"But publishers apparently remain unsatisfied with Apple's business model for new subscriptions."
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.
IMO it sure seems like it should be better and cheaper. Stevie J sees this. I am purely guessing... basic templates etc and just remove and replace content (just a little simplified).
To hire a couple more 'designers' is not going to kill SI as a whole. Again, purely guessing, SI is looking at web only costs. So it may not make sense for the amount of web subscriptions they have now, it may be a chicken and egg thing to them.
IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.
Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business.
Everything they do is because they think it will be good for business. But one needs to be clear about cause and effect.
I wonder what they call 'a reasonable price'. Is it the same as they are charging for paper. Is the issue that they don't want to do this newstand style where you download the app, perhaps even for free but have to in app each issue for the same price that you would get a paper copy. Are they peeved that Apple doesn't support buying subscriptions in the store and thus they have to set up some kind of user validation system on the web for folks to pay on the web and then log in inside the app for their issues. Are they mad that Apple still wants a cut of the money.
I don't think that's the issue. Lets say you're in a two year subscription with SI and already paid for it. SI and others are not allowed by Apple to give you their content through an app. Do you want to pay twice for the same content? Apple should let those subscribers access their content and when they renew do it through the App Store so Apple can get their cut. Until the issue isn't ironed out I don't see an agreement anytime soon.
Anyone know how the Dev process works for this? I am shocked that this isn't simply HTML5 or PDF based. Why should you have to create a "portrait" version and a "landscape" version? I would think this would be handled in the viewing software.
I think it has to do with layout. The print media is used to having tight control of the way the page layout looks. A device like the iPad screws up that control. So they have to design two different layouts for each page. There is no way the Art Director is going to leave the look of the magazine to the "viewing software".
That being said, of course they have to hire more designers. Invest in the long term. The problem is that the print media and the TV networks for that matter, are so afraid of losing control of the market, the way the music industry has. But, until another proven business model comes along that can save them, they should hurry and get on board before it is too late.
I'm sure this will put Sports Illustrated on the AI banishment list.
New enemies are always an exciting arrival around here.
This place thrives on them. If a story has over 100 comments, you can almost count on the headline mentioning Google, Android, Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit or another of the semi-official enemies. Can we now add Sports Illustrated? Samsung?
LG was mentioned the other day, but got few hits. Why are they not reviled?
Apple will always try to sell MORE iPads. Apple DOES care when one of its intended promotional vehicles is stalling and sputtering.
This ain't some sort of black and white situation in which the iPad is either "selling enough" or "not selling enough". At any level of sales, all things being equal, the manufacturer desires increased sales.
And if the magazine subscription ploy is not working very well, Apple cares very much. It will negatively affect potential profits.
Apple is competing with what?
If you are offering a service and no one is providing anything better, you're not the one who needs to respond.
Look, we are in the early stages of this transition that the iPad is going to be involved in. I doubt this is the time for Apple to slip into desperation mode. It's like Apple's decision to challenge Flash. The sheer volume of Apple portable devices that will not support Flash means that content providers will have no choice but to provide that content in a form that is friendly to Apple's millions of devices that do not support Flash. There is strength in numbers and right now Apple has the numbers.
... Magazines are not just about "info". If you want raw info, disable styles in Safari or check the stock quote listings in the daily paper. Magazines are heavily visual - photos, illustrations, charts, etc. - packaging all that visual content (along with article text) into a particular page size & orientation takes skill & work. The iPad has two orientations, so two sets of layout considerations & constraints. Even iOS apps have to have two sets of UI layouts. ...
Between those two extremes, there is a world of possibilities. My browser, without styles disabled, has a practically infinite set of layouts, yet, (some) designers manage to create web pages that work well in all but the most extreme of them, as well as on my printer. SI needs to stop focusing so much on layout and fonts, although...
This is just stupid posturing by SI, and the people buying the app are the ones they are making suffer. Either that, or the people at SI really are idiots.
Apple need to wake up and ease off on personal info restriction for subscription and Apple cut is also too high. There is no reason to keep this information from the content provider. If you subscribe directly to a mag, you will give them your info.
I think it has to do with layout. The print media is used to having tight control of the way the page layout looks. A device like the iPad screws up that control. So they have to design two different layouts for each page. There is no way the Art Director is going to leave the look of the magazine to the "viewing software".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind
If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)
Indeed, that's exactly how Zinio handles their e-magazines. Their ZNO files are reported to be nothing but PDF files with a little extra DRM, which can be stripped with the right tools. And the Zinio app does handle embedded video and audio in enhanced editions. I'm happy with my Zinio subscriptions, rather than waiting for Apple to set up their magazine store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I don't think that's the issue. Lets say you're in a two year subscription with SI and already paid for it. SI and others are not allowed by Apple to give you their content through an app. Do you want to pay twice for the same content?
You call up SI, cancel your print subscription and get a refund for the unused portion. There's really no need to have both.
So SI doesn't want to spend a little extra cash to make its app viewable in portrait mode? Super.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz
"reasonable price" the content providers and Apple have vastly different ideas about what is reasonable. They probably want to charge like $4.00 per issue and Apple doesn't think it's worth that much money. None of the content providers have really figured out the electronic publishing issue.
The fundamental problem is that the print media doesn't have any clue what they're doing.
SI charges $5 PER ISSUE for the iPad version. Meanwhile, I can buy 28 issues of the print version for $20.
So, for less than $1 per issue, SI has to print the magazine and send it to me while $5 an issue isn't enough for them to do an electronic version properly?
IMO it sure seems like it should be better and cheaper. Stevie J sees this. I am purely guessing... basic templates etc and just remove and replace content (just a little simplified).
To hire a couple more 'designers' is not going to kill SI as a whole. Again, purely guessing, SI is looking at web only costs. So it may not make sense for the amount of web subscriptions they have now, it may be a chicken and egg thing to them.
IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.
Thing is they want to justify hiring more designers. It was easy for Apple to say to the music industry " look at how many iPods we sold and continue to sell" and make an impact. The iPod at the time just played music. That is not true with the ipad and SJ isn't doing a good job of convincing the print media. Imagine Apple charging you to install a album/song you already own onto your iPod. That's what they wanna do to current subscribers of publications. Charge them twice to view their content on an iPad.
I doubt this is the time for Apple to slip into desperation mode.
Bingo. The post you responded to lamented the black/white viewpoint. Apple cares about this potential revenue. But there's an entire gulf between Apple's current level of concern and desperation. Just like there's an entire gulf between current sales and hugely increased sales.
No need to go to any extremes. They need not be desperate in order to desire increased profits.
Thing is they want to justify hiring more designers. It was easy for Apple to say to the music industry " look at how many iPods we sold and continue to sell" and make an impact. The iPod at the time just played music. That is not true with the ipad and SJ isn't doing a good job of convincing the print media. Imagine Apple charging you to install a album/song you already own onto your iPod. That's what they wanna do to current subscribers of publications. Charge them twice to view their content on an iPad.
You don't know that. All we really know is that SI is trying pressure Apple into playing the game their way. Apple didn't persuade the entire music industry to go along with the iTMS all at once. It's been an incremental process, just as they still haven't persuaded all book publishers to join the book store. Magazine and newspaper publishing is bound to follow a similar track. Apple knows that if SI won't play, somebody else will.
New enemies are always an exciting arrival around here.
This place thrives on them. If a story has over 100 comments, you can almost count on the headline mentioning Google, Android, Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit or another of the semi-official enemies. Can we now add Sports Illustrated? Samsung?
LG was mentioned the other day, but got few hits. Why are they not reviled?
Really. I hope the Susquehanna hat company never makes an iPad app.
Te electronic version doesn't approach that. But it does eliminate a lot of the costs associated with the dead tree version.
It eliminates three costs:
- the cost to acquire and print paper
- the cost of shipping and distribution
- the cost of reclaiming and destroying left-over copies
However, the costs for design and programming the digital editions, plus the costs of acquiring extra content that are necessary for digital editions that have added value FAR OUTWEIGH the costs savings mentioned above. I know of one publication that has over 100 people working on the iPad digital edition. At $40K each (and it's probably much more), that's a $4 million salary investment. the team will probably be reduced in size over time, once the application matures, but still...
So publishers, already hit hard, are proceeding cautiously. I've worked with some publishers and rightly or wrongly, they feel that Apple wants too big a piece of the pie and they're all looking at alternate platforms.
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.
It will be interesting to see which publishing house "gets it" first. The ones that step back listen a bit to their subscriber base, and build a foundation for future publishing. It's not just what the consumer wants - which is an immediate need, but also understanding how electronic delivery is different from print delivery - and not just throwing animations and vids in the mix as well. Likewise advertisers will need to rethink how they deliver *within the context of electronic media* which, it appears, was/is where Apple was trying to take them with iAds. Like any intrenched industry (like automobiles switching from petroleum to electric for example), it will be the nimblest and least intrenched that will score first, the more entrenched will refuse to buy into the paradigm shift, or delay so long that they will lose relevancy, and perhaps fold. Find the blend of consumer desire, ad delivery, subscription rate and formatting and you've found the holy grail. Fail that and end up at the Castle Aaaauuuggghhhh, or lose it trying to cross the Bridge of Death.
Comments
"But publishers apparently remain unsatisfied with Apple's business model for new subscriptions."
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.
IMO it sure seems like it should be better and cheaper. Stevie J sees this. I am purely guessing... basic templates etc and just remove and replace content (just a little simplified).
To hire a couple more 'designers' is not going to kill SI as a whole. Again, purely guessing, SI is looking at web only costs. So it may not make sense for the amount of web subscriptions they have now, it may be a chicken and egg thing to them.
IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.
Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business.
Everything they do is because they think it will be good for business. But one needs to be clear about cause and effect.
I wonder what they call 'a reasonable price'. Is it the same as they are charging for paper. Is the issue that they don't want to do this newstand style where you download the app, perhaps even for free but have to in app each issue for the same price that you would get a paper copy. Are they peeved that Apple doesn't support buying subscriptions in the store and thus they have to set up some kind of user validation system on the web for folks to pay on the web and then log in inside the app for their issues. Are they mad that Apple still wants a cut of the money.
I don't think that's the issue. Lets say you're in a two year subscription with SI and already paid for it. SI and others are not allowed by Apple to give you their content through an app. Do you want to pay twice for the same content? Apple should let those subscribers access their content and when they renew do it through the App Store so Apple can get their cut. Until the issue isn't ironed out I don't see an agreement anytime soon.
Anyone know how the Dev process works for this? I am shocked that this isn't simply HTML5 or PDF based. Why should you have to create a "portrait" version and a "landscape" version? I would think this would be handled in the viewing software.
I think it has to do with layout. The print media is used to having tight control of the way the page layout looks. A device like the iPad screws up that control. So they have to design two different layouts for each page. There is no way the Art Director is going to leave the look of the magazine to the "viewing software".
That being said, of course they have to hire more designers. Invest in the long term. The problem is that the print media and the TV networks for that matter, are so afraid of losing control of the market, the way the music industry has. But, until another proven business model comes along that can save them, they should hurry and get on board before it is too late.
I'm sure this will put Sports Illustrated on the AI banishment list.
New enemies are always an exciting arrival around here.
This place thrives on them. If a story has over 100 comments, you can almost count on the headline mentioning Google, Android, Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit or another of the semi-official enemies. Can we now add Sports Illustrated? Samsung?
LG was mentioned the other day, but got few hits. Why are they not reviled?
Naw, the point was clear. But it is silly.
Apple will always try to sell MORE iPads. Apple DOES care when one of its intended promotional vehicles is stalling and sputtering.
This ain't some sort of black and white situation in which the iPad is either "selling enough" or "not selling enough". At any level of sales, all things being equal, the manufacturer desires increased sales.
And if the magazine subscription ploy is not working very well, Apple cares very much. It will negatively affect potential profits.
Apple is competing with what?
If you are offering a service and no one is providing anything better, you're not the one who needs to respond.
Look, we are in the early stages of this transition that the iPad is going to be involved in. I doubt this is the time for Apple to slip into desperation mode. It's like Apple's decision to challenge Flash. The sheer volume of Apple portable devices that will not support Flash means that content providers will have no choice but to provide that content in a form that is friendly to Apple's millions of devices that do not support Flash. There is strength in numbers and right now Apple has the numbers.
... Magazines are not just about "info". If you want raw info, disable styles in Safari or check the stock quote listings in the daily paper. Magazines are heavily visual - photos, illustrations, charts, etc. - packaging all that visual content (along with article text) into a particular page size & orientation takes skill & work. The iPad has two orientations, so two sets of layout considerations & constraints. Even iOS apps have to have two sets of UI layouts. ...
Between those two extremes, there is a world of possibilities. My browser, without styles disabled, has a practically infinite set of layouts, yet, (some) designers manage to create web pages that work well in all but the most extreme of them, as well as on my printer. SI needs to stop focusing so much on layout and fonts, although...
This is just stupid posturing by SI, and the people buying the app are the ones they are making suffer. Either that, or the people at SI really are idiots.
Competition is going to force them to bend.
I think it has to do with layout. The print media is used to having tight control of the way the page layout looks. A device like the iPad screws up that control. So they have to design two different layouts for each page. There is no way the Art Director is going to leave the look of the magazine to the "viewing software".
If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)
Indeed, that's exactly how Zinio handles their e-magazines. Their ZNO files are reported to be nothing but PDF files with a little extra DRM, which can be stripped with the right tools. And the Zinio app does handle embedded video and audio in enhanced editions. I'm happy with my Zinio subscriptions, rather than waiting for Apple to set up their magazine store.
I don't think that's the issue. Lets say you're in a two year subscription with SI and already paid for it. SI and others are not allowed by Apple to give you their content through an app. Do you want to pay twice for the same content?
You call up SI, cancel your print subscription and get a refund for the unused portion. There's really no need to have both.
because Apple does not allow iPad subscriptions at "a reasonable price."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
What does SI consider "a reasonable price"?
So SI doesn't want to spend a little extra cash to make its app viewable in portrait mode? Super.
"reasonable price" the content providers and Apple have vastly different ideas about what is reasonable. They probably want to charge like $4.00 per issue and Apple doesn't think it's worth that much money. None of the content providers have really figured out the electronic publishing issue.
The fundamental problem is that the print media doesn't have any clue what they're doing.
SI charges $5 PER ISSUE for the iPad version. Meanwhile, I can buy 28 issues of the print version for $20.
So, for less than $1 per issue, SI has to print the magazine and send it to me while $5 an issue isn't enough for them to do an electronic version properly?
Hypocrites.
I thought Apple was going to single-handedly save the publishing industry. Har!
You, of all people, should know, that it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to save idiots from themselves.
IMO it sure seems like it should be better and cheaper. Stevie J sees this. I am purely guessing... basic templates etc and just remove and replace content (just a little simplified).
To hire a couple more 'designers' is not going to kill SI as a whole. Again, purely guessing, SI is looking at web only costs. So it may not make sense for the amount of web subscriptions they have now, it may be a chicken and egg thing to them.
IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.
Thing is they want to justify hiring more designers. It was easy for Apple to say to the music industry " look at how many iPods we sold and continue to sell" and make an impact. The iPod at the time just played music. That is not true with the ipad and SJ isn't doing a good job of convincing the print media. Imagine Apple charging you to install a album/song you already own onto your iPod. That's what they wanna do to current subscribers of publications. Charge them twice to view their content on an iPad.
I doubt this is the time for Apple to slip into desperation mode.
Bingo. The post you responded to lamented the black/white viewpoint. Apple cares about this potential revenue. But there's an entire gulf between Apple's current level of concern and desperation. Just like there's an entire gulf between current sales and hugely increased sales.
No need to go to any extremes. They need not be desperate in order to desire increased profits.
Thing is they want to justify hiring more designers. It was easy for Apple to say to the music industry " look at how many iPods we sold and continue to sell" and make an impact. The iPod at the time just played music. That is not true with the ipad and SJ isn't doing a good job of convincing the print media. Imagine Apple charging you to install a album/song you already own onto your iPod. That's what they wanna do to current subscribers of publications. Charge them twice to view their content on an iPad.
You don't know that. All we really know is that SI is trying pressure Apple into playing the game their way. Apple didn't persuade the entire music industry to go along with the iTMS all at once. It's been an incremental process, just as they still haven't persuaded all book publishers to join the book store. Magazine and newspaper publishing is bound to follow a similar track. Apple knows that if SI won't play, somebody else will.
New enemies are always an exciting arrival around here.
This place thrives on them. If a story has over 100 comments, you can almost count on the headline mentioning Google, Android, Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit or another of the semi-official enemies. Can we now add Sports Illustrated? Samsung?
LG was mentioned the other day, but got few hits. Why are they not reviled?
Really. I hope the Susquehanna hat company never makes an iPad app.
Te electronic version doesn't approach that. But it does eliminate a lot of the costs associated with the dead tree version.
It eliminates three costs:
- the cost to acquire and print paper
- the cost of shipping and distribution
- the cost of reclaiming and destroying left-over copies
However, the costs for design and programming the digital editions, plus the costs of acquiring extra content that are necessary for digital editions that have added value FAR OUTWEIGH the costs savings mentioned above. I know of one publication that has over 100 people working on the iPad digital edition. At $40K each (and it's probably much more), that's a $4 million salary investment. the team will probably be reduced in size over time, once the application matures, but still...
So publishers, already hit hard, are proceeding cautiously. I've worked with some publishers and rightly or wrongly, they feel that Apple wants too big a piece of the pie and they're all looking at alternate platforms.
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.
So they're still not taking your calls, huh?