along with the rules. I can see the usual 'well we're going to go with Android instead' response coming down the line from publishers but few people even want subscription magazines any more. The iPad is one of the few devices to get the display, form factor and input response right for this type of content.



    All it takes is one publisher to get on the iPad, start raking in the money and suddenly the rules won't start to look too bad to everyone else.
  • Reply 17 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by enjourni View Post


    Can't we all just get along?



    Users want magazines on ipad, magazine publishers want it, apple wants it. So what is the big problem with this? And why does the rate have to be fixed at 30% for such services? Apple's going to get HUGE re-occuring income from app subscriptions, why can't they relax their rates so they don't scare off the content providers? Seems really short sighted to me.



    Who says it will be 30% - I think Eddy Cue said that an announcement is forthcoming. This sounds somewhat reminiscent of before apps were done on the iPhone at all. Everyone has a solution and many predicted gloom and doom. Looks like it turned out pretty good to me. How many apps could you buy (for anything) before the iPhone app price brought prices down to as low as $0.99 and a lot lof them for $2.99 or less?
  • Reply 18 of 163
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quevar View Post


    ... Secondly, why should Apple get a cut of the revenue from the publishers when the new magazines don't even go through Apple or any of their servers? There is zero overhead for Apple, yet they still want a 30% piece of the pie? ...



    Because the App Store does not operate under a fee for services model, it operates under a revenue sharing model. If your app and it's content, in and of itself, generates revenue, you agree to share that revenue with Apple.
  • Reply 19 of 163
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jack Mac View Post


    Apple needs to remember that success can be very short lived. Although I am an avid Apple fan and have ben for 25 years I think that a class action suit against Apple sometimes redirects it in the correct direction. Anybody listening?



    I for one am listening to a nasty buzz - sounds about like flys buzzing around a pile...



    So Apple should support the publishing industry? Is that what you are saying? If you have a business can I put my sign in your window and sell my goods for free? Didn't think so.



    BTW: who the hell is ben and why do we care if you've had him for 25 yrs.?
  • Reply 20 of 163
    I feel betrayed. Apple was going to give me my own private newspaper app and pay me 30% of the the reoccurring ad revenue. Now some crazy people in Europe get it instead.
Sign In or Register to comment.