Publishers frustrated as Apple blocks iPad subscriptions - Page 3

I don't believe that's the case here.

Okay, but perhaps you could explain why you believe that. Personally, I have no reason to believe any particular thing. All I do know is that companies are constantly trying to wedge each other, and I have no doubt that a lot of maneuvering is going on between these companies, which leads me to take what they say publicly with a good dose of skepticism.

Apple, as we know, has a history of making decisions that only come apparent after someone applies for inclusion into the App Store. They give no reasons for denying approval in cases that don't involve bugs, programs not doing what they're supposed to do, etc. That's why some developers are so upset. Apple won't let them know why their apps haven't been approved. Look back at Google Voice, I think the name is. Apple kept it sitting for months, and never allowed it without ever saying why. This has been true for numbers of apps.

It's true that this doesn't happen very often when compared to the total number of apps, but it happens enough. What I've noticed it that the number of new apps appearing has slowed down considerably, along with the news that developers are giving Android more attention.

While I always expect to see spin on both sides of a disagreement. You may notice that it's Apple that hasn't made any public statement concerning this. If it were simple, there would be no reason for them not to, as they have made statements in the past when they felt there was a misunderstanding. So why not now?

I think they are so confident that they are the only ones publishers can go to, that they're trying to take any advantage they can get from that supposed fact. I also think that it's a big mistake. iOS is no longer the only game in town, and a number of publishers have already said that.

With information that some Android phone customers are using more online data than iOS users, we're seeing that perhaps things may be in for a change. Apple has to see this, but perhaps they can't.

I wonder what Apple would do if these publishers do what the WSJ has done, which is to say; get a sub from the web site, and then give the app sub in the App Store away for free, and just require the user to input their user name and password from the web site into the app to activate it. That's what I do now.

If Apple drives publishers away from charging directly in the apps store somehow, they might try that, and get nothing. If they don't allow that, then the publishers will leave the platform, at great loss to the users of iOS devices, and possibly loss of business in sales of devices to Apple over time.

Apple has to tell them what they can do, and what they can't do before they spend money on developing something. It just seems as though Apple is leaving things too ambiguous.

As I said, I don't have enough information to know what is going on here, only that it looks like maneuvering to me. When an app is denied listing in the store, the reasons may not be explained to us, but that doesn't mean that Apple had no good reason, or that the developer doesn't fully understand the reason. It also doesn't mean that the developer will necessarily be completely candid publicly about why they were denied. How many of them are going to admit that they tried to get away with something and got caught?

To use an analogy, just as the mods here on this board don't think they need to explain why posters get sanctioned, Apple surely feels that they don't need to publicly explain their position in every dispute. Perhaps their silence in this case is as simple as their not wanting to be provoked into a public argument.

I'm not saying that Apple could not possibly be at fault here, all or in part. What I am saying is that we should not assume that they are, based on little more than what some aggrieved, and very much self-interested party may imply.

There a number of very well know apps that weren't approved, or that were rejected without explanation. Apple refusing to comment other than, as with the Google app, that "it wasn't rejected", it was waiting approval, which after several month, never came. That was considered to be a joke.

While mods on a site don't have to explain themselves, and on many sites, merely questioning a mod, for any reason is considered a good enough reason to ban someone, this is different. You don't mess around with your business partners. And every developer, big and small, is a business partner.

There must always be clear ground rules on both sides of the table for everything that is done. A rule of business as I've experienced myself in my long career in business is that you never allow ambiguous areas. EVERYTHING must be spelled out. This goes for Apple. Apple isn't special here. They are just another business. There are rules, and they should have to play by the as everyone else must. No one wants a "gotcha". If Apple told everyone exactly what was expected, then no one could complain about anything later. It's already been said in court that Apple can't keep the rules secret. Developer agreements are public it seems. But Apple doesn't write all the rules down apparently.

I don't know what business you were in, but in mine a lot of things are left below board, and deliberately so. Contracts terms are demanded that heavily favor the party which drafted the contract, and good luck getting them changed to be more fair. Things are demanded that were never in the contract, and things denied which were. I have also found that not everyone tells the truth, especially when their economic interests are on the line. Many people will give you the shiv given half a chance, and dare you to sue them. I have come to never expect complete honesty or consistency. As a businessperson I have been screwed enough times over the last thirty years to know that it rarely works that way.

What you've apparently chosen to do in this particular situation is automatically to believe the companies that complain about Apple. My view is that everyone has interests which motivate what they say or do not say. My business instincts tell me to not believe either one.

I was a partner in a professional audio firm that manufactured audio equipment, and a partner in a commercial photo lab. Before that I was in advertising.

What business are you in? You don't have to state the company.

I can't ever remember a contract where things weren't spelled out. I know a lot of people in business, and they would hate the idea of not specifying everything they could. Sometimes you make an error, and something gets garbled, or left out. That's why MS has overlapping windows in their OS (among other things). Apple's lawyers made a big boo boo.

Partner in a consulting firm, 30 years. We are constantly dealing with clients who dictate all of the terms, and renege on terms even so, fail to pay, dare you to sue. Not all the time of course, but enough to make an impression. It's not an error, it's a screw-job. The world is full of people just aching to take advantage of someone else if they can. Tried to sue a client one time, got my head handed to me. Never again.

Sometimes big businesses do screw small ones. It's not usually a case of doing off contract work or whatever, it's usually a take it or leave it situation. We never dealt with those who tried that. Of course, we had customers who wouldn't pay their bills and such.

But that still doesn't mean it's ok. It's not. And this is big company vs big company here.

Whatever it is, we're not going to resolve it.

We've been screwed by small firms too. Individuals even. We've seen all sorts of high-handed tactics, even from people we thought we knew well enough to trust. If you get any explanation at all, it's usually one of those "it's just business" lines, as if that makes it all better. When it comes to money, an awful lot of people are prepared to set all other considerations aside. So when I hear money talking, my first instinct to be skeptical.

Well, none of this changes things about this problem. Right is right, and wrong is still wrong. Eventually, we'll either hear what happened, or it will get worked out, and we won't.

No, what I've said doesn't change the situation -- but might help explain it. In the end it's mutually beneficial for Apple and these publishers to come to terms. The money, not right or wrong, will do the talking.

I agree. For all our benefits, they must agree. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

I don't know whether Apple or the content publishers are right or wrong, or whatever, but print media publishers, on the iPad, are charging way too much. Zinio is interesting because subscriptions, some are pretty affordable. But still charging more than, say, just $1-$2 for a SINGLE issue? Forget that, man.

I want to buy a single issue of Macworld, Future Music, National Geographic, on my iPad, for $1.99 or $0.99 ~ why is this too hard of a concept for them to grasp?

Maybe I'm missing something with Zinio or Wired and Pop. Mechanics apps... The SUBSCRIPTION MODEL DOES NOT ALWAYS APPLY TO THE DIGITAL REALM.

The publishers are understandably wary of this new media. They have to know that the music business was herded/goaded into participating under pressure of piracy, and that it hasn't exactly worked out well for them. Better than the alternative, but still a lot less profitable than the old way of doing business. I can certainly see why the publishers would not want to get into that space without some assurances that they aren't putting their entire business model at risk.

As for the price, it's unrealistic to expect a $5 magazine in hardcopy to be $1 digitally. Most of the costs of production don't change in this form of delivery.

The reason is very simple. Most of the Ads from the print edition are missing. That loss must be made up somewhere.

"$5 is too much for any magazine. Even Make"

Well, no. Make is the ONLY magazine worth that much.

" it's unrealistic to expect a $5 magazine in hardcopy to be $1 digitally. Most of the costs of production don't change in this form of delivery."

No Paper. No ink. No shipping. No print-overruns. No problems.

I stopped subscribing to the print edition a year ago, and haven't gotten digital one, if it exists (I haven't seen it). Not worth it for me either way.

But, authors, photographers, editors, are all fighting with the publishers over digital rights to their work. The contracts haven't covered additional venues for their work, and they are demanding to get paid again for digital publishing. In many cases, negotiations have resulted in that happening. so there ARE extra expenses for the digital versions of the publications.

In addition, digital versions are re-done for the digital format, resulting in expenses there. Then there is the extra value from work added to their web site that's just accessible from the magazine version in digital form. It's NOT accessible from the web site itself. This may be lengthened articles, extra photos, video, etc.

This all has to be paid for.

And as I've been saying, there is much less advertising in the digital issues to pay for them.

So a $5 copy is probably worth $3 in digital form, perhaps $3.50. 30% is from the paper nature of print costs.

No way.

They had an article in the recent issue about building a robotic lawnmower.

Oh, gee... I gotta build one of those !