. I have been blaming the publishers for not offering subscriptions but if it's true that Apple is preventing it then that's just a disappointment.
Apple is prone to giving consumers two choices: Our way or the highway.
My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.
By the way. If there is a model that could work it would be a subscription service that for a single monthly fee, let's say $10, gave one access to whatever publication agreed to sign up. Kind of like how the cable model works for television. I think that paying one relatively small amount for unlimited access is something a lot of consumers would be fine with provided there was enough premium content offered.
It's not the way that publications are accustomed to operating but it's a whole new landscape. Time to adjust or perish.
so you think i should pay $10 a month for access to any publication? who gets what % of the money [other than Apple taking 30%... kinda like record labels do from musicians]? would content providers all get an equal share to encourage choice, or would those who get more downloads get more money [putting the little guys out of business and ending up with no choices]?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb
So SI doesn't want to spend a little extra cash to make its app viewable in portrait mode? Super.
Yes it's that simple. it has nothing to do with how much they HAVE to spend, or if they're losing money by creating a portrait version, they should just spend more so you can rotate your iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
We as consumers have access to vast amounts of content that is available merely by maintaining an Internet connection. This cannot be ignored and it seems to me Apple gets that. The content providers, not so much. They are in denial and if they remain so, they are doomed.
...so you think every content provider should do this for free? great business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrmac
SI,
Are you really serious about this? Do you really want to be in the digital business or don't you? As has been said, hire a designer. This is a long term investment, not a one shot thing. Are you looking to the future or to the past? Your magazine gets thinner and thinner. Think about it.
SI is far ahead of practically every other publication in this new market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamiltonrrwatch
I'm not an expert (nor do I play one on TV), but this seems very simple. As a publisher, if you want to provide digital content, you're either in, or you're out. I've seen some truly half-assed attempts at this. But with the economy in the shape that it's in, if you're going digital, you'd better be offering something unique and different.
i agree, and SI offers videos, the ability to organize the publication they way you want to, and dozens of other features not available in a "dead tree" version.
If Apple keeps this up, these publishers will take their business elsewhere. The iPad is the only game in town so far but next year could be different.
I don't want to pay for $5 an issue and so does everyone else. I have been blaming the publishers for not offering subscriptions but if it's true that Apple is preventing it then that's just a disappointment.
As far as I could follow this process, in average they both are equally responsible for the hold up. Apple as I can understand want's to have a share of the revenue and want's to maximize the revenue which is understandable as well. Since this kind of electronic magazine subscription is pretty new apple will not want to scare away possible subscribers with to high prices to start with. With moderate pricing they will reach a wider audience willing to pay rather than to pirate. But maybe they went to far this time. I don't think so but this is what we will see in the coming months (I hope). The publishers on the other hand seem to stick to print issue pricing, which is in most cases to high for electronic media consumers.
Apple is prone to giving consumers two choices: Our way or the highway.
My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.
That's rubbish - sorry.
Every company that provide a product or service do so using their own company ethics, guidelines and business model. Every single company on the planet. Why single Apple out for being any different?
If someone wishes to use Apple to distribute their product, then of course apple will negotiate the best possible deal for themselves and for their customers.
There's nothing unique, unusual or conspiratorial about Apple's policies.
All consumers and producers are faced with the same two options - use the products and services of a company, or don't.
Apple is prone to giving consumers two choices: Our way or the highway.
My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.
Why would Apple care if SI went elsewhere? For Apple revenue from such content delivery would represent pocket change.
As far as I could follow this process, in average they both are equally responsible for the hold up. Apple as I can understand want's to have a share of the revenue and want's to maximize the revenue which is understandable as well. Since this kind of electronic magazine subscription is pretty new apple will not want to scare away possible subscribers with to high prices to start with. With moderate pricing they will reach a wider audience willing to pay rather than to pirate. But maybe they went to far this time. I don't think so but this is what we will see in the coming months (I hope).
If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple. If it's too expensive then no right minded person would subscribe and they'll learn a lesson the hard way and eventually bring down the price. If this is an issue with revenue sharing then that's for Apple and the publishers to settle but they need to figure it out fast as consumers are the ones affected more. I understand business is business but they need to settle this stalemate for the consumer's sake.
Because they are counting on SI, and other companies like SI, to sell iPads for them and to create a recurring revenue stream from content subscriptions for them.
More strange than deciding to support only landscape is the fact that they say that supporting portrait increased the file size by 30%. It's a layout with photos and print - I get hints for the different modes, but what in the world are they doing? Or is this that Flash magazine tool crud where text is pngs and you have landscape and portrait 'text'? Ugh.
Because they are counting on SI, and other companies like SI, to sell iPads for them and to create a recurring revenue stream from content subscriptions for them.
That's why.
I missed the part where Apple was having trouble selling iPads.
If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple. If it's too expensive then no right minded person would subscribe and they'll learn a lesson the hard way and eventually bring down the price. If this is an issue with revenue sharing then that's for Apple and the publishers to settle but they need to figure it out fast as consumers are the ones affected more. I understand business is business but they need to settle this stalemate for the consumer's sake.
With the hurry up part I completely agree. The marketing strategy however I think apples clear cut pricing system has worked out pretty well with iTunes music download service. Probably most producers saw an incline in revenue once they agreed to apples terms, and got their music uploaded. A pretty example how everybody may have some benefit.
Way to publicly admit that you cut features and delivered less value than you thought was appropriate for the price. I'd like a refund please. If you're admitting that you purposely remove what people are paying for, then I'm no longer supporting you, and I want my money back.
I don't care what your issues are with Apple, you're lucky enough to be in front me, because you're ON the platform. How about we take you off the platform and see how relevant you remain over the next year?
Have you even read the SDK and App Store guidelines, SI? It says quite clearly that those who bitch and moan to the press, don't suddenly have an easier time negotiating with Apple.
"Sports Illustrated says unfair iPad subscription terms led to cut features"
It is a completely misleading story title.
Seems like SI dosen't want to go out on a limb and add designers wait till they meet the different flavors of the "other" tablet Os's. Send out your recruiting teams now!!
Do you have to make a condescending personal remark everytime you post on these forums?
Naw. I usually reserve those for when people try to put words in my mouth. I object to that.
And besides, the post I responded to was a nasty accusation disguised as sarcasm. I responded as if the idiotic viewpoint were sincere. I too used sarcasm.
This is just a stupid negotiation attempt on SI part. They think that if Apple believe this will be a poor user experience and the only way SI could support multiply modes of view is to increase subscription prices then Apple will fall over.
SI is barking up the wrong tree and all that will happen is people point out the fact that other magazines are not having any issue.
Comments
. I have been blaming the publishers for not offering subscriptions but if it's true that Apple is preventing it then that's just a disappointment.
Apple is prone to giving consumers two choices: Our way or the highway.
My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.
1-SI is publicly announcing that they have a rubbish app because they want to concentrate on other businesses (whatever that means)
2- These other potential businesses have no name!
Is this story right?
By the way. If there is a model that could work it would be a subscription service that for a single monthly fee, let's say $10, gave one access to whatever publication agreed to sign up. Kind of like how the cable model works for television. I think that paying one relatively small amount for unlimited access is something a lot of consumers would be fine with provided there was enough premium content offered.
It's not the way that publications are accustomed to operating but it's a whole new landscape. Time to adjust or perish.
so you think i should pay $10 a month for access to any publication? who gets what % of the money [other than Apple taking 30%... kinda like record labels do from musicians]? would content providers all get an equal share to encourage choice, or would those who get more downloads get more money [putting the little guys out of business and ending up with no choices]?
So SI doesn't want to spend a little extra cash to make its app viewable in portrait mode? Super.
Yes it's that simple. it has nothing to do with how much they HAVE to spend, or if they're losing money by creating a portrait version, they should just spend more so you can rotate your iPad.
We as consumers have access to vast amounts of content that is available merely by maintaining an Internet connection. This cannot be ignored and it seems to me Apple gets that. The content providers, not so much. They are in denial and if they remain so, they are doomed.
...so you think every content provider should do this for free? great business model.
SI,
Are you really serious about this? Do you really want to be in the digital business or don't you? As has been said, hire a designer. This is a long term investment, not a one shot thing. Are you looking to the future or to the past? Your magazine gets thinner and thinner. Think about it.
SI is far ahead of practically every other publication in this new market.
I'm not an expert (nor do I play one on TV), but this seems very simple. As a publisher, if you want to provide digital content, you're either in, or you're out. I've seen some truly half-assed attempts at this. But with the economy in the shape that it's in, if you're going digital, you'd better be offering something unique and different.
i agree, and SI offers videos, the ability to organize the publication they way you want to, and dozens of other features not available in a "dead tree" version.
If Apple keeps this up, these publishers will take their business elsewhere. The iPad is the only game in town so far but next year could be different.
I don't want to pay for $5 an issue and so does everyone else. I have been blaming the publishers for not offering subscriptions but if it's true that Apple is preventing it then that's just a disappointment.
As far as I could follow this process, in average they both are equally responsible for the hold up. Apple as I can understand want's to have a share of the revenue and want's to maximize the revenue which is understandable as well. Since this kind of electronic magazine subscription is pretty new apple will not want to scare away possible subscribers with to high prices to start with. With moderate pricing they will reach a wider audience willing to pay rather than to pirate. But maybe they went to far this time. I don't think so but this is what we will see in the coming months (I hope). The publishers on the other hand seem to stick to print issue pricing, which is in most cases to high for electronic media consumers.
Apple is prone to giving consumers two choices: Our way or the highway.
My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.
That's rubbish - sorry.
Every company that provide a product or service do so using their own company ethics, guidelines and business model. Every single company on the planet. Why single Apple out for being any different?
If someone wishes to use Apple to distribute their product, then of course apple will negotiate the best possible deal for themselves and for their customers.
There's nothing unique, unusual or conspiratorial about Apple's policies.
All consumers and producers are faced with the same two options - use the products and services of a company, or don't.
It really is that simple.
Apple is prone to giving consumers two choices: Our way or the highway.
My guess is that the use the same attitude with their B2B customers too. But those guys are hardnosed and hardheaded, and are unlikely to accept bullshit.
Why would Apple care if SI went elsewhere? For Apple revenue from such content delivery would represent pocket change.
As far as I could follow this process, in average they both are equally responsible for the hold up. Apple as I can understand want's to have a share of the revenue and want's to maximize the revenue which is understandable as well. Since this kind of electronic magazine subscription is pretty new apple will not want to scare away possible subscribers with to high prices to start with. With moderate pricing they will reach a wider audience willing to pay rather than to pirate. But maybe they went to far this time. I don't think so but this is what we will see in the coming months (I hope).
If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple. If it's too expensive then no right minded person would subscribe and they'll learn a lesson the hard way and eventually bring down the price. If this is an issue with revenue sharing then that's for Apple and the publishers to settle but they need to figure it out fast as consumers are the ones affected more. I understand business is business but they need to settle this stalemate for the consumer's sake.
Why would Apple care if SI went elsewhere?
Because they are counting on SI, and other companies like SI, to sell iPads for them and to create a recurring revenue stream from content subscriptions for them.
That's why.
I understand business is business but they need to settle this stalemate for the consumer's sake.
Apple does nothing for the consumer's sake.
Everything is done for the shareholder's sake. That is the same at SI as well.
Because they are counting on SI, and other companies like SI, to sell iPads for them and to create a recurring revenue stream from content subscriptions for them.
That's why.
I missed the part where Apple was having trouble selling iPads.
If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple. If it's too expensive then no right minded person would subscribe and they'll learn a lesson the hard way and eventually bring down the price. If this is an issue with revenue sharing then that's for Apple and the publishers to settle but they need to figure it out fast as consumers are the ones affected more. I understand business is business but they need to settle this stalemate for the consumer's sake.
With the hurry up part I completely agree. The marketing strategy however I think apples clear cut pricing system has worked out pretty well with iTunes music download service. Probably most producers saw an incline in revenue once they agreed to apples terms, and got their music uploaded. A pretty example how everybody may have some benefit.
I missed the part where Apple was having trouble selling iPads.
I bought my iPad specifically so that I can read SI.
That's it! The iPad is going up on Ebay this morning!
I missed the part where Apple was having trouble selling iPads.
Likely because that was never claimed by anybody. It is OK to forgive yourself. You can make mistakes without publicly announcing them.
Way to publicly admit that you cut features and delivered less value than you thought was appropriate for the price. I'd like a refund please. If you're admitting that you purposely remove what people are paying for, then I'm no longer supporting you, and I want my money back.
I don't care what your issues are with Apple, you're lucky enough to be in front me, because you're ON the platform. How about we take you off the platform and see how relevant you remain over the next year?
Have you even read the SDK and App Store guidelines, SI? It says quite clearly that those who bitch and moan to the press, don't suddenly have an easier time negotiating with Apple.
Fools.
Likely because that was never claimed by anybody. It is OK to forgive yourself. You can make mistakes without publicly announcing them.
Do you have to make a condescending personal remark everytime you post on these forums?
It is a completely misleading story title.
Seems like SI dosen't want to go out on a limb and add designers wait till they meet the different flavors of the "other" tablet Os's. Send out your recruiting teams now!!
Do you have to make a condescending personal remark everytime you post on these forums?
Naw. I usually reserve those for when people try to put words in my mouth. I object to that.
And besides, the post I responded to was a nasty accusation disguised as sarcasm. I responded as if the idiotic viewpoint were sincere. I too used sarcasm.
You could add to this that 'Customers also apparently remain unsatisfied with Apple's business model for new subscriptions'.
Because everyone knows it can be done better and cheaper.
SI is barking up the wrong tree and all that will happen is people point out the fact that other magazines are not having any issue.