or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Sports Illustrated says unfair iPad subscription terms led to cut features
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sports Illustrated says unfair iPad subscription terms led to cut features - Page 3

post #81 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

"But publishers apparently remain unsatisfied with Apple's business model for new subscriptions."

You could add to this that 'Customers also apparently remain unsatisfied with Apple's business model for new subscriptions'.

Because everyone knows it can be done better and cheaper.

IMO it sure seems like it should be better and cheaper. Stevie J sees this. I am purely guessing... basic templates etc and just remove and replace content (just a little simplified).

To hire a couple more 'designers' is not going to kill SI as a whole. Again, purely guessing, SI is looking at web only costs. So it may not make sense for the amount of web subscriptions they have now, it may be a chicken and egg thing to them.

IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #82 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applecation View Post

Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business.

Everything they do is because they think it will be good for business. But one needs to be clear about cause and effect.
post #83 of 136
How in the world does removing a feature the program already had count as a "cost-cutting measure"? Sounds totally absurd to me.
post #84 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

I wonder what they call 'a reasonable price'. Is it the same as they are charging for paper. Is the issue that they don't want to do this newstand style where you download the app, perhaps even for free but have to in app each issue for the same price that you would get a paper copy. Are they peeved that Apple doesn't support buying subscriptions in the store and thus they have to set up some kind of user validation system on the web for folks to pay on the web and then log in inside the app for their issues. Are they mad that Apple still wants a cut of the money.

I don't think that's the issue. Lets say you're in a two year subscription with SI and already paid for it. SI and others are not allowed by Apple to give you their content through an app. Do you want to pay twice for the same content? Apple should let those subscribers access their content and when they renew do it through the App Store so Apple can get their cut. Until the issue isn't ironed out I don't see an agreement anytime soon.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #85 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

Anyone know how the Dev process works for this? I am shocked that this isn't simply HTML5 or PDF based. Why should you have to create a "portrait" version and a "landscape" version? I would think this would be handled in the viewing software.

I think it has to do with layout. The print media is used to having tight control of the way the page layout looks. A device like the iPad screws up that control. So they have to design two different layouts for each page. There is no way the Art Director is going to leave the look of the magazine to the "viewing software".

That being said, of course they have to hire more designers. Invest in the long term. The problem is that the print media and the TV networks for that matter, are so afraid of losing control of the market, the way the music industry has. But, until another proven business model comes along that can save them, they should hurry and get on board before it is too late.

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #86 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

I'm sure this will put Sports Illustrated on the AI banishment list.

New enemies are always an exciting arrival around here.

This place thrives on them. If a story has over 100 comments, you can almost count on the headline mentioning Google, Android, Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit or another of the semi-official enemies. Can we now add Sports Illustrated? Samsung?

LG was mentioned the other day, but got few hits. Why are they not reviled?
post #87 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Naw, the point was clear. But it is silly.

Apple will always try to sell MORE iPads. Apple DOES care when one of its intended promotional vehicles is stalling and sputtering.

This ain't some sort of black and white situation in which the iPad is either "selling enough" or "not selling enough". At any level of sales, all things being equal, the manufacturer desires increased sales.

And if the magazine subscription ploy is not working very well, Apple cares very much. It will negatively affect potential profits.

Apple is competing with what?

If you are offering a service and no one is providing anything better, you're not the one who needs to respond.

Look, we are in the early stages of this transition that the iPad is going to be involved in. I doubt this is the time for Apple to slip into desperation mode. It's like Apple's decision to challenge Flash. The sheer volume of Apple portable devices that will not support Flash means that content providers will have no choice but to provide that content in a form that is friendly to Apple's millions of devices that do not support Flash. There is strength in numbers and right now Apple has the numbers.
post #88 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

... Magazines are not just about "info". If you want raw info, disable styles in Safari or check the stock quote listings in the daily paper. Magazines are heavily visual - photos, illustrations, charts, etc. - packaging all that visual content (along with article text) into a particular page size & orientation takes skill & work. The iPad has two orientations, so two sets of layout considerations & constraints. Even iOS apps have to have two sets of UI layouts. ...

Between those two extremes, there is a world of possibilities. My browser, without styles disabled, has a practically infinite set of layouts, yet, (some) designers manage to create web pages that work well in all but the most extreme of them, as well as on my printer. SI needs to stop focusing so much on layout and fonts, although...

This is just stupid posturing by SI, and the people buying the app are the ones they are making suffer. Either that, or the people at SI really are idiots.
post #89 of 136
Apple need to wake up and ease off on personal info restriction for subscription and Apple cut is also too high. There is no reason to keep this information from the content provider. If you subscribe directly to a mag, you will give them your info.

Competition is going to force them to bend.
post #90 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by techno View Post

I think it has to do with layout. The print media is used to having tight control of the way the page layout looks. A device like the iPad screws up that control. So they have to design two different layouts for each page. There is no way the Art Director is going to leave the look of the magazine to the "viewing software".

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind View Post

If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)

Indeed, that's exactly how Zinio handles their e-magazines. Their ZNO files are reported to be nothing but PDF files with a little extra DRM, which can be stripped with the right tools. And the Zinio app does handle embedded video and audio in enhanced editions. I'm happy with my Zinio subscriptions, rather than waiting for Apple to set up their magazine store.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I don't think that's the issue. Lets say you're in a two year subscription with SI and already paid for it. SI and others are not allowed by Apple to give you their content through an app. Do you want to pay twice for the same content?

You call up SI, cancel your print subscription and get a refund for the unused portion. There's really no need to have both.
post #91 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

because Apple does not allow iPad subscriptions at "a reasonable price."


What does SI consider "a reasonable price"?
post #92 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

So SI doesn't want to spend a little extra cash to make its app viewable in portrait mode? Super.

Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

"reasonable price" the content providers and Apple have vastly different ideas about what is reasonable. They probably want to charge like $4.00 per issue and Apple doesn't think it's worth that much money. None of the content providers have really figured out the electronic publishing issue.

The fundamental problem is that the print media doesn't have any clue what they're doing.

SI charges $5 PER ISSUE for the iPad version. Meanwhile, I can buy 28 issues of the print version for $20.

So, for less than $1 per issue, SI has to print the magazine and send it to me while $5 an issue isn't enough for them to do an electronic version properly?

Hypocrites.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

I thought Apple was going to single-handedly save the publishing industry. Har!

You, of all people, should know, that it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to save idiots from themselves.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #94 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

IMO it sure seems like it should be better and cheaper. Stevie J sees this. I am purely guessing... basic templates etc and just remove and replace content (just a little simplified).

To hire a couple more 'designers' is not going to kill SI as a whole. Again, purely guessing, SI is looking at web only costs. So it may not make sense for the amount of web subscriptions they have now, it may be a chicken and egg thing to them.

IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.

Thing is they want to justify hiring more designers. It was easy for Apple to say to the music industry " look at how many iPods we sold and continue to sell" and make an impact. The iPod at the time just played music. That is not true with the ipad and SJ isn't doing a good job of convincing the print media. Imagine Apple charging you to install a album/song you already own onto your iPod. That's what they wanna do to current subscribers of publications. Charge them twice to view their content on an iPad.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #95 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I doubt this is the time for Apple to slip into desperation mode.

Bingo. The post you responded to lamented the black/white viewpoint. Apple cares about this potential revenue. But there's an entire gulf between Apple's current level of concern and desperation. Just like there's an entire gulf between current sales and hugely increased sales.

No need to go to any extremes. They need not be desperate in order to desire increased profits.
post #96 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Thing is they want to justify hiring more designers. It was easy for Apple to say to the music industry " look at how many iPods we sold and continue to sell" and make an impact. The iPod at the time just played music. That is not true with the ipad and SJ isn't doing a good job of convincing the print media. Imagine Apple charging you to install a album/song you already own onto your iPod. That's what they wanna do to current subscribers of publications. Charge them twice to view their content on an iPad.

You don't know that. All we really know is that SI is trying pressure Apple into playing the game their way. Apple didn't persuade the entire music industry to go along with the iTMS all at once. It's been an incremental process, just as they still haven't persuaded all book publishers to join the book store. Magazine and newspaper publishing is bound to follow a similar track. Apple knows that if SI won't play, somebody else will.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #97 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenaustus View Post

Te electronic version doesn't approach that. But it does eliminate a lot of the costs associated with the dead tree version.

It eliminates three costs:
- the cost to acquire and print paper
- the cost of shipping and distribution
- the cost of reclaiming and destroying left-over copies

However, the costs for design and programming the digital editions, plus the costs of acquiring extra content that are necessary for digital editions that have added value FAR OUTWEIGH the costs savings mentioned above. I know of one publication that has over 100 people working on the iPad digital edition. At $40K each (and it's probably much more), that's a $4 million salary investment. the team will probably be reduced in size over time, once the application matures, but still...

So publishers, already hit hard, are proceeding cautiously. I've worked with some publishers and rightly or wrongly, they feel that Apple wants too big a piece of the pie and they're all looking at alternate platforms.
post #98 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.

So they're still not taking your calls, huh?
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #99 of 136
It will be interesting to see which publishing house "gets it" first. The ones that step back listen a bit to their subscriber base, and build a foundation for future publishing. It's not just what the consumer wants - which is an immediate need, but also understanding how electronic delivery is different from print delivery - and not just throwing animations and vids in the mix as well. Likewise advertisers will need to rethink how they deliver *within the context of electronic media* which, it appears, was/is where Apple was trying to take them with iAds. Like any intrenched industry (like automobiles switching from petroleum to electric for example), it will be the nimblest and least intrenched that will score first, the more entrenched will refuse to buy into the paradigm shift, or delay so long that they will lose relevancy, and perhaps fold. Find the blend of consumer desire, ad delivery, subscription rate and formatting and you've found the holy grail. Fail that and end up at the Castle Aaaauuuggghhhh, or lose it trying to cross the Bridge of Death.
post #100 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It eliminates three costs:
- the cost to acquire and print paper
- the cost of shipping and distribution
- the cost of reclaiming and destroying left-over copies

However, the costs for design and programming the digital editions, plus the costs of acquiring extra content that are necessary for digital editions that have added value FAR OUTWEIGH the costs savings mentioned above. I know of one publication that has over 100 people working on the iPad digital edition. At $40K each (and it's probably much more), that's a $4 million salary investment. the team will probably be reduced in size over time, once the application matures, but still...

So publishers, already hit hard, are proceeding cautiously. I've worked with some publishers and rightly or wrongly, they feel that Apple wants too big a piece of the pie and they're all looking at alternate platforms.

Because they haven't figured out how to do it properly. And it probably won't be the large publishing houses that get the right mix for electronic delivery anyway - they are (as I mentioned earlier) too entrenched in traditional print. But then paradigm shifts are never friendly to the entrenched parts of the system now are they?
post #101 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Really. I hope the Susquehanna hat company never makes an iPad app.

OMG that's hilarious but 1. Most here probably have no idea what you're talking about and 2. Your showing your age. Btw I was just by Susquehanna this weekend lol

Here's the clip for those not in the know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=i5dnCvGdnr0
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #102 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind View Post

If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)

I totally agree, I just found the concept of a 30% larger file size to support portrait orientation very strange. I would have thought (hoped) that SI would have figured this out - whether you deliver an encrypted bundle data bundle with an HTML5 driven viewer maybe, PDF as you suggest, etc., there are definitely ways to NOT have that issue.
post #103 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by barthrh View Post

True for now, but this segment is brand new. Just as Android has made huge inroads in the smartphone market and is iOS's biggest threat, we'll see the same issue with tablets. No matter how great your device is, if you have weaker content it'll eventually peter out. Not today, not this year, but a couple of years down the road you'll find yourself in second place or worse.

If the business models for Google and Apple were closer - I would say you might be correct - but they are worlds apart. Just as Apple's and Microsoft's business models are worlds apart as well. The problem with other tablets is they don't have an established infrastructure to support them like the App Store. It will be fragmented from the start as some go on Android, some go on ChromeOS, some go on H-P/Palm WebOS and some go on some variant of Win7. Look at how Sansung is delivering their little tabbies - subsidized by a two year 3G/cell-data contract by the carriers. Each carrier will deliver a different, locked-down version of the Galaxy Tab using Android. Remember, Google came out and said they didn't think Android would be a good fit for tablets, but hey, its free, so why not stretch it a bit and make it fit. And you are basing your comments on one publisher's grumping about making the transition. Unless the tablets are driven down the same road as the smartphones with the carriers, they won't go anywhere, and will become another also-ran device prized by idiosyncratic geeks. Like the Apple Newton for example. The tablet market and the smartphone market are different beasts altogether, unless the carriers figure out a way to monetize them via celldata contracts. The iPad is platform independent, except if purchased with 3G service availability. And may still be in the near future if it opens up (in the US) to all carriers. It's just a 1st gen device.

And to prognosticate a couple of year's down the road based on SI's grumpiness is a far reach when you consider the changes that have taken place over the last couple of years - wouldn't you say? I mean, three years ago, there was no iPad, tablets were a sorry little niche item in the PC world - just a hardware format and little else. Apple is not an entrenched player because they remain nimble and keep moving the playing field forward. Moreso than most of the players like Microsoft.

Dell didn't revolutionize the tablet/slate format did they? More importantly, neither did HP. Or Microsoft. Yeah, you had the "Courier" and the Surface, but where did they go? Surface is limited issue, quasi-commercial entertainment device and Courier died in concept. So you can't look to these companies for the right level of vision for the future. They are entrenched and committed to support the existing formats and platforms, and will change only if the market requires it of them. And consumers won't change, because they have no idea what that future might be.
post #104 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

It will be interestingto see which publishing house "gets it" first. The ones that step back listen a bit to their subscriber base, and build a foundation for future publishing. It's not just what the consumer wants - which is an immediate need, but also understanding how electronic delivery is different from print delivery - and not just throwing animations and vids in the mix as well. Likewise advertisers will need to rethink how they deliver *within the context of electronic media* which, it appears, was/is where Apple was trying to take them with iAds. Like any intrenched industry (like automobiles switching from petroleum to electric for example), it will be the nimblest and least intrenched that will score first, the more intrenched will refuse to buy into the paradigm shift, or delay so long that they will lose relevancy, and perhaps fold. Find the blend of consumer desire, ad delivery, subscription rate and formatting and you've found the holy grail. Fail that and end up at the Castle Aaaauuuggghhhh, or lose it trying to cross the Bridge of Death.

Wow you're good slinging that BS. We as consumers don't know what we want that's why there's advertising and then we're led to believe we want something. I do believe tablets are the future and these publications will eventually all be most read digitally but until then they do not have to bend over for SJ. He is no saviour, he's only a prophet when there's a PROFIT in it for him. I'd rather have Howard Stern as the king of all media before SJ.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #105 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

so you think i should pay $10 a month for access to any publication? who gets what % of the money [other than Apple taking 30%

Why not offer a package plan for, say, $20.00 per month. The subscriber gets to choose 5 different subscriptions for $20.00 (the "A" plan) ... maybe 10 for $15.00 (the "B" plan) etc. The advantage of packaging Ã* la carte would be to increase the value to each subscriber and to each content provider by piggy backing with other content providers, thereby, increasing your sales ... and don't forget, each increase in sales makes the adds on each page more "valuable".
It's time for these people to give up on a marketing approach that is showing them, by decreasing sales, that it doesn't work in the digital age.
It's time to be bold and "think different" or keep watching your industry slowly die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

Yes it's that simple. it has nothing to do with how much they HAVE to spend, or if they're losing money by creating a portrait version, they should just spend more so you can rotate your iPad.

Adding value to your content and giving customers "what they want" is never a bad policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

so you think every content provider should do this for free? great business model.

Free radio uses ads ... free tv uses ads .... the print media uses ads. The biggest hurdle is trying to establish the difference between "free", "affordable" ..... and "greedy".

There are a few things that we know for certain:
One: The business model that the print media is currently using does not work anymore.
Two: There is a lot of "free" content on these same media websites .... that they willingly put there ..... using their own digital age business model .... maybe it's time to listen to and work with someone else that has a proven track record in this new age (Apple) .... and stop worrying about how much money Apple might make on this venture and start worrying about the very survival of their industry.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #106 of 136
the SI page format in paper is portrait, but they say the best way to read it on the iPad is landscape. I have a fundamental problem with designers who say the default behavior on the iPad is going to be different than the default behavior on print.

IMHO : If you are going to experiment with delivery don't do it by taking away the most familiar viewing angle for users and say if you want it back then ask for it. Why? If any percentage of the user community is like me they will just write you off... maybe forever.

Aside from that I'm not going to pay the same price or more for digital format. No way is it more expensive to give me the digital version than the print version for which no one pays newsstand price anyway. (Do they?)
post #107 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

I'm not saying that the providers have to work with Apple. But they can't operate as if this is 1973 only now content is delivered electronically.

Agreed.
post #108 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwheadon View Post

the SI page format in paper is portrait, but they say the best way to read it on the iPad is landscape. I have a fundamental problem with designers who say the default behavior on the iPad is going to be different than the default behavior on print.

IMHO : If you are going to experiment with delivery don't do it by taking away the most familiar viewing angle for users and say if you want it back then ask for it. Why? If any percentage of the user community is like me they will just write you off... maybe forever.

Aside from that I'm not going to pay the same price or more for digital format. No way is it more expensive to give me the digital version than the print version for which no one pays newsstand price anyway. (Do they?)

Do any flying lately? Those airport newsstands are always very busy aren't they?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #109 of 136
The app was very poor to begin with, who cares
post #110 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple.

The problem, as I see it, is that the current digital business model, that the publishers themselves created, (free content on web) is not working. surprise, surprise

Apple has a history of waiting until they think they have all of the kinks worked out before they introduce something ... and have a track record that suggests they are pretty good at what they do.

Apple wants to "get it right" .... right out of the gate .. the publishers are still trying to "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks".

For my money, if I was a publisher, I'd let Apple make some money off of me and jump on their bandwagon. If, after a few years, I'm not satisfied I can always jump off .... but they better do something quick, because the clock is ticking and their customer base is shrinking on a daily basis.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #111 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

i agree completely, but "well done ad's" is a subjective term - in my humble opinion [see how i bolded that and didn't abbreviate it] the iAd for the Nissan Leaf is a huge waste of time. i don't care about some story line of the 2411 peace pod antimatter chip helium on the moon teleportation space elevator electric spacecraft blah blah blah. show me what you want to sell me, why i would like it, and do it fast. if you've clicked on an iAd, you're in the middle of something [the app with the iAd]
the same goes for digital magazines - show me a QTVR instead of a still picture, give me a good hook for a headline, and give me a link for more info.

I get your point. The Nissan is for many people (count me in) over blown. But that's the nice thing, you don't have to click on it, and it shouldn't disturb you any further. And then again, some people might be impressed by the looks of the nissan ad, and that's all it needs for a successfull advertiement. So everybody ought to be happy, I guess....
post #112 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Naw. I usually reserve those for when people try to put words in my mouth. I object to that.

Stop objecting ... their words are an upgrade that you should welcome.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #113 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You've put your finger on it, particularly in your initial comment. These companies are deliberately playing out their politics in public, in the hope that customer complaints will sway the negotiations in their direction. It's kind of pathetic. We've seen the same tactics used in the fight between networks and the cable companies over how much the networks charge. The networks run big advertising campaigns to try to persuade subscribers to essentially demand that the cable providers raise their rates. The sad thing is, it seems to work. Not in this case, I hope.


Yeah consumers are idiots and do not see what this posturing is all about. How many times have companies come out and make statements like this about what Apple doing in hope SJ will change his mind. Let see I can still buy $0.99 songs.

This is standard Marketing 101, Apple listen to the lesson which is the price is the price and you never change the price otherwise you devalue the product. All the other companies change the price than try to figure how they make money later. Magazines are the worse, when was the last time you paid the price listed on front of the magazine, that price is only for the people who have not figured out you pay less with the subscription and still have to see ads on every page.
post #114 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistergsf View Post

What does SI consider "a reasonable price"?

They will know it when they see it.
post #115 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

Thank you for the informative and insightful post.



Magazines are not just about "info". If you want raw info, disable styles in Safari or check the stock quote listings in the daily paper. Magazines are heavily visual - photos, illustrations, charts, etc. - packaging all that visual content (along with article text) into a particular page size & orientation takes skill & work. The iPad has two orientations, so two sets of layout considerations & constraints. Even iOS apps have to have two sets of UI layouts.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me for SI (or any other publisher) to restrict their layout to one orientation.

- Jasen.

Hmmm, it's just that I actually do not have an opposing opignion to what you are stating. I just extrapolate from the picture given by AI (landscape only) and the info accessible on the SI webpage design and come to the conclusion, that design and quality are of a standard, where usually nobody should make a big fuss. The Idea of having a landscape only digital magazine needs to be a desicion made by the graphic designer which I do respect without question.
post #116 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Nix everything after printing. Because the rest is done by wholesalers and the cost to the publishers is minimal

All of the costs that the wholesalers and the rest of the distribution chain incur are built into the wholesale price which then is built into the retail price by SI .... directly or indirectly, SI, and then the consumer pays for it all.
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #117 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.

Eggzactly!
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
Apple, bigger than Google, ..... bigger than Microsoft,   The universe is unfolding as it should. Thanks, Apple.
Reply
post #118 of 136
One word for SI, "templates"

Or use Apple's Pages & PDF Shrink!
post #119 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'd rather have Howard Stern as the king of all media before SJ.

I second the nomination. But satellite radio hasn't been doing that well, has it?
post #120 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Gagne View Post

The app was very poor to begin with, who cares

Their (cr)app is worse than the junk Adobe makes!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Sports Illustrated says unfair iPad subscription terms led to cut features
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Sports Illustrated says unfair iPad subscription terms led to cut features