or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple tells newspapers: no free iPad edition for print subscribers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells newspapers: no free iPad edition for print subscribers - Page 2

post #41 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzMega View Post

Then. Let. Them. Distribute. ePapers. Without. The. App. Store!

Good luck with that!
post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

With print subscribers it's easy to do. Digital subscribers like those of Hulu and Netflix are a different story.

it's almost impossible to do.

As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.

Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.


I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.
post #43 of 103
How does the Kindle app fit into this?

Also, if a news company wanted to give each subscriber a username and password, couldnt' they do this from the web, and use any browser on any device??

I would be looking at more open platform models quickly and circumvent Apple by using my own tools on a website.

PS. All of this information may be leaked falsly to drive other tablets!! Bad news isn't always the truth, and neither is good news.
post #44 of 103
If this is true I just got a new reason to pass on the iPad 2 in favour of an Android or WebOS based tablet. I find it hard to believe however that Apple would be so narrowly focused on revenue from the App Store, which isn't really turning a profit but just acting as a defensive asset relative to their hardware revenues. Also, how could they allow Zinio if they wouldn't allow European newspapers to give their subscribers free access to the print edition?
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by wvmb99 View Post

If this is actually Apple's reasoning here, it is a bit much. cmon Steve, sometimes letting something go to help build an ecosystem is a good thing.

Right... last time I looked AAPL was a charity set up to help poor, impoverished publishers like Rupert Murdoch.
post #46 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

it's almost impossible to do.

As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.

Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.


I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.

You are correct about the issue at hand, free use of the in-app purchase system and you are right that there is a workaround (I described it in my previous post). My point was that once you implemented the workaround, you're no longer a print only business.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #47 of 103
Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.

This is not netflix. With netflix your down load the app from apple and the content from netflix. What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time. Bandwidth costs money. These papers are free to provide there content by themselves and pay the millions to set up data centers and pay for bandwidth.
post #48 of 103
Just to reiterate: there is nothing new in these stories -- it looks like the Dutch paper finally figured out the issues that have been facing Apple and publishers.

A publisher who wants to give away the content for free, but charge others has no mechanism for doing this inside the App Store -- and Apple would prefer not to create one because this would mean the publisher would be able to get 100% of the revenue generated while Apple gets zip.

On the other hand, the number one complaint people have concerning publications in the app store is having to pay for content that they already are paying for when they bought their print copies. Apple didn't create this problem, the publishers did by developing their apps.

I personally think the solution is to charge a "reasonable" amount for an iPad subscription -- low enough to entice new readers and some print readers, high enough to generate profits even if a print subscriber drops their print edition.

But there will always be those who complain that publishers are "greedy" for charging for content in products that contain ads. It's a strange complaint since no one seems to complain about ads in print publications, they see the ads as part of the content.

Also: Netflix and Amazon handle their own billing for their products -- Apple simply lists the apps in the app store. Have you noticed that you can not buy a book in the Kindle app? Click the button and it takes you outside the app to the website where Amazon handles the whole transaction. This is why it is not a violation of the developer license.
post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRRosen View Post

Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.

FYI I already paid Apple when I purchased the device. Apple adds nothing of value in the magazine->consumer relationship they're merely exploiting monopoly profits from restricting publishers to making their content accessible through their North Korean App Store (tm).

Also the story doesn't hold up logically unless Apple has somehow begun pursuing stupid business strategy. What would be the point for Apple to scare off all the publishers monetising content on their platform when the publishers could basically sidestep Apple's demands by starting to charge symbolic amounts for access to the content or alternatively jump ship altogether (to Android or purely web distribution).
post #50 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

As soon as you're doing that, you're not running a print business anymore. Amazon is an existing online business that provides digital products, so the comparison doesn't fit.

Additionally, if you created a website portal solely to serve your app, Apple could just reject the app, seems pretty simple to me.

don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.

If they want to do it their way, they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRRosen View Post

Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.

This is not netflix. With netflix your down load the app from apple and the content from netflix. What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time. Bandwidth costs money. These papers are free to provide there content by themselves and pay the millions to set up data centers and pay for bandwidth.

Using that logic then why isn't Apple paying me for evertime it wants Ping and Genius information from me- not to mention the endless iTunes updates. The should pay me for the relentless updates that I need to keep my Mac, etc from rendering useless.
post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalkingNewMedia View Post

A publisher who wants to give away the content for free, but charge others has no mechanism for doing this inside the App Store

Not inside the App Store but surely they can do it 'inside' the app relying on App Store-related API's and reliant on their app having been approved by the App Store? At least that's what The Economist is currently doing among others.
post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.

Or Zinio or pressdisplay, which are even more to the point.
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading. My comment is based on how the app store has operated for quite some time. You are free to process transactions on your website if you have an existing digital business. However, if you don't have an existing digital business, you must use Apple's in app purchasing system, subscription or otherwise.

Hulu and netflix work because they are existing digital businesses. Their iPhone and iPad apps are not their primary offerings, they are merely apps that allow you to access their subscription content on the iPhone/iPad in addition to the numerous other digital devices they are available on.

Print newspapers with no digital version who decide to offer an iPad app do not have an existing digital business and thus must use Apple's in app purchasing system (which will soon properly support subscriptions). If you use the in app purchasing system, Apple gets its 30% cut.

The workaround is simple. Offer an online version of your newspaper, available through your website and have users create accounts and require them to log in to access the newspaper. You can charge for the online version, or it can be a perk for existing print customers, it doesn't matter. Once you do that, you have an existing digital business and are free to create an app that requires users to log in to access an iPad formatted version of the newspaper. You're free to handle all the transactions on your website and Apple won't take a cut of the profits.

This is how the app store works and it will continue to work that way for the foreseeable future. If the article has mislead you to believe otherwise, I guess that's the fault of the article.

If it didn't work that way Netflix, Hulu, Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, crunchyroll, and many many others would not be available for iOS in their current forms.

The Kindle app is the perfect example. You can go to amazon.com and buy as many ebooks as you want and then view them through the Kindle app without Amazon giving Apple a dime. Books aren't too different from newspapers, and rest assured that if Amazon started offering subscriptions, those subscriptions would also show up in the Kindle app just fine.

It's all about having an existing digital business. If you don't have one, Apple will not permit you to set one up just to serve your app, they want you to go through their purchasing system instead. But if you do have one, Apple wants your customers to use iPhones and iPads, so they will allow you to provide access to your paid or subscription content through the app without taking a cut (because they never processed the transaction in the first place).

This serves a practical purpose in addition to the apparent money grabbing purpose. If Apple allowed everyone to manage their own purchases, in app purchases would suck. Each app would require you to set up a new account with a company that you may or may not trust. The user experience would suck.

Your explanation (and several other similar ones) assumes that Apple is hosting content for one or more of these news services. Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #55 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by OskiO View Post

Yet another reason that makes me dislike the creator of my favorite products. Apple sucks when it comes to this crap.

An attitude that could only come from people who never pay for anything anyway...

I say, great job Apple. Keep 'em on their toes!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.

If they want to do it their way, they need to roll out their own infrastructure.

I agree that they need to roll out their own infrastructure.

Edit: That's probably what my other posts should have focussed on. That's primarily what I meant by existing digital business. They need their own infrastructure to serve the data and process payments without replying on Apple to do so. If they rely on Apple to do it, they should expect to pay.

As far as I understand it though, that infrastructure would have to be used to serve more than just the iPad app. I don't think Apple will permit apps with infrastructure designed with the sole purpose of circumventing the app store. For instance Amazons eBooks can be read on the computer, iPhone, iPad, Kindle, and I believe Android now. If Amazon sold ebooks that could only be used on the iPad from their website, I don't think Apple would allow the app to remain in the app store.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #57 of 103
I think that if Apple wants to charge for subscriptions, they should have a distribution system for it. Charging for it, then making the publisher handle distribution doesn't seem fair. I think this is what they are doing though. We'll see when they announce their new publishing platform.
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I think that if Apple wants to charge for subscriptions, they should have a distribution system for it. Charging for it, then making the publisher handle distribution doesn't seem fair. I think this is what they are doing though. We'll see when they announce their new publishing platform.

Apple handles e-distribution. Maybe I missed something... How do you mean "making the publisher handle distribution"?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Your explanation (and several other similar ones) assumes that Apple is hosting content for one or more of these news services. Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.


I think that in the subscription model Apple will be hosting the content. What differs with Netflix for example, is that not just a single movie is advertised in the App Store. You download the App and then access a selection of movies hosted by Netflix. In the magazine subscription model, when you read the details of the app in the App store, it will highlight the articles and topics included in that particular issue. If you have the subscription already, it just downloads for free, if not you purchase the subscription or maybe even just the single issue. The first time you buy an issue it bundles the player and the magazine. Subsequently just the magazine. Just speculation on my part.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #60 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corato View Post

I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.

30% is a small price to pay for the kind of exposure you get on the App Store and Mac App Store. Especially for small businesses who would, in addition, need to publicize their apps, team up with an e-commerce partner (who would take their own cut by the way), develop their own auto-update mechanism, and develop their own anti-piracy techniques.

Oh, and don't even think about using the M-word. (Hint: starts with "mono," ends with "poly.")

Did you hear about all the craplets announced last week at CES? Have you heard about the impending iPad-killers from Google and RIM? Sure, they're vaporcrap now, but is Apple doing anything illegal to crush them? Nope.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #61 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I think that in the subscription model Apple will be hosting the content. What differs with Netflix for example, is that not just a single movie is advertised in the App Store. You download the App and then access a selection of movies hosted by Netflix. In the magazine subscription model, when you read the details of the app in the App store, it will highlight the articles and topics included in that particular issue. If you have the subscription already, it just downloads for free, if not you purchase the subscription or maybe even just the single issue. The first time you buy an issue it bundles the player and the magazine. Subsequently just the magazine. Just speculation on my part.

Could be, and might help explain that brand new data center.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corato View Post

I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.

The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price. Even other online electronic distribution systems are typically in the 30% range (look up what Google and Amazon and everyone else does).

There is absolutely nothing illegal about charging a lot of money for a service. If the market, on average, was such that distributors kept 95% of the revenue, then keeping 95% would not be illegal.

I ran a retail store and bought my merch generally at "Keystone" (50% off retail) and sometimes at "Triple key" (66% off), but my suppliers did nothing to drive traffic to me nor handle distribution, collection, deposits, etc., or to improve my "location." Seems very reasonable to me on a crowded web. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.

Apple also incurs lots of extra cost for all the free software it does host, post and deliver, btw. Yeah, that's greedy. As is, for example, the fact that I buy little to no content on iTunes, but consume gigabytes of free podcasts every week - including many I'd never even find otherwise. Yep, another sign of the mark of the beast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

For one time purchases it is 30%
for in-app subscriptions, apple will charge closer to 10%

Interesting if true. Got a source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLiver View Post

Not cool. I get NYTimes for free on my iPhone. Why shouldn't I get it free on my iPad if NYTImes wants to give it to me?
Apple products- so cool, Apple Inc- soo controlling.

You do realize it is the App STORE, not some Apps.org? If the app improves the digital experience as compared to the Times free web site and is tied to a paid sub, why shouldn't Apple, by providing the distribution receptacle get a cut?

NPR doesn't charge for any of its content (tho' it does "charge" the taxpayers and its loyal base of pledgers), so makes sense that that App is and will remain free.

FYI, 'tho I regard the Times as the most agenda-driven major paper in the country, their new Chrome edition (developed I'm pretty certain with Google) http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/# is really pretty well done - it actually makes me "stick" longer since so easy to browse and load stories without page reloads - and while described as a "Chrome app," just a web site that's much easier to surf on Chrome and Firefox than the regular web edition. (Note: it won't come up at all on my old iBook's Safari and renders crappily on Safari-Win.)

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #63 of 103
This is pretty bad news - it would mean iPad subscriptions will always be at least 30% higher than print ones. I get free access to the Economist iPad app because I have a print sub, so my wife takes the print version, I read the iPad version.

This would easily make me walk away, because what next, the same rule applied to Kindle books and other things?

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Right... last time I looked AAPL was a charity set up to help poor, impoverished publishers like Rupert Murdoch.

Bad example - last thing we need is for all print media to have to be like News Corp to survive...

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #65 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

This is pretty bad news - it would mean iPad subscriptions will always be at least 30% higher than print ones. I get free access to the Economist iPad app because I have a print sub, so my wife takes the print version, I read the iPad version.

This would easily make me walk away, because what next, the same rule applied to Kindle books and other things?

No it doesn't, if only because print has significant distribution costs.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #66 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

An attitude that could only come from people who never pay for anything anyway...

I say, great job Apple. Keep 'em on their toes!

Hey! No soup for you!

j/k

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply
post #67 of 103
deleted
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

it's almost impossible to do.

As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.

Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.


I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.

As long as Apple has its iron grip on the App store - Apple can do something. They just don't approve apps like this. While I like the convenience of the app store, the power to do things like that and enforce politically correct values[1] are bad things

[1] Like applying American morals to European newspapers - violence is good, a nipple is close to world war 3
post #69 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLiver View Post

Not cool. I get NYTimes for free on my iPhone. Why shouldn't I get it free on my iPad if NYTImes wants to give it to me?
Apple products- so cool, Apple Inc- soo controlling.

The New York Times doesn't want to give it to you for free; that's why they're going to start requiring higher volume users to get a subscription after Apple rolls out its subscription plan. The Times announced several months ago that they were moving all of their platforms to a modified pay wall in early 2011.
post #70 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

I ran a retail store and bought my merch generally at "Keystone" (50% off retail) and sometimes at "Triple key" (66% off), but my suppliers did nothing to drive traffic to me nor handle distribution, collection, deposits, etc., or to improve my "location." Seems very reasonable to me on a crowded web. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.

It would seem to me that in the app store case *you* (as in the publisher) are the product, so what you write you right doesn't make so much sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Could be, and might help explain that brand new data center.

If it's all about the revenue, then perhaps this is how it might play out:

1 Publishers need the demographic data to target their advertising
2 Apple won't give them that information through the app store model
3 ???
4 Profit!!!!

It would seem to me that Apple could be developing an iAds API which is sympathetic to publishing industry. The publishers then do not need to even have a marketing department as far as the App store is concerned, except to say to the API 'this is my target audience'. Even static ads could be presented, perhaps apple taking a lower take of the pie to compensate for the idea that there is far less development time. If the ads are relevant enough to the target audience, the revenue might be sufficient to even avoid the need altogether for a subscription service.

Maybe that's what the data centre is for.
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

The difference is Netflix and Hulu are not a dying industry.
Print is.

Well then isn't Apple picking winners and losers? Doesn't this put them in the same boat as ISPs/Cable companies and the Net Neutrality debate? Speaking of which, AT&T's U-Verse software has a FREE iPhone app for subscribers so they can watch recorded shows and schedule recordings on their home DVR. Again, seems like the same business model. They're using the iOs devices as a bonus for their paying subscribers without Apple seeing a penny.
post #72 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post

Put it like this: Why keep on dealing with paper at all? Why should I have to get paper copies sent to me? I do not want them!!! Period.

Instead I would like the journalists to allow me to purchase/subscribe to their news thru a App on my iPad.

Exactly. When someone subscribes, they should have to make a choice, print of digital. Simple as that. I am sure they can come to some agreement with Apple that allows a customer to switch midway their subscription. Make the customer pay a small fee to make the switch. But, no reason to have both at the same time.

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 #73 of 103
Same old story...

[Music|Print] publishers are angry that they can't get people to pay money for their [music|content] online. Apple comes along and creates a successful store for them. Publishers then become mad that the service is a) not free, b) not controlled by them and c) that Apple is becoming too powerful/evil.

By the way, it works the other way around, too.
German populist newspaper Bild has blocked iPad users from seeing the free content on their website, in favor of their paid app.
post #74 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

It would seem to me that in the app store case *you* (as in the publisher) are the product, so what you write you right doesn't make so much sense to me.

My rent, staff, shipping, time and advertising amounted to much more than 30% of my costs to sell and distribute my (sometimes self-manufactured) product and I was stuck in an out of the way location. THAT makes sense to me. My point is that 30% to take over all those functions, while also distributing free product for others, is in no way egregious to expect from a small biz.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #75 of 103
This is silly. The reason why the Phone platform become popular is precisely because, not only did it work well, but when you include all the free apps it delivered good value.

If you start blocking suppliers delivering stuff to iPad users for free, you reduce the value of the device in people's hands. Seeing the huge list of other tablets due to be released Apple needs to do everything it can to keep customers happy by delighting us with unexpected value.
post #76 of 103
A simple solution would be for the newspaper to offer free printed version with 30% markup for those who bought iPad apps.
post #77 of 103
There is likely another layer to this idea.

This is strictly a suspicion on my part at the moment, but I'll bet $1 that the publishers will be hosting their recurring subscription content on Apple's new server farm and would also be using Apple for recurring billing and remittance. If correct, that would justify the 30% cut.

Contrast that to Netflix which runs/contracts it's own CDN (content delivery network) and Netflix determines if you've paid, what movies you've queued and so on.
post #78 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No it doesn't, if only because print has significant distribution costs.

Right, which is evidenced by digital versions costing a lot less than shelf versions... oh wait, they don't.

People grossly over-estimate how much is costs to print and distribute. The overheads are quite small because we've become pretty good at it (hundreds of years pf practice, economies of scale using existing distribution networks, etc). It barely comes into it.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The workaround is simple. Offer an online version of your newspaper, available through your website and have users create accounts and require them to log in to access the newspaper. You can charge for the online version, or it can be a perk for existing print customers, it doesn't matter. Once you do that, you have an existing digital business and are free to create an app that requires users to log in to access an iPad formatted version of the newspaper. You're free to handle all the transactions on your website and Apple won't take a cut of the profits.

This is how the app store works and it will continue to work that way for the foreseeable future. If the article has mislead you to believe otherwise, I guess that's the fault of the article.

All those European Newspapers which have iPad and iPhone apps already operate exactly as you suggested it. Take the Financial Times, The Economist, or the Wallstreet Journal (I know, not European) and others. They have offered online subscriptions for a while now (which cost between a third and a half of the print subscriptions). With this you can access their complete editions online, also via the web browser on the iPad. But they also offer iPad and iPhone apps for free, these apps then pull the content from the publishers servers (ie, Apple is only hosting the app, not the content).

Take this one step further, and think of financial information services (eg, Bloomberg, Reuters). They certainly offer apps for Windows (and possibly Mac OS) for free but require a subscription to access any content. Neither Microsoft nor Apple get any revenue from them. If either MS or Apple could ban their apps from their operating systems, they could ask them to hand over a percentage. But they cannot ban them, on iOS, however, Apple can ban them.

Go yet another step further, online 'retailers' like Amazon or Ebay, they offer apps for iOS (though not for desktop OSes) for free. Does Apple get a cut from what they sell through these apps? You can take this principle to any company that gets revenue through the help of a free iOS app, which can even be advertising revenue. Does Apple get a cut?

Certainly Apple will never charge for web access but for anything that goes through the App Store, Apple could ask for a cut.
post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Right, which is evidenced by digital versions costing a lot less than shelf versions... oh wait, they don't.

People grossly over-estimate how much is costs to print and distribute. The overheads are quite small because we've become pretty good at it (hundreds of years pf practice, economies of scale using existing distribution networks, etc). It barely comes into it.

For the Economist, the online subscription is about 60% of the print subscription (which includes naturally the online subscriptions).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple tells newspapers: no free iPad edition for print subscribers
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple tells newspapers: no free iPad edition for print subscribers