Really what sort of person would read CQ these days? It strikes me as a magazine for lesbians that want to dress like a man but still look like a girl.
Sorry, but currently these guys don't know what they are doing. Selling single issues?
Get a model going guys!
One app, subscriptions.
Don't make me download more apps for each week! (TIME I'm looking at you)
They are not selling single issue. They are selling you their app with the current issue for $2.99. You can buy more issues at $1.99 from within the app. You don't need separate app for each issue.
Here's some adoption rates among computer users (PC and Mac) of similar Apple products.
iPod (various types except Touch) adoption rate: 36% price: $59 to $249 2 GB to 160 GB of storage
iPod Touch adoption rate: 9% price: $199 to $399 storage: 8 GB to 64 GB
Now the iPad
iPad price: $499 to $829 storage: 16 GB to 64 GB
So it's relatively easy to see that the higher the price is, and the less storage capacity, the less the adoption rate is.
It's not practical to put a hard drive into a device used for games, but the drastic costs for flash memory is certainly taking it's toll on the adoption rate for devices that use it.
This in turn has it's effects on those who purchase content for the iPad. I optimistically give the adoption rate for the iPad about 4-5% about a year from now.
I don't know if you have heard this or not but Apple is not having problem selling iPads. They have problem keeping up with demand.
It would have been great if all of this had been worked out before launch but I think the publishers were skeptical and stuck in their ways. As time goes on, they will come around and a model will work itself out.
I think it should be subscriptions through iTunes and read in iBooks. Not individual apps. There should be incentives to order packages of subscriptions. Maybe 3, 5, 7 etc. That can be figured out. But I would be able to pick 3 different magazines I like and get a year's subscription for a discounted price. What those prices are, I am not sure. They must be low enough to encourage the growth of the model. Then as years go on they can ease them up a bit.
what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.
The problem is that most of the audience already reads the magazine
I think the bigger problem is how many people are interested in GQ and own an iPad and want to use an iPad to read the magazine. There are only 1 million iPads out there so far. If you take the reading population of GQ vs the US population, it's around:
$1m/$5 = 200k readers/300m = 0.06%
If you apply that same stat to the iPad then you get 667 readers in the best case so 365 sales is not that far off.
To generate $1m from the iPad, they would need 500k sales and from the same stats, Apple would need to have over 800 million iPads out there.
The fundamental problem with the iPad as a consumption device is that it starts at $500. That amount of money would buy you yearly subscriptions to 50 magazines and you still have to pay a subscription after you buy the device.
Still, I think volume will help - I wonder how many of the iPhone/iPod apps they sell with an 85 million audience.
Clearly there is a difference between the adoption rate and artificially restricting supply below demand for marketing purposes.
You are kidding, right?!
Quote:
A higher adoption percentage translates to more units sold, thus more revenue and as a result, more subscriptions.
The goal is more units sold. As an earlier poster pointed out the iPad sold one million units in one month. It is still early to see any real increase in specific app sale. I believe there was an article few weeks ago about a developer stating that his current iPad app sale count for 5% of the iPhones version. This is normal since we have more than 50 million iPhones and iPod Touches sold over the last 3 years vs 1 million iPad sold in one month. Things won't happen overnight. Higher adaption rate and sales are coming with time.
Oops. That was me. I wanted an annual subscription
You raise a good point mentioning subs. Being that if most people that read this mag use the 12 month sub model. That means that its going to take a few months to see the readers change from the hardcopy version to the iPad one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
That is only for the single issue currently available on the iPad.
As of last week, 365 people using the iPad, purchased the December 2009 (5 month old)Men of the Year issue.
This then follows on from above being that its 5 months old. A lot of their readers would already have the copy and their subs are still a fair while away from running out .
Id say as soon as the people start coming off subscription and the content on the iPad is 1:1 with the print magazine (even if it is a few days later but not over a week) we will see sales increase dramatically.
As for someone above mentioning Wired .... Aren't they Gawker Media????
It may be a while before they work out a deal with Apple after their current run ins
I think the bigger problem is how many people are interested in GQ and own an iPad and want to use an iPad to read the magazine. There are only 1 million iPads out there so far. If you take the reading population of GQ vs the US population, it's around:
$1m/$5 = 200k readers/300m = 0.06%
If you apply that same stat to the iPad then you get 667 readers in the best case so 365 sales is not that far off.
To generate $1m from the iPad, they would need 500k sales and from the same stats, Apple would need to have over 800 million iPads out there.
what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.
It depends on whether you can find related content of decent quality and consistent polish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galore
they charge for the app ?!?!???
It's the app plus one issue at well below news stand pricing. But if you like the the magazine, Amazon has it for $12 for a year's subscription, so the pricing is only good as Ã* la carte or impulse purchases.
I think the iPad is so new and one of it's kind right now that publishers have no clue what to do as far as content and format on the iPad. Either that or they're just too lazy to do something different and are just content on converting their print editions to digital and just tweek it a little bit. But I think Wired's upcoming app might be the one magazine that all others will be measured against and hopefully the rest will follow.
I stopped reading (print) magazines a couple years ago but I started reading them again when I got the iPad. Although it's not much different than the paper version I find reading mags on the iPad far more convenient and a better experience not to mention far less annoying ads. It'll get better (for my wallet) with subscriptions coming soon and hopefully add more features like interactivity that takes advantage of the iPad's capabilities and eventually will distinguish itself apart from their paper counterparts.
You said it better than I did...but that is exactly what I was thinking, too!
I might consider buying if it was 99 cents for a one year subscription. Per issue pricing is absurd and ridiculous. My reaction: Surely you jest. No one in their right mind is going to pay these prices on a per issue basis. Get over it.
The iPad is all about volume. Give it away free and build your distribution. Then you have a story to take to advertisers. Per issue pricing isn't going to work. High annual subscription prices (eg: more than $10) won't work either. Just forget those options. They're not a viable possibility.
Do check this out if you haven't already. I am intrigued by it. Some reviews aren't so good and the prices aren't mind-blowingly fantastic, but hey, it's a start for the iPad.
Agreed. Also the price is steep considering the market it sits in.
Does anyone know if the app includes *all* the content of the magazine? GQ is usually over a centimetre thick when I see it in the store. I'm thinking this app pretty much has to be a small subset of the real magazine. It's priced the same as a game that you might play over and over for years, but all you get is some text and pictures and then have to buy it all over again next month? And the month after that too?
It just doesn't seem like a good deal to me, but then I don't read GQ (or any magazines) anyway.
You don't read any magazines anyway. . .so how can your opinion count for anything but worthless hearsay and gossip? YOURS is the waste of bandwidth.
Comments
Dave
Sorry, but currently these guys don't know what they are doing. Selling single issues?
Get a model going guys!
One app, subscriptions.
Don't make me download more apps for each week! (TIME I'm looking at you)
They are not selling single issue. They are selling you their app with the current issue for $2.99. You can buy more issues at $1.99 from within the app. You don't need separate app for each issue.
For a e-reader the iPad is a expensive device.
Here's some adoption rates among computer users (PC and Mac) of similar Apple products.
iPod (various types except Touch) adoption rate: 36% price: $59 to $249 2 GB to 160 GB of storage
iPod Touch adoption rate: 9% price: $199 to $399 storage: 8 GB to 64 GB
Now the iPad
iPad price: $499 to $829 storage: 16 GB to 64 GB
So it's relatively easy to see that the higher the price is, and the less storage capacity, the less the adoption rate is.
It's not practical to put a hard drive into a device used for games, but the drastic costs for flash memory is certainly taking it's toll on the adoption rate for devices that use it.
This in turn has it's effects on those who purchase content for the iPad. I optimistically give the adoption rate for the iPad about 4-5% about a year from now.
I don't know if you have heard this or not but Apple is not having problem selling iPads. They have problem keeping up with demand.
I think it should be subscriptions through iTunes and read in iBooks. Not individual apps. There should be incentives to order packages of subscriptions. Maybe 3, 5, 7 etc. That can be figured out. But I would be able to pick 3 different magazines I like and get a year's subscription for a discounted price. What those prices are, I am not sure. They must be low enough to encourage the growth of the model. Then as years go on they can ease them up a bit.
One Thousand and ninety-one dollars in sales!! Surely that must be a typo.
Or, instead of asking, you could do a little math. They said that they sold 365 copies of the app at $2.99 each.
However, that's initial sales. Those people will also be receiving each issue for $1.99 and sales will undoubtedly grow as more iPads hit the market.
The publisher says they're happy with the numbers.
what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.
The problem is that most of the audience already reads the magazine
I think the bigger problem is how many people are interested in GQ and own an iPad and want to use an iPad to read the magazine. There are only 1 million iPads out there so far. If you take the reading population of GQ vs the US population, it's around:
$1m/$5 = 200k readers/300m = 0.06%
If you apply that same stat to the iPad then you get 667 readers in the best case so 365 sales is not that far off.
To generate $1m from the iPad, they would need 500k sales and from the same stats, Apple would need to have over 800 million iPads out there.
The fundamental problem with the iPad as a consumption device is that it starts at $500. That amount of money would buy you yearly subscriptions to 50 magazines and you still have to pay a subscription after you buy the device.
Still, I think volume will help - I wonder how many of the iPhone/iPod apps they sell with an 85 million audience.
I don't know if you have heard this or not but Apple is not having problem selling iPads. They have problem keeping up with demand.
Clearly there is a difference between the adoption rate and artificially restricting supply below demand for marketing purposes.
A higher adoption percentage translates to more units sold, thus more revenue and as a result, more subscriptions.
Clearly there is a difference between the adoption rate and artificially restricting supply below demand for marketing purposes.
You are kidding, right?!
A higher adoption percentage translates to more units sold, thus more revenue and as a result, more subscriptions.
The goal is more units sold. As an earlier poster pointed out the iPad sold one million units in one month. It is still early to see any real increase in specific app sale. I believe there was an article few weeks ago about a developer stating that his current iPad app sale count for 5% of the iPhones version. This is normal since we have more than 50 million iPhones and iPod Touches sold over the last 3 years vs 1 million iPad sold in one month. Things won't happen overnight. Higher adaption rate and sales are coming with time.
Oops. That was me. I wanted an annual subscription
You raise a good point mentioning subs. Being that if most people that read this mag use the 12 month sub model. That means that its going to take a few months to see the readers change from the hardcopy version to the iPad one.
That is only for the single issue currently available on the iPad.
As of last week, 365 people using the iPad, purchased the December 2009 (5 month old)Men of the Year issue.
This then follows on from above being that its 5 months old. A lot of their readers would already have the copy and their subs are still a fair while away from running out .
Id say as soon as the people start coming off subscription and the content on the iPad is 1:1 with the print magazine (even if it is a few days later but not over a week) we will see sales increase dramatically.
As for someone above mentioning Wired .... Aren't they Gawker Media????
It may be a while before they work out a deal with Apple after their current run ins
I think the bigger problem is how many people are interested in GQ and own an iPad and want to use an iPad to read the magazine. There are only 1 million iPads out there so far. If you take the reading population of GQ vs the US population, it's around:
$1m/$5 = 200k readers/300m = 0.06%
If you apply that same stat to the iPad then you get 667 readers in the best case so 365 sales is not that far off.
To generate $1m from the iPad, they would need 500k sales and from the same stats, Apple would need to have over 800 million iPads out there.
Good stuff!
I am not buying a single magazine on the iPad.
what good is a magazine when I can load up hundreds of thousands of news websites, blogs, special interest sites, etc, all of them for free? In addition, all of them navigate and look great on the iPad.
It depends on whether you can find related content of decent quality and consistent polish.
they charge for the app ?!?!???
It's the app plus one issue at well below news stand pricing. But if you like the the magazine, Amazon has it for $12 for a year's subscription, so the pricing is only good as Ã* la carte or impulse purchases.
I think the iPad is so new and one of it's kind right now that publishers have no clue what to do as far as content and format on the iPad. Either that or they're just too lazy to do something different and are just content on converting their print editions to digital and just tweek it a little bit. But I think Wired's upcoming app might be the one magazine that all others will be measured against and hopefully the rest will follow.
I stopped reading (print) magazines a couple years ago but I started reading them again when I got the iPad. Although it's not much different than the paper version I find reading mags on the iPad far more convenient and a better experience not to mention far less annoying ads. It'll get better (for my wallet) with subscriptions coming soon and hopefully add more features like interactivity that takes advantage of the iPad's capabilities and eventually will distinguish itself apart from their paper counterparts.
You said it better than I did...but that is exactly what I was thinking, too!
The iPad is all about volume. Give it away free and build your distribution. Then you have a story to take to advertisers. Per issue pricing isn't going to work. High annual subscription prices (eg: more than $10) won't work either. Just forget those options. They're not a viable possibility.
Do check this out if you haven't already. I am intrigued by it. Some reviews aren't so good and the prices aren't mind-blowingly fantastic, but hey, it's a start for the iPad.
This is a story? Must be a slow news day.
They're waiting for the MacBook White update in less than 24 hours.
Agreed. Also the price is steep considering the market it sits in.
Does anyone know if the app includes *all* the content of the magazine? GQ is usually over a centimetre thick when I see it in the store. I'm thinking this app pretty much has to be a small subset of the real magazine. It's priced the same as a game that you might play over and over for years, but all you get is some text and pictures and then have to buy it all over again next month? And the month after that too?
It just doesn't seem like a good deal to me, but then I don't read GQ (or any magazines) anyway.
You don't read any magazines anyway. . .so how can your opinion count for anything but worthless hearsay and gossip? YOURS is the waste of bandwidth.
Some routers will allow you to block IP's, of course you would have batch resolve all Domain Names first.
Wonder if there is a app for that?
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
I installed the Tomato firmware on my Buffalo router and then added this DNS cache-poisoning script:
http://www.linksysinfo.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=57556
which uses the MVPS list. My router grabs the latest list three times a day.