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

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.

Everything they do is because they think it will be good for business. But one needs to be clear about cause and effect.

How in the world does removing a feature the program already had count as a "cost-cutting measure"? Sounds totally absurd to me.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


You call up SI, cancel your print subscription and get a refund for the unused portion. There's really no need to have both.

What does SI consider "a reasonable price"?

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.

You, of all people, should know, that it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to save idiots from themselves.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So they're still not taking your calls, huh?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adding value to your content and giving customers "what they want" is never a bad policy.

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.

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?)

Agreed.

Do any flying lately? Those airport newsstands are always very busy aren't they?

The app was very poor to begin with, who cares

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.

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....

Stop objecting ... their words are an upgrade that you should welcome.

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.

They will know it when they see it.

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.

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.

Eggzactly!

One word for SI, "templates"

Or use Apple's Pages & PDF Shrink!

I second the nomination. But satellite radio hasn't been doing that well, has it?

Their (cr)app is worse than the junk Adobe makes!