or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rolling Stone co-founder slams publishers for embracing Apple's iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rolling Stone co-founder slams publishers for embracing Apple's iPad - Page 3

post #81 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode View Post

Trees are organic, good for the environment, necessary biomatter for landfills and most importantly - a renewable resource.
iPads and other electronics are the exact opposite. They are toxic, made with plastics, and engineered to be thrown away after an extremely short period of time. They clog landfills and the amount of waste is horrendous.

There is no such thing as a 'green goal of a paperless society'. Not among those with IQ's above 12.
One should not listen to such complete bullshit brought to you by your friendly gadget selling PR consortium's that focus on profit at the expense of our planet.

Huh? iPads and tablets don't save trees? That make as much sense as skiing at Mamoth in July is caused by Global Warming!

There's a huge advantage for a music magazine to be on the same device that has your music collection and you could hear a preview of the music Rolling Stone is reviewing... Oh I get it, that would be a problem.
post #82 of 148
Forbes posted this reply to Wenner's statements.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovic...about-tablets/
post #83 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2director View Post

I always thought it was insane for a magazine to give away 30% of its sales to Apple, simply for selling through the App Store.

If I were the magazine industry, I would threaten to only support Android until Apple came up with a more reasonable fee.

Android people don't buy anything. That's been proven over and over again. Magazines on the Ipad are a fail. They should just sell their shit through the ibooks store. People don't need a website written in iOS. That's a fail. In reality they should be doing the HTML 5 thing. One app that hits both Android and Ipad and will work on the traditional web as well.
post #84 of 148
The real enemy is The Web. I don't remember the last time I looked at Rolling Stone or any other print magazine.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #85 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

He said even a success story like Popular Science sold only 16,000 subscriptions, well less than its 1.2 million print subscriptions.

Yes but were those 16k replacement subscriptions (ie they dropped the print for the digital) or 16k added ones (folks have both or folks that didn't want to pay for print were willing to pay for digital)

and just what are the subscription fees, the costs, the ad revenue etc. This guy is pushing a lot of talk with no real evidence to back up his rhetoric

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #86 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whozown View Post

And I wonder how much hate mail Wenner got or is going to get for her blasphemous statements against the almighty Apple corp.

Jann is a he, unless you are referring to the fact that he's gay.
post #87 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

In some ways he's not wrong, but the main reason no one was buying magazines on the iPad is because they cost too much ($4.99 for Wired... ha ha ha). BUT... now that Wired is $19.99 for a year, and the Economist is the same price as a print subscription, people will start buying them. I subscribe to Wired, The Economist and The New Yorker and read them all on my iPad.

Exactly!
I usually get wired for about $12/year. I expect to pay no more than that for the digital version (which I can't share with anyone!) And then there's the fact that many of the e-versions are essentially abridged versions. The publishers are simply afraid to make the leap and make a viable offering. When they do, customers will bite.

[And BTW, far from what Wenner thinks, the transition to digital is well under way, just not the way he thinks. Although I tend to prefer physical media for cost reasons, my 78 year old Mom has already made the leap. She has a Kindle does almost all of her reading on it. She loves it because it is so light and she can adjust the print to a larger size. The is the compelling value of the product for her. When the publishers provide all of us with such a compelling value offer, we'll all take the leap.]
post #88 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by See Flat View Post

I'm wondering why so many people bring up the 30% that Apple charges for hosting, distributing, collecting sales and making payments to it's media suppliers.

These people always make it seem that Apple is ripping someone off?

Dont they realize that when they buy something in a store... that the store (depending on the location and product) is charging you from 15 to 60 %

I spent many years in magazine publishing and what people don't know is, mag distributors take about 50% of the cover price. The magazine still eats the cost of printing, paper, staff, etc.etc. So, to produce a digital issues is far more cost effective. ROLLING STONE is obviously trying to cut costs due to subscriptions losses and newsstand losses. They trimmed the size down to a much smaller format to save costs. I don't understand why a company that used to be so cutting edge wouldn't embrace a new platform to sell issues?
post #89 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Yes but were those 16k replacement subscriptions (ie they dropped the print for the digital) or 16k added ones (folks have both or folks that didn't want to pay for print were willing to pay for digital)

and just what are the subscription fees, the costs, the ad revenue etc. This guy is pushing a lot of talk with no real evidence to back up his rhetoric

Doesn't really matter which way you slice it. 16k is pretty shitty number, if it is to be believed.
post #90 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by sticknick View Post

Oh really? Who exactly is hosting and distributing all the content in iTunes then?

Apple hosts the origonal app download.

Who hosts the 'in app' purchased data?
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #91 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormanMaine View Post

I spent many years in magazine publishing and what people don't know is, mag distributors take about 50% of the cover price. The magazine still eats the cost of printing, paper, staff, etc.etc. So, to produce a digital issues is far more cost effective. ROLLING STONE is obviously trying to cut costs due to subscriptions losses and newsstand losses. They trimmed the size down to a much smaller format to save costs. I don't understand why a company that used to be so cutting edge wouldn't embrace a new platform to sell issues?

The other thing everyone seems to forget is that no more than 1 or 2% of current subscribers [buyers] even own an iPad. Popular Science's 16k digital subscriptions[purchases]/month is probably more comparable to 800k+ subscriptions[issues]/month when you consider that.
post #92 of 148
This may have already been mentioned, and it's just a technical detail, but...

Popular Science has a *circulation* of about 1.2 million, not a subscription level of that. Circulation includes *unpaid* copies and tons of those copies on the newstands that never sell - and get thrown away.
post #93 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

Apple hosts the origonal app download.

Who hosts the 'in app' purchased data?

A: Apple
post #94 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Forbes posted this reply to Wenner's statements.

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovic...about-tablets/

Have a look at what he linked to: an article that says

1: digital revenue is in the majority for Forbes, but
2: advertising is the principal revenue stream
3: Forbes have stepped back from putting an app on the various app stores.

hardly a resounding argument for getting magazine apps in the app store.

There's a good argument for getting content onto tablets, but an app might not be the best way to do it
post #95 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

A: Apple

not according to the app producers
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #96 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Absolutely true.

Remember the days when the dot-coms were threating to send ALL brick and mortars businesses the way of the dinosaur?

Guess who is still standing?

Brick and Mortar stores....

Books, no matter how much the e-books devicer makers, electronic makers and publishers like to boast, are here to stay.

I like to hold a book or magazine as much as the next guy, but slowly and surely they are ARE going away. Just ask where your nearest Borders went, or how long it will take Barnes & Noble to find their "strategic alternative." Most of the "mom & pop" operations are already long gone.

A number of colleges and universities are converting to iPad for not only textbooks but student work.
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #97 of 148
Need to get some figures into perspective. Total world market?. Printed magazines and books? Total subscribers (purchasers)?

iPad (and eBook readers sold) 100 million? 200 million? Digital editions available worldwide? Total subscribers (purchasers)?

It's going to be a while before the subscribers (buyers) of digital editions equal the percentage of subscribers (buyers) of hard copies but I for one have gone all digital and cancelled all subscriptions to magazines and have stopped buying printed books.

Everything I want (and can get) is installed on my Mac and transferred to iPad or iPhone as and when needed -- I have at least 30 books/mags installed on the iPad at any given time. Printed material would probably fill a medium sized suitcase.
post #98 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

not according to the app producers

Well, I don't speak from personal experience, but from everything I've read, Apple now handles, takes 30%, and controls access to user data on all iApp transactions. Anything else would not make any sense.
What happens on a web browser is a different thing though, so publishers who think they can do better can cut Apple out with a web magazine subscription, if they think it's a better deal.
post #99 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat View Post

This may have already been mentioned, and it's just a technical detail, but...

Popular Science has a *circulation* of about 1.2 million, not a subscription level of that. Circulation includes *unpaid* copies and tons of those copies on the newstands that never sell - and get thrown away.

It depends on what is meant by that word. Distribution is all of the copies sent out, for whatever reason.

Circulation is copies sent out to an end user. It doesn't include returned copies.

Certified circulation numbers are those that go out to someone who is listed as an actual receiver of the copy, as in subscription holders.
post #100 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Have a look at what he linked to: an article that says

1: digital revenue is in the majority for Forbes, but
2: advertising is the principal revenue stream
3: Forbes have stepped back from putting an app on the various app stores.

hardly a resounding argument for getting magazine apps in the app store.

There's a good argument for getting content onto tablets, but an app might not be the best way to do it

Yes, I read it. Of course, digital also means web. I'm on their mailing list, and receive a number of mailings throughout the day. Those mailings of articles include Ads. That's their income.
post #101 of 148
When you buy a magazine/book in a brick/mortar store, the store is taking a larger than 30% cut of that sale. Do you see this as being significantly different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by k2director View Post

I always thought it was insane for a magazine to give away 30% of its sales to Apple, simply for selling through the App Store.

If I were the magazine industry, I would threaten to only support Android until Apple came up with a more reasonable fee.
post #102 of 148
I can understand that some of the magazines such as Rolling Stone can be pissed because Apple is taking 30%. Really? Is he serious? Well I don't know where he is getting his numbers from, but if Apple were to add a "Magazine" section in the app store I would use it in a heartbeat.

I for one love reading magazines and newspapers like USA Today on my iPad 2. If the publications are done correctly and easy to use, navigate, etc. I will pay for an electronic subscription first before ever get one in print, and not just because of it would save some trees. To be honest I think Rolling Stone co-founder is living in the past and needs to embrace the future.






Quote:
Originally Posted by maxmann View Post

the business model of the New Yorker is that if you have a subscription you can read it on the ipad. I love it! I can pick it up anytime and continue reading the magazine, downloading new issues, and keeping up on the move without carrying a magazine with me. My experience with Pop science was cool the first time.. but I think it was $5 an issue? it was too much to pay for a single issue with no subscription deal.. maybe that has improved. Also, the initial sales of the ipad were to early adopters, and people with disposable income. Popular science might take off later on when it has a subscription plan.. and the mass market owns a table device.

After Playboy announced their plan, i had hoped that The Rolling Stone would do the same thing. i would pay $60 a year subscription to be able to read all the articles from years past via archive access for every issue. a little nostalgia goes a long ways with the rolling stone.. with fab interviews from years ago that would be fun to read again.. Reading on a tablet is here to stay.. it is just a matter of time and the market for reading will mostly be available on tablets as well as print. To be slow to adopt only means they are missing the future of an entrenched mode of media that is part of the future. Later on, I hope they will publish both in print and on tablet media.. I would rather have all my magazines in one device.. for me, that is the future..
post #103 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobycat View Post

This may have already been mentioned, and it's just a technical detail, but...

Popular Science has a *circulation* of about 1.2 million, not a subscription level of that. Circulation includes *unpaid* copies and tons of those copies on the newstands that never sell - and get thrown away.

Unsold issues do not count as part of the circulation (since they are not circulated.)
Retailers are reimbursed for those (or used to be) as long as they tear off and retain the front cover of unsold stock and return it to the distributor.
post #104 of 148
Same here, any publication that is not on board and is print only is Not getting my money.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

Need to get some figures into perspective. Total world market?. Printed magazines and books? Total subscribers (purchasers)?

iPad (and eBook readers sold) 100 million? 200 million? Digital editions available worldwide? Total subscribers (purchasers)?

It's going to be a while before the subscribers (buyers) of digital editions equal the percentage of subscribers (buyers) of hard copies but I for one have gone all digital and cancelled all subscriptions to magazines and have stopped buying printed books.

Everything I want (and can get) is installed on my Mac and transferred to iPad or iPhone as and when needed -- I have at least 30 books/mags installed on the iPad at any given time. Printed material would probably fill a medium sized suitcase.
post #105 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryzek View Post

Same here, any publication that is not on board and is print only is Not getting my money.

It would seem, based on the numbers bandied about in the OP, that people like you are in the minority.

This whole mess is probably the magazine publishers own doing. They devalue their content by selling print subs for next to nothing, then along comes a medium which can only devalue it more. Sure, the potential audience in the digital is more vast, but they (or someone) has set the expectation that there is little or no value in the content itself. At least not the extent that a consumer is willing to pay for it.

The answer is ads, and this, it seems, has been the answer in print as well. If they can't drive ROI on one side, they have to on the other.

But how do you get people to accept low cost, ad driven content?

The overriding view I see on my travels around the web is that payment and ads are considered mutually exclusive. I guess ironically, these people would probably think nothing of an embroidered horse on their polo shirt which consumes a whool spool of cotton.
post #106 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whozown View Post

And I wonder how much hate mail Wenner got or is going to get for her blasphemous statements against the almighty Apple corp.

Frankly, when I started reading the article, I was all set to be one of those to send Wenner, while not a "hate mail" letter, but at least some kind of typical Apple Fanboi response.

Then I continued to read and eventually thought, "By Golly, Wenner still has his brilliance of old and makes some pretty good points."

Now I'm thinking of lettering him with words of encouragement for taking the position he did, and for explaining his position so eloquently and persuasively.

PS to @Whozown: Jann Wenner is a man.
post #107 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Here in Europe we have no trees. So iPads are the way forward.

Where in Europe are you? Ten years ago, last time I was over, I saw many trees throughout Germany, Austria and CH, and the Czech Republic. After Nokia, timber is Finland's greatest resource. Sweden is choking in trees.
post #108 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... Jann Wenner, owner of Wenner Media, said in an interview with Advertising Age that magazine publishers are "crazy" to embrace the iPad. He said current products available on Apple's tablet are selling just a few thousand copies, a revenue stream that's not enough to compensate for money lost in research in development.....

I've been reading this thread off and on all day and no one has said a couple of obvious things AFAICS, so here's my two cents.

1) Paper magazine distributors take more than the 30% Apple takes

2) Magazines are mostly crap that have been artificially supported by, and had their content subverted by, Advertising dollars for many years now.

3) Magazines are vastly overpriced for what they are and what you get, so previous to digital, all the producers were raking in mega-bucks for basically nothing.

4) People don't want to pay the same (or more) for digital copies than they do for paper.

The whole problem with magazines not selling in the app store is due to the fact that they are generally crap and for the most part, and an expensive "bad deal." This guy is blaming Apple for pulling the curtain off all the shady crap in the magazine business, when in fact, they should just be changing their evil ways.

A good digital magazine at a good price will make more money up on volume than it loses at the current ridiculous price points available. Good, interesting content, reasonably priced will always sell like gangbusters.

I mean "Rolling Stone" for cripes sake? They haven't been relevant since the late 70's. Is it really a mystery that they can't get anyone young or hip enough to have an iPad to buy Rolling Stone? I don't think so.
post #109 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Interesting, but as they stated, magazine subs on the iPad have only just started. And all we're getting is estimates for Nook sales, and subs, no actual numbers, so we should be just a bit skeptical. These articles tend to be a bit self serving.

Why should we be skeptical? Not that I expected a different response from you, but it was the magazine guys making the statements, not some vague comments made by some unidentified industry sources.

Quote: “. . .said Gregg Michaelson, president and chief marketing officer of Rodale, which publishes a number of magazines on the Nook Color. “When we look at the numbers across our titles we’re seeing about five times the number of paid subscriptions on the Nook than we see in single-issue sales on the iPad”

and this:
"But since November (2010), the company (B&N) said more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color."

and this:
"Meredith publishes two magazines, Family Circle and More, on the Nook Color and has plans to add more because the sales have been strong. Nook Color subscriptions are outselling the magazines Meredith publishes on the iPad, where only single-issue sales are available, by about 2 to 1."

and this:
"Hearst, which publishes O and Cosmopolitan, is selling tens of thousands of subscriptions on the device each month."

Considering that B&N has probably sold far fewer than a third as many NookColor's as Apple has iPad's, ( http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/29...ks-color-sold/ ) the results from the two articles I linked surely supports the argument that the Nook so far makes a better platform for the magazine publishers, delivering more results per unit sold if we go by these reports.

Goldman Sachs estimates that Barnes & Noble "now has a 27% share of the e-book market, to Amazon's 58% and Apple's 9%" and goes on to say that "The Nook has 22% of the e-reader market, compared with the Kindle's 67%. According to the report, the Nook color e-reader, introduced in October, generated 64% of the company's hardware sales in the most recent quarter".
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...FREE/110219913

Perhaps you have sources that refute what's stated in these articles, thus your skepticism?

In any case, B&N's reported early successes with magazine subscriptions is in stark contrast to the views stated in the AI article concerning iPad subscriptions. I think if magazine/newspaper subscriptions are done properly, marketed to the correct audiences, and at realistic prices, there's a significant and profitable market for e-versions.

So far B&N has been better at that than Apple going by the evidence presented.

As such, I'll disagree with Rolling Stones editor. They just haven't figured out how to get to their audience yet. That doesn't mean there isn't one, and that it can't be profitable.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Agree. Because books are meant to be permanent.

I think you mean that books used to meant to be permanent.

I have books that are less than five years old whose spines are broken, whose pages are browning, whose graphics are turning sepia. And these are newly-published hardbound books.

OTOH I have some 50-year-old books that look newer than the new ones, and I'm grateful for that.
post #111 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post

Frankly, when I started reading the article, I was all set to be one of those to send Wenner, while not a "hate mail" letter, but at least some kind of typical Apple Fanboi response.

Then I continued to read and eventually thought, "By Golly, Wenner still has his brilliance of old and makes some pretty good points."

Now I'm thinking of lettering him with words of encouragement for taking the position he did, and for explaining his position so eloquently and persuasively.

PS to @Whozown: Jann Wenner is a man.

Frankly, when I started reading the article... I stopped at "decades"...

Jann is now an old guy with wishful thinking imo... and this has nothing to do with Apple... Apple is just one company offering a new print medium... there are others.

... and Jann doesn't take into account the new way that people digest the written word. It's no longer that they sit down as if to eat a leisurely 3 course dinner... now it's fast food... grab a snippet there, search for material here.

... and who the hell wants to wait a month or even a week to see updates on the material you read in the last issue.

I see it like I see my former profession as a photographer. Film, negatives, darkrooms... all things of the past except for the few who savour it as a symbol of quality from days gone by.

imo this won't take decades. Something will come along in the next 5 years that will really tip the balance for the digital magazine... not sure what but the iPad, the Nook, and the kindle, in the last few years, have given a good start, a toehold, a vision, on the future of the magazine industry.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #112 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

I'm curious what people think it costs a magazine to distribute a physical copy of their material around the globe? Does the man in the newsagent work for free? Does the delivery boy? Does the lorry driver? Does the printer? I could go on.

These media companies can't have it both ways. They tell us an ebook is as valuable as a printed copy because we're buying the content not the book, then they balk when Apple asks for a cut of the profits they have made entirely due to Apple's complete invention of a new market for them, as well as Apple doing all their distribution for them. So what if there's only a few thousand customers right now, Apple are charging a percentage, not a flat fee!

I don't think the 30% Apple want is being rejected because it is too much; it's being rejected because these companies don't feel Apple deserve it, rightly or wrongly.

Thank you! I totally agree with you on this, you nailed it right on the head.
post #113 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

The real enemy is The Web. I don't remember the last time I looked at Rolling Stone or any other print magazine.

You don't go visit the dentist?
post #114 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2director View Post

I always thought it was insane for a magazine to give away 30% of its sales to Apple, simply for selling through the App Store.

If I were the magazine industry, I would threaten to only support Android until Apple came up with a more reasonable fee.

That, of course, ignores the entire cost picture.

Let's say a magazine has an annual subscription rate of $15. If you have the same price on the iPad, Apple keeps $4.50 and the publisher keeps $10.50.

Now, if they sell the print subscription for $15, they have to physically print 12 magazines (if it's monthly) as well as mail 12 magazines. In addition, some percentage let lost or damaged in the mail and are routinely replaced.

Do you think that printing and mailing a dozen magazines is less than 30% of the retail price? If so, you're dreaming. Most reports are that printing and mailing costs are close to 100% of the retail price - and the publisher's profit comes from advertising alone. The e-version allows them to have a 70% gross margin.
"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 #115 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post

You don't go visit the dentist?

My dentist and my doctor no longer have magazines... apparently they pass too many germs around. It's a different world.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #116 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I see it like I see my former profession as a photographer. Film, negatives, darkrooms... all things of the past except for the few who savour it as a symbol of quality from days gone by..

Hey Hermit, no sarcasm intended when I say I fully sympathize with the above. I was never a pro but did spend a lot of time doing my own B&W stuff in a little closet in my garage. Had a lot of fun with that old (and, for me, very expensive) Beseler enlarger back in the day.
post #117 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

"But since November (2010), the company (B&N) said more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color."

and this:
"Hearst, which publishes O and Cosmopolitan, is selling tens of thousands of subscriptions on the device each month."

Considering that B&N has probably sold far fewer than a third as many NookColor's as Apple has iPad's, ( http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/29...ks-color-sold/ ) the results from the two articles I linked surely supports the argument that the Nook so far makes a better platform for the magazine publishers, delivering more results per unit sold if we go by these reports.

If the NookColor has less than a third of the iPad user base, and more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color. the percentage of subscribers must be damn high, like 120% maybe?

They're probably quoting figures for total subscriptions for ALL digital media.

Or else this:

Quote:
Goldman Sachs estimates that Barnes & Noble "now has a 27% share of the e-book market, to Amazon's 58% and Apple's 9%" and goes on to say that "The Nook has 22% of the e-reader market, compared with the Kindle's 67%. According to the report, the Nook color e-reader, introduced in October, generated 64% of the company's hardware sales in the most recent quarter".

is just a whole load of cow dung or the 1.5 million figure is distorted.
post #118 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think iTunes still sells less albums (12 songs per album) than CDs. It's just that iTunes is the single largest distributer of music.

Either way his argument fails because labels who want to maximize sales are selling CDs and digital downloads.

And that's why I think a syndicate agency model is what's going to work for magazines as well.

Time will come when people don't want an entire magazine of what the editors thought you should read this weak or month. People will want articles that THEY want to read, and ONLY those articles.

A good example is TRVL for the iPad.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #119 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Because Apple doesn't do any hosting, distribution, and collecting sales data is a sore point. Publishers want that. it does do purchasing but the publishers can handled that.

Is that a fact?

When you are downloading music, software, books, magazines, they are not located on Apple servers?

I would tend to agree that publishers want sales data. They always had access to that but nothing says that cant be worked out in the user agreement when you purchase a subscription.
post #120 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

If the NookColor has less than a third of the iPad user base, and more than 1.5 million magazine subscriptions and copies of single issues had been sold on the Nook Color. the percentage of subscribers must be damn high, like 120% maybe?

They're probably quoting figures for total subscriptions for ALL digital media.

My wife has at least three of those 1.5 million.

Altho putting Cosmopolitan and Family Circle on the same page just seems wrong.

BTW, why would 3 million Nook color owners buying 1.5 million magazines/subscriptions be any issue for you? That's only one of every two owners.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Rolling Stone co-founder slams publishers for embracing Apple's iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rolling Stone co-founder slams publishers for embracing Apple's iPad