Have the print version sent to your doctor's office. That way they'll actually have up to date reading material there, and you won't have to throw it away.
Anyway, I don't think there's ever going to be a significant price difference (if any) between the print- and e-versions, if they were offered separately. Their cost differential between a print- or e-copy is probably not that great (cheap paper, cheap printing, most of the costs not involved in printing and distribution), so they aren't going to be saving lots of money on e-only subs to pass along, and what little difference there is, if they do offer e-only subs at some point, they'd probably prefer to pocket.
Well, the truth is, if I can get an e-version for the same discounted price I now pay for a print subscription, I'd be ok with that. Some of those discounted subscriptions are so aggressively priced, they're practically throwing the magazine at you.
However they work out the business model, I hope that there is some umbrella app like iBooks to organize your subscriptions. I really don't want a bunch of proprietary apps spread out across my iPad. Instead, a uniformed file format like the books would be nice. What would be really nice, is if you could pay for subscription packages. You would pay X amount for 3 magazines for a year. You get to choose between a group. The groups could be tiered into different price points.
Totally agree. I'd love to see an iMagazines store along the same lines as the iBooks store. One app with a shelf of downloaded magazines would be great.
I'm fairly certain that the issue keeping an agreement from happening has been over the subscriber data generated when someone subscribes to the magazine or buys an issue and who owns what parts of that data.
Subscriber data is important to the magazines because they use it to sell advertising and the more data they have the more they can sell targeted ads and thus charge a higher price for the ads. On the other hand, its highly valuable to Apple to use it for its own marketing and highly valuable for Apple to keep it out of the hands of other 3rd parties who may own competing operating OSs.
So somehow they have come to some agreement on this subscriber data.
So now you subscribe for a subscription somewhere else and then enter your info inside the app? I'm a bit confused on how the publishers check if you are a subscriber or not if apple does not let them sell subscriptions (why not?).
If they go around the app store apple does not get any money for these subscriptions. I think apple makes some money off the app store, unlike the music store so I would think it would make sense to sell subs and keep the revenues.
So now you subscribe for a subscription somewhere else and then enter your info inside the app? I'm a bit confused on how the publishers check if you are a subscriber or not if apple does not let them sell subscriptions (why not?).
If they go around the app store apple does not get any money for these subscriptions. I think apple makes some money off the app store, unlike the music store so I would think it would make sense to sell subs and keep the revenues.
it looks like it uses in app purchasing, so through the app store, with their subscriber lists linked in, but it's not clear what financial arrangements there are around this. I'm guessing Apple does not get the standard app store split on the full subscription price, but they probably get something to at least cover costs, and negotiating that is probably what the delay was all about.
I'm fairly certain that the issue keeping an agreement from happening has been over the subscriber data generated when someone subscribes to the magazine or buys an issue and who owns what parts of that data.
Subscriber data is important to the magazines because they use it to sell advertising and the more data they have the more they can sell targeted ads and thus charge a higher price for the ads. On the other hand, its highly valuable to Apple to use it for its own marketing and highly valuable for Apple to keep it out of the hands of other 3rd parties who may own competing operating OSs.
So somehow they have come to some agreement on this subscriber data.
That's probably why you have to be a print subscriber to get the e-version. That way, they get the subscriber data they normally would, and Apple doesn't have to give it up.
Well, I am sitting here at the Boardwalk in Santa Cruz, CA. If I had a sub to the magazine -- I could read it at no charge.
Sent from my iPad.
.
And that's all well and good, but I want to eliminate many of my paper subs amd substitute iPad subs instead, as long, of course as I can keep older issues. But so far, the pricing is too high. I don't know why we aren't getting prices equal to paper subs. There really isn't a problem with that. Make an app, charge the sub price, and update it every month with a new issue. Yes, we would have to pay Apple's cut, but that's not the end of the world.
The irony of this to me is that I do not think the majority of users would find it incredible to pay a small but reasonable fee in addition to their print subscriptions to have digital access. I mean added value stuff is great and all (like what netflix seems so great at), but I would be willing to pay a small, one-time fee for access, and that goes directly into offsetting the inevitable costs of this kind of offering.
I don't see why a one time fee would work. They add, and have to pay for, new stuff for the digital edition every month. Why should they allow a "small, one-time fee" to gain access to all of that? The whole point to paying for a magazine monthly, or buying a subscription, is to pay for that continually evolying content.
But, what seems to be said here is even better than what you are asking. They are offering the digital copies for free to subscribers. If that includes digital only content that can't easily be given as part of the paper edition, then that's a bargain. But some magazines already allow subscribers to access closed portions of their otherwise free websites. I get free acess to the
wsj website because I'm a subscriber. I get access to the Science, and Proceedings, because I Belong to the AAAS and the Amer. Academy of Sciences. So it's already being done through websites.
Here's a sad laugh about the state of affairs in this industry. I've been a subscriber to the Los Angeles Times for something like 35 years now. They finally made an e-edition available (really just an e-mailed PDF of the print edition, but better than nothing). Supposedly the e-edition is available to all current print subscribers. When I make this request, this is what I see:
Quote:
Thank you for registering for Times ALL ACCESS. Your request has been received and will be processed within the next 5-10 days. You will receive a confirmation to the e-mail address you provided, once your access is activated. If you have any questions regarding your account or ALL ACCESS, contact Los Angeles Times Subscriber Services at 1-800-252-9141.
It takes them 5-10 days to "activate" this service? No, that's wishful thinking. I've been requesting it for over a month now.
My MLB.TV subscription allows me to log in using the iPad app, and access video for any out-of-market game. The subscription is paid for directly with MLB.TV. Why couldn't a magazine subscription service work the same way?
Sorry, but I can't see paying out good money for a digital magazine full of ads.
If a magazine wants my eyeballs they need to be interesting and at no cost. There is simply too much already available on the internet to have to pay.
So can we assume that you've never bought a magazine at a newsstand or store because it has Ads? Or that you've never bought a sub either, for the same reason? Why do people look at digital as though the content should be free, but have been willing to pay for it when it was on paper? That makes no sense. It's the Ads that pays for the magazine. The amount you pay is just a small part of it.
it looks like it uses in app purchasing, so through the app store, with their subscriber lists linked in, but it's not clear what financial arrangements there are around this. I'm guessing Apple does not get the standard app store split on the full subscription price, but they probably get something to at least cover costs, and negotiating that is probably what the delay was all about.
It's hard to say. Apple gets nothing from free apps, but they get the standard 30% from in app purchases.
My MLB.TV subscription allows me to log in using the iPad app, and access video for any out-of-market game. The subscription is paid for directly with MLB.TV. Why couldn't a magazine subscription service work the same way?
On their website, it looks like it requires Flash plugin. How does that work on iPad? edit: nevermind, I found the info
(And I wish all TV channels were available individually like that).
Agreed. Until we have the whole story, this isn't a story. I'm guessing the magazines were attempting to collect subscription fees for the iPad version outside of the App Store. Apple pulled the apps until some sort of arrangement could be met.
I can understand Apple's position here. They handle distribution costs for free apps. If these magazines are providing free apps to paid subscribers, that's a lot of money the magazines are saving by distributing through the App Store and a lot of money Apple is losing and could be collecting via sales through the store.
I happened to notice that Apple no longer promotes the top free apps in the iTunes App Store, except for a small, barely noticeable text link. To me, this indicates Apple is no longer interested in promoting apps unless they are profitable. They probably figure they have more than enough free apps.
You clould assume that the way the App store is structured it automatically skims Apples cut off of every in app purchase and Apple don't currently have a way of differentiating from in-app and subscription payments. This will probably change once Apple restructures the app store billing side.
It could be in part to Apple not anticipating the magazine publishers wanting to have subscriptions for their own apps or Apple is dragging its heals while it puts together a 'Magazine' store ala iBooks.
So how does Apple make money off this? They pay to host the app and bandwidth for millions of downloaded updates, and the publisher gets all the revenue out-of-band.
I have an annual subscription to the BMW Roundel. There has been a digital version for a few months that used flash. After much complaint, something BMW owners are used to doing, they came out with a java based version with no flash. It works perfectly on the iPad, ads and all. You need to log in with your membership number and password for the BMWCCA. No charge. OTOH, a sub is $35/yr.
I also have a subscription to New Yorker Magazine. My login allows me to view the entire issue online. This works fine for a computer, but is unusable on an iPhone. There is a version for the iPad which works fine. Login with email and password. No charge. Sub is $28/yr for educ use.
Well, as far as I know, none of my apps knows what magazines I subscribe to.
It would be nice to have some actual details on how this is supposed to work. .
for crying out loud its not rocket science, you just logging when the app starts, just like the "We rule" game or the Kindle app. So you can download the app but you need an account to access the goods.
Comments
Have the print version sent to your doctor's office. That way they'll actually have up to date reading material there, and you won't have to throw it away.
Anyway, I don't think there's ever going to be a significant price difference (if any) between the print- and e-versions, if they were offered separately. Their cost differential between a print- or e-copy is probably not that great (cheap paper, cheap printing, most of the costs not involved in printing and distribution), so they aren't going to be saving lots of money on e-only subs to pass along, and what little difference there is, if they do offer e-only subs at some point, they'd probably prefer to pocket.
Well, the truth is, if I can get an e-version for the same discounted price I now pay for a print subscription, I'd be ok with that. Some of those discounted subscriptions are so aggressively priced, they're practically throwing the magazine at you.
However they work out the business model, I hope that there is some umbrella app like iBooks to organize your subscriptions. I really don't want a bunch of proprietary apps spread out across my iPad. Instead, a uniformed file format like the books would be nice. What would be really nice, is if you could pay for subscription packages. You would pay X amount for 3 magazines for a year. You get to choose between a group. The groups could be tiered into different price points.
Totally agree. I'd love to see an iMagazines store along the same lines as the iBooks store. One app with a shelf of downloaded magazines would be great.
Subscriber data is important to the magazines because they use it to sell advertising and the more data they have the more they can sell targeted ads and thus charge a higher price for the ads. On the other hand, its highly valuable to Apple to use it for its own marketing and highly valuable for Apple to keep it out of the hands of other 3rd parties who may own competing operating OSs.
So somehow they have come to some agreement on this subscriber data.
If they go around the app store apple does not get any money for these subscriptions. I think apple makes some money off the app store, unlike the music store so I would think it would make sense to sell subs and keep the revenues.
So now you subscribe for a subscription somewhere else and then enter your info inside the app? I'm a bit confused on how the publishers check if you are a subscriber or not if apple does not let them sell subscriptions (why not?).
If they go around the app store apple does not get any money for these subscriptions. I think apple makes some money off the app store, unlike the music store so I would think it would make sense to sell subs and keep the revenues.
From what it says here,
http://www.people.com/people/static/...ad-faq.html#q8
it looks like it uses in app purchasing, so through the app store, with their subscriber lists linked in, but it's not clear what financial arrangements there are around this. I'm guessing Apple does not get the standard app store split on the full subscription price, but they probably get something to at least cover costs, and negotiating that is probably what the delay was all about.
I'm fairly certain that the issue keeping an agreement from happening has been over the subscriber data generated when someone subscribes to the magazine or buys an issue and who owns what parts of that data.
Subscriber data is important to the magazines because they use it to sell advertising and the more data they have the more they can sell targeted ads and thus charge a higher price for the ads. On the other hand, its highly valuable to Apple to use it for its own marketing and highly valuable for Apple to keep it out of the hands of other 3rd parties who may own competing operating OSs.
So somehow they have come to some agreement on this subscriber data.
That's probably why you have to be a print subscriber to get the e-version. That way, they get the subscriber data they normally would, and Apple doesn't have to give it up.
Well, I am sitting here at the Boardwalk in Santa Cruz, CA. If I had a sub to the magazine -- I could read it at no charge.
Sent from my iPad.
.
And that's all well and good, but I want to eliminate many of my paper subs amd substitute iPad subs instead, as long, of course as I can keep older issues. But so far, the pricing is too high. I don't know why we aren't getting prices equal to paper subs. There really isn't a problem with that. Make an app, charge the sub price, and update it every month with a new issue. Yes, we would have to pay Apple's cut, but that's not the end of the world.
The irony of this to me is that I do not think the majority of users would find it incredible to pay a small but reasonable fee in addition to their print subscriptions to have digital access. I mean added value stuff is great and all (like what netflix seems so great at), but I would be willing to pay a small, one-time fee for access, and that goes directly into offsetting the inevitable costs of this kind of offering.
I don't see why a one time fee would work. They add, and have to pay for, new stuff for the digital edition every month. Why should they allow a "small, one-time fee" to gain access to all of that? The whole point to paying for a magazine monthly, or buying a subscription, is to pay for that continually evolying content.
But, what seems to be said here is even better than what you are asking. They are offering the digital copies for free to subscribers. If that includes digital only content that can't easily be given as part of the paper edition, then that's a bargain. But some magazines already allow subscribers to access closed portions of their otherwise free websites. I get free acess to the
wsj website because I'm a subscriber. I get access to the Science, and Proceedings, because I Belong to the AAAS and the Amer. Academy of Sciences. So it's already being done through websites.
Thank you for registering for Times ALL ACCESS. Your request has been received and will be processed within the next 5-10 days. You will receive a confirmation to the e-mail address you provided, once your access is activated. If you have any questions regarding your account or ALL ACCESS, contact Los Angeles Times Subscriber Services at 1-800-252-9141.
It takes them 5-10 days to "activate" this service? No, that's wishful thinking. I've been requesting it for over a month now.
Sorry, but I can't see paying out good money for a digital magazine full of ads.
If a magazine wants my eyeballs they need to be interesting and at no cost. There is simply too much already available on the internet to have to pay.
So can we assume that you've never bought a magazine at a newsstand or store because it has Ads? Or that you've never bought a sub either, for the same reason? Why do people look at digital as though the content should be free, but have been willing to pay for it when it was on paper? That makes no sense. It's the Ads that pays for the magazine. The amount you pay is just a small part of it.
ZINIO... Enough Said
I've got Zinio, like most people who have used it, I can say that it's not very good.
From what it says here,
http://www.people.com/people/static/...ad-faq.html#q8
it looks like it uses in app purchasing, so through the app store, with their subscriber lists linked in, but it's not clear what financial arrangements there are around this. I'm guessing Apple does not get the standard app store split on the full subscription price, but they probably get something to at least cover costs, and negotiating that is probably what the delay was all about.
It's hard to say. Apple gets nothing from free apps, but they get the standard 30% from in app purchases.
error type #11
My MLB.TV subscription allows me to log in using the iPad app, and access video for any out-of-market game. The subscription is paid for directly with MLB.TV. Why couldn't a magazine subscription service work the same way?
On their website, it looks like it requires Flash plugin. How does that work on iPad? edit: nevermind, I found the info
(And I wish all TV channels were available individually like that).
Agreed. Until we have the whole story, this isn't a story. I'm guessing the magazines were attempting to collect subscription fees for the iPad version outside of the App Store. Apple pulled the apps until some sort of arrangement could be met.
I can understand Apple's position here. They handle distribution costs for free apps. If these magazines are providing free apps to paid subscribers, that's a lot of money the magazines are saving by distributing through the App Store and a lot of money Apple is losing and could be collecting via sales through the store.
I happened to notice that Apple no longer promotes the top free apps in the iTunes App Store, except for a small, barely noticeable text link. To me, this indicates Apple is no longer interested in promoting apps unless they are profitable. They probably figure they have more than enough free apps.
It could be in part to Apple not anticipating the magazine publishers wanting to have subscriptions for their own apps or Apple is dragging its heals while it puts together a 'Magazine' store ala iBooks.
I also have a subscription to New Yorker Magazine. My login allows me to view the entire issue online. This works fine for a computer, but is unusable on an iPhone. There is a version for the iPad which works fine. Login with email and password. No charge. Sub is $28/yr for educ use.
Well, as far as I know, none of my apps knows what magazines I subscribe to.
It would be nice to have some actual details on how this is supposed to work. .
for crying out loud its not rocket science, you just logging when the app starts, just like the "We rule" game or the Kindle app. So you can download the app but you need an account to access the goods.