Based on Phil Shiller's comments on this, it seems that Apple has set up an odd "grandfather" exemption for certain magazines. I think it goes like this: if your grandfather might have bought one and it's not hard core, they allow it. In other words, Playboy has supposedly been around enough that it has a certain societal acceptance that a similar magazine with a different name might not have. Which really makes the "Apple doesn't want porn" angle a little odd when they whitelist publications that a lot of people seem to think is porn, even if it is soft core.
An old classmate of mine got a refund for a faulty or mistakenly bought app, I forget which. Apple seems to be willing to do more than their documentation requires them to do.
Curious. I can buy single issues if I want at a magazine rack. The economics made it hard to make them too cheap at the news stand because unsold issues get returned when the new issue is released, and the retailer wants a markup too. With a subscription, production-wise, you don't have to worry about whether an issue sells or not, because it's already paid for.
That's why the bulk pricing works. Maybe not every issue is going to appeal to you, a dud issue isn't so terrible. Maybe they can suddenly make a bunch crap issues to be jerks, but that would mean you have no reason to re-subscribe once the year is up.
Advertisers like to make sure the magazine actually has readers in the age bracket and sex their product targets.
See my response to russgriz above.
It's fine for you to have that opinion, but Make is a very well produced magazine. It's more like a quarterly serialized book than a magazine, I think it holds its value longer as reference material.
It really depends on the magazine. Time subscriptions run about $0.35 to $0.50 an issue when you subscribe. Most magazines I see have 50% off or more of the cover price to subscribe. Even if you don't like a couple issues, it's still a big savings.
A number of fashion mags have removed nude and seminude pics from their mags to get it into the app store. I think it's ridiculous for them to have to do that. There's a difference between real porn and nudity. a lot of this is up to parents. They can control what their kids buy from the store. Apple shouldn't be the one to accept the burden.
Other rumor sources are now reporting Time wants to collect subscription fees outside the iTunes infrastructure (thus escape paying Apple 30%) and then distribute the issues as apps through iTunes.
Apple would be foolish to let anyone freeride on iTunes.
Apple DOES allow in-app purchases of magazine single issues and subscriptions. The Esquire app allows you to buy the August issue for $2.99 or multiple issues for various subscription terms, and the transactions go through the app store.
Gee... I wonder if it occurred to any of the magazine publishers just to sell the app at a subscription price... say, $45 for the app, which gets free updates every time an issue is published, for an entire year, before the updates stop, then that version of the app gets abandoned. Oh, wait... I missed that there's an opportunity here to trash Apple. Nevermind.
It's really not a big deal. Developers who say they can't do this don't understand the way it works.
All we have to do is to look at the MBL app. Each year, you have to get another version of the app, which includes all content for the year. No big deal, the app can be updated every month with a new feature (or issue). Just because someone is a developer, it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. The big companies understand how it works. It's the little guys who seem to have problems. They should talk to an accountant.
But still... Apple isn't making this easy. It's up to them to approve it. If they're not, they's a reason, and they aren't saying what it is. That's wrong.
Other rumor sources are now reporting Time wants to collect subscription fees outside the iTunes infrastructure (thus escape paying Apple 30%) and then distribute the issues as apps through iTunes.
Apple would be foolish to let anyone freeride on iTunes.
It's a rumor, and they don't have to do it that way. I already gave the way they should do it the way that the MBL does it. That ends all problems. They could simply charge 30% or so more to cover the app store surcharge. Or not, as they aren't paying for mailing charges, the surcharge covers that.
The iTunes experience is selling a song for $0.79 to $1.29, not pennies. It takes much more work to put up an issue of a magazine, especially if it includes video, links to their web site, etc. I would consider an entire album to equal one issue of a magazine. I think that 50% of the newsstand price is fair for a single issue. It's up to the publishers to decide what they will charge. If they ask for too much, then they won't sell anything. They will learn.
Apple has to work out what they want though. If they want subs to be in iBook alone, then they should make that clear. If there are other reasons, they should spell them all out, so that everyone will know what they are. This is Apple's biggest failing. They have to stop having secret reasons for doing things.
You're nuts if you think publishing a single edition of a print magazine is equivalent to writing an album. Next you're going to have to qualify that by citing a crappy band because I doubt you'd think U2 thinks it's work, or Queen, or The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Dream Theater, RUSH, Van Halen, etc., think their work is equivalent to a single issue of Time, Wired, Esquire et.al, magazines. Not even close.
You're nuts if you think publishing a single edition of a print magazine is equivalent to writing an album. Next you're going to have to qualify that by citing a crappy band because I doubt you'd think U2 thinks it's work, or Queen, or The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Dream Theater, RUSH, Van Halen, etc., think their work is equivalent to a single issue of Time, Wired, Esquire et.al, magazines. Not even close.
I've been in both industries for decades, and yes, an album is about equal to one issue of a major mag. Perhaps I should have said "major mag". It can easily cost as much do put out one edition as to do one album. When you take away much of the Ads, or most of them, as you see the digital mags doing, then there is little to get those costs back. Remember that from 50 to 60% of a mags page space is Ads. Someone has to pay for that, and newsstand pricing and subs don't.
Yeah, when you talk about the COSTS to do an album. I'm not talking about whether the work inside is equal, though you will get lots of people who will think it's worth more, if they don't like the music. There are far more highly paid people directly working on putting out one copy of a magazine then working on one album. And for big names in music, well, they get far too much of an advance anyway.
Instead of speculating on Apple's reasons for rejecting these subscriptions, how about speculating on the reasons for Apple not even giving these developers an explanation?
Apple has to work out what they want though. If they want subs to be in iBook alone, then they should make that clear. If there are other reasons, they should spell them all out, so that everyone will know what they are. This is Apple's biggest failing. They have to stop having secret reasons for doing things.
Why do I find this to be such a radical suggestion? All companies have secret reasons for doing things. They rarely telegraph every intention.
Why do I find this to be such a radical suggestion? All companies have secret reasons for doing things. They rarely telegraph every intention.
Apparently a revenue issue according to macrumors rumor:
Update: We have heard that the holdup, at least in the case of the Sports Illustrated subscription plan, is in fact a dispute over revenue, with Apple maintaining that it should be able to collect a 30% cut of revenue as it does for content distributed through the App Store. Publishers, understandably, would prefer to move out from under the App Store umbrella for their subscriptions and keep 100% of the revenue for themselves.
Why do I find this to be such a radical suggestion? All companies have secret reasons for doing things. They rarely telegraph every intention.
This is not an acceptable use for secret rules. You don't have business partners, and that's what these companies are, and not tell them exactly what they need to know in advance.
Apparently a revenue issue according to macrumors rumor:
Update: We have heard that the holdup, at least in the case of the Sports Illustrated subscription plan, is in fact a dispute over revenue, with Apple maintaining that it should be able to collect a 30% cut of revenue as it does for content distributed through the App Store. Publishers, understandably, would prefer to move out from under the App Store umbrella for their subscriptions and keep 100% of the revenue for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
This is not an acceptable use for secret rules. You don't have business partners, and that's what these companies are, and not tell them exactly what they need to know in advance.
Perhaps it's not such a big secret after all.
In any event, it's up to any given company to decide what they think is necessary to tell their business partners. It's very difficult for us from our vantage point to judge whether they are being unacceptably secretive. In this case, it seems SI may be spinning the situation to their advantage. It could very well be that they understood the rules perfectly, but decided not to go along with them.
In any event, it's up to any given company to decide what they think is necessary to tell their business partners. It's very difficult for us from our vantage point to judge whether they are being unacceptably secretive. In this case, it seems SI may be spinning the situation to their advantage. It could very well be that they understood the rules perfectly, but decided not to go along with them.
It's a big secret if these companies don't know how they can charge until they submit their work to Apple, and are told "no".
Apple should have carefully spelt this out months ago, before the iPad actually came out. Right after the intro, in fact. Apparently, they didn't.
And this is another rumor. It may be true, and it may not. It may be only one of several reasons.
Do these subscriptions produce a continuing revenue stream for Apple? Or do these publishers think that they can come to the App Store, and sell stuff and not give a cut to Apple?
What are they, nuts?
Remember it was Apple that courted them not vice versa. They are probably willing to offer a nice discount to subs but if Apple then takes a chunk it might not be cost effective.
This shouldn't be news at all. Apple should be doing everything it possibly can to reach out to the publishing industry in the first year or two of the iPad. Whether Time and Apple should desk share, have a contact person or just work on better negotiations with a clause to review in 2 years they need to get this uncertainty off the minds of consumers.
The best way to deal with Kindle etc is to be able say this is the best publishing platform available for both customers and publishers and 'whatever you want is on there right now'.
How new products go in their first few years is critical. When you have major journalists say they're bypassing the App versions of newspapers and magazines to browse instead on the web version of the site on their iPad then something still isn't being done right.
Comments
Based on Phil Shiller's comments on this, it seems that Apple has set up an odd "grandfather" exemption for certain magazines. I think it goes like this: if your grandfather might have bought one and it's not hard core, they allow it. In other words, Playboy has supposedly been around enough that it has a certain societal acceptance that a similar magazine with a different name might not have. Which really makes the "Apple doesn't want porn" angle a little odd when they whitelist publications that a lot of people seem to think is porn, even if it is soft core.
An old classmate of mine got a refund for a faulty or mistakenly bought app, I forget which. Apple seems to be willing to do more than their documentation requires them to do.
Curious. I can buy single issues if I want at a magazine rack. The economics made it hard to make them too cheap at the news stand because unsold issues get returned when the new issue is released, and the retailer wants a markup too. With a subscription, production-wise, you don't have to worry about whether an issue sells or not, because it's already paid for.
That's why the bulk pricing works. Maybe not every issue is going to appeal to you, a dud issue isn't so terrible. Maybe they can suddenly make a bunch crap issues to be jerks, but that would mean you have no reason to re-subscribe once the year is up.
Advertisers like to make sure the magazine actually has readers in the age bracket and sex their product targets.
See my response to russgriz above.
It's fine for you to have that opinion, but Make is a very well produced magazine. It's more like a quarterly serialized book than a magazine, I think it holds its value longer as reference material.
It really depends on the magazine. Time subscriptions run about $0.35 to $0.50 an issue when you subscribe. Most magazines I see have 50% off or more of the cover price to subscribe. Even if you don't like a couple issues, it's still a big savings.
A number of fashion mags have removed nude and seminude pics from their mags to get it into the app store. I think it's ridiculous for them to have to do that. There's a difference between real porn and nudity. a lot of this is up to parents. They can control what their kids buy from the store. Apple shouldn't be the one to accept the burden.
Apple would be foolish to let anyone freeride on iTunes.
AI really should mention that in the story.
Gee... I wonder if it occurred to any of the magazine publishers just to sell the app at a subscription price... say, $45 for the app, which gets free updates every time an issue is published, for an entire year, before the updates stop, then that version of the app gets abandoned. Oh, wait... I missed that there's an opportunity here to trash Apple. Nevermind.
It's really not a big deal. Developers who say they can't do this don't understand the way it works.
All we have to do is to look at the MBL app. Each year, you have to get another version of the app, which includes all content for the year. No big deal, the app can be updated every month with a new feature (or issue). Just because someone is a developer, it doesn't mean they know what they're doing. The big companies understand how it works. It's the little guys who seem to have problems. They should talk to an accountant.
But still... Apple isn't making this easy. It's up to them to approve it. If they're not, they's a reason, and they aren't saying what it is. That's wrong.
Other rumor sources are now reporting Time wants to collect subscription fees outside the iTunes infrastructure (thus escape paying Apple 30%) and then distribute the issues as apps through iTunes.
Apple would be foolish to let anyone freeride on iTunes.
It's a rumor, and they don't have to do it that way. I already gave the way they should do it the way that the MBL does it. That ends all problems. They could simply charge 30% or so more to cover the app store surcharge. Or not, as they aren't paying for mailing charges, the surcharge covers that.
There must be some other reason.
The iTunes experience is selling a song for $0.79 to $1.29, not pennies. It takes much more work to put up an issue of a magazine, especially if it includes video, links to their web site, etc. I would consider an entire album to equal one issue of a magazine. I think that 50% of the newsstand price is fair for a single issue. It's up to the publishers to decide what they will charge. If they ask for too much, then they won't sell anything. They will learn.
Apple has to work out what they want though. If they want subs to be in iBook alone, then they should make that clear. If there are other reasons, they should spell them all out, so that everyone will know what they are. This is Apple's biggest failing. They have to stop having secret reasons for doing things.
You're nuts if you think publishing a single edition of a print magazine is equivalent to writing an album. Next you're going to have to qualify that by citing a crappy band because I doubt you'd think U2 thinks it's work, or Queen, or The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Dream Theater, RUSH, Van Halen, etc., think their work is equivalent to a single issue of Time, Wired, Esquire et.al, magazines. Not even close.
You're nuts if you think publishing a single edition of a print magazine is equivalent to writing an album. Next you're going to have to qualify that by citing a crappy band because I doubt you'd think U2 thinks it's work, or Queen, or The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Dream Theater, RUSH, Van Halen, etc., think their work is equivalent to a single issue of Time, Wired, Esquire et.al, magazines. Not even close.
I've been in both industries for decades, and yes, an album is about equal to one issue of a major mag. Perhaps I should have said "major mag". It can easily cost as much do put out one edition as to do one album. When you take away much of the Ads, or most of them, as you see the digital mags doing, then there is little to get those costs back. Remember that from 50 to 60% of a mags page space is Ads. Someone has to pay for that, and newsstand pricing and subs don't.
Yeah, when you talk about the COSTS to do an album. I'm not talking about whether the work inside is equal, though you will get lots of people who will think it's worth more, if they don't like the music. There are far more highly paid people directly working on putting out one copy of a magazine then working on one album. And for big names in music, well, they get far too much of an advance anyway.
Apple has to work out what they want though. If they want subs to be in iBook alone, then they should make that clear. If there are other reasons, they should spell them all out, so that everyone will know what they are. This is Apple's biggest failing. They have to stop having secret reasons for doing things.
Why do I find this to be such a radical suggestion? All companies have secret reasons for doing things. They rarely telegraph every intention.
Why do I find this to be such a radical suggestion? All companies have secret reasons for doing things. They rarely telegraph every intention.
Apparently a revenue issue according to macrumors rumor:
Update: We have heard that the holdup, at least in the case of the Sports Illustrated subscription plan, is in fact a dispute over revenue, with Apple maintaining that it should be able to collect a 30% cut of revenue as it does for content distributed through the App Store. Publishers, understandably, would prefer to move out from under the App Store umbrella for their subscriptions and keep 100% of the revenue for themselves.
Why do I find this to be such a radical suggestion? All companies have secret reasons for doing things. They rarely telegraph every intention.
This is not an acceptable use for secret rules. You don't have business partners, and that's what these companies are, and not tell them exactly what they need to know in advance.
Apparently a revenue issue according to macrumors rumor:
Update: We have heard that the holdup, at least in the case of the Sports Illustrated subscription plan, is in fact a dispute over revenue, with Apple maintaining that it should be able to collect a 30% cut of revenue as it does for content distributed through the App Store. Publishers, understandably, would prefer to move out from under the App Store umbrella for their subscriptions and keep 100% of the revenue for themselves.
This is not an acceptable use for secret rules. You don't have business partners, and that's what these companies are, and not tell them exactly what they need to know in advance.
Perhaps it's not such a big secret after all.
In any event, it's up to any given company to decide what they think is necessary to tell their business partners. It's very difficult for us from our vantage point to judge whether they are being unacceptably secretive. In this case, it seems SI may be spinning the situation to their advantage. It could very well be that they understood the rules perfectly, but decided not to go along with them.
Perhaps it's not such a big secret after all.
In any event, it's up to any given company to decide what they think is necessary to tell their business partners. It's very difficult for us from our vantage point to judge whether they are being unacceptably secretive. In this case, it seems SI may be spinning the situation to their advantage. It could very well be that they understood the rules perfectly, but decided not to go along with them.
It's a big secret if these companies don't know how they can charge until they submit their work to Apple, and are told "no".
Apple should have carefully spelt this out months ago, before the iPad actually came out. Right after the intro, in fact. Apparently, they didn't.
And this is another rumor. It may be true, and it may not. It may be only one of several reasons.
It's a big secret if these companies don't know how they can charge until they submit their work to Apple, and are told "no".
Apple should have carefully spelt this out months ago, before the iPad actually came out. Right after the intro, in fact. Apparently, they didn't.
And this is another rumor. It may be true, and it may not. It may be only one of several reasons.
A very big if. SI can claim now that they didn't know, but that doesn't mean they didn't know.
A very big if. SI can claim now that they didn't know, but that doesn't mean they didn't know.
Now you're working on wheels within wheels.
Do these subscriptions produce a continuing revenue stream for Apple? Or do these publishers think that they can come to the App Store, and sell stuff and not give a cut to Apple?
What are they, nuts?
Remember it was Apple that courted them not vice versa. They are probably willing to offer a nice discount to subs but if Apple then takes a chunk it might not be cost effective.
The best way to deal with Kindle etc is to be able say this is the best publishing platform available for both customers and publishers and 'whatever you want is on there right now'.
How new products go in their first few years is critical. When you have major journalists say they're bypassing the App versions of newspapers and magazines to browse instead on the web version of the site on their iPad then something still isn't being done right.
Just one example does not a trend make.
Btw, hasn't Time heard of Zinio?
Problem is that, as an agent, zinio takes a large cut of the money.
And when I say large cut, I mean almost all of it!
Now you're working on wheels within wheels.
Perhaps, but that's often where the truth of the matter can be found.
Perhaps, but that's often where the truth of the matter can be found.
I don't believe that's the case here.