Also, if a news company wanted to give each subscriber a username and password, couldnt' they do this from the web, and use any browser on any device??
I would be looking at more open platform models quickly and circumvent Apple by using my own tools on a website.
PS. All of this information may be leaked falsly to drive other tablets!! Bad news isn't always the truth, and neither is good news.
If this is true I just got a new reason to pass on the iPad 2 in favour of an Android or WebOS based tablet. I find it hard to believe however that Apple would be so narrowly focused on revenue from the App Store, which isn't really turning a profit but just acting as a defensive asset relative to their hardware revenues. Also, how could they allow Zinio if they wouldn't allow European newspapers to give their subscribers free access to the print edition?
As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.
Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.
I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.
You are correct about the issue at hand, free use of the in-app purchase system and you are right that there is a workaround (I described it in my previous post). My point was that once you implemented the workaround, you're no longer a print only business.
Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.
This is not netflix. With netflix your down load the app from apple and the content from netflix. What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time. Bandwidth costs money. These papers are free to provide there content by themselves and pay the millions to set up data centers and pay for bandwidth.
Just to reiterate: there is nothing new in these stories -- it looks like the Dutch paper finally figured out the issues that have been facing Apple and publishers.
A publisher who wants to give away the content for free, but charge others has no mechanism for doing this inside the App Store -- and Apple would prefer not to create one because this would mean the publisher would be able to get 100% of the revenue generated while Apple gets zip.
On the other hand, the number one complaint people have concerning publications in the app store is having to pay for content that they already are paying for when they bought their print copies. Apple didn't create this problem, the publishers did by developing their apps.
I personally think the solution is to charge a "reasonable" amount for an iPad subscription -- low enough to entice new readers and some print readers, high enough to generate profits even if a print subscriber drops their print edition.
But there will always be those who complain that publishers are "greedy" for charging for content in products that contain ads. It's a strange complaint since no one seems to complain about ads in print publications, they see the ads as part of the content.
Also: Netflix and Amazon handle their own billing for their products -- Apple simply lists the apps in the app store. Have you noticed that you can not buy a book in the Kindle app? Click the button and it takes you outside the app to the website where Amazon handles the whole transaction. This is why it is not a violation of the developer license.
Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.
FYI I already paid Apple when I purchased the device. Apple adds nothing of value in the magazine->consumer relationship they're merely exploiting monopoly profits from restricting publishers to making their content accessible through their North Korean App Store (tm).
Also the story doesn't hold up logically unless Apple has somehow begun pursuing stupid business strategy. What would be the point for Apple to scare off all the publishers monetising content on their platform when the publishers could basically sidestep Apple's demands by starting to charge symbolic amounts for access to the content or alternatively jump ship altogether (to Android or purely web distribution).
As soon as you're doing that, you're not running a print business anymore. Amazon is an existing online business that provides digital products, so the comparison doesn't fit.
Additionally, if you created a website portal solely to serve your app, Apple could just reject the app, seems pretty simple to me.
don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.
If they want to do it their way, they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.
This is not netflix. With netflix your down load the app from apple and the content from netflix. What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time. Bandwidth costs money. These papers are free to provide there content by themselves and pay the millions to set up data centers and pay for bandwidth.
Using that logic then why isn't Apple paying me for evertime it wants Ping and Genius information from me- not to mention the endless iTunes updates. The should pay me for the relentless updates that I need to keep my Mac, etc from rendering useless.
A publisher who wants to give away the content for free, but charge others has no mechanism for doing this inside the App Store
Not inside the App Store but surely they can do it 'inside' the app relying on App Store-related API's and reliant on their app having been approved by the App Store? At least that's what The Economist is currently doing among others.
The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading. My comment is based on how the app store has operated for quite some time. You are free to process transactions on your website if you have an existing digital business. However, if you don't have an existing digital business, you must use Apple's in app purchasing system, subscription or otherwise.
Hulu and netflix work because they are existing digital businesses. Their iPhone and iPad apps are not their primary offerings, they are merely apps that allow you to access their subscription content on the iPhone/iPad in addition to the numerous other digital devices they are available on.
Print newspapers with no digital version who decide to offer an iPad app do not have an existing digital business and thus must use Apple's in app purchasing system (which will soon properly support subscriptions). If you use the in app purchasing system, Apple gets its 30% cut.
The workaround is simple. Offer an online version of your newspaper, available through your website and have users create accounts and require them to log in to access the newspaper. You can charge for the online version, or it can be a perk for existing print customers, it doesn't matter. Once you do that, you have an existing digital business and are free to create an app that requires users to log in to access an iPad formatted version of the newspaper. You're free to handle all the transactions on your website and Apple won't take a cut of the profits.
This is how the app store works and it will continue to work that way for the foreseeable future. If the article has mislead you to believe otherwise, I guess that's the fault of the article.
If it didn't work that way Netflix, Hulu, Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, crunchyroll, and many many others would not be available for iOS in their current forms.
The Kindle app is the perfect example. You can go to amazon.com and buy as many ebooks as you want and then view them through the Kindle app without Amazon giving Apple a dime. Books aren't too different from newspapers, and rest assured that if Amazon started offering subscriptions, those subscriptions would also show up in the Kindle app just fine.
It's all about having an existing digital business. If you don't have one, Apple will not permit you to set one up just to serve your app, they want you to go through their purchasing system instead. But if you do have one, Apple wants your customers to use iPhones and iPads, so they will allow you to provide access to your paid or subscription content through the app without taking a cut (because they never processed the transaction in the first place).
This serves a practical purpose in addition to the apparent money grabbing purpose. If Apple allowed everyone to manage their own purchases, in app purchases would suck. Each app would require you to set up a new account with a company that you may or may not trust. The user experience would suck.
Your explanation (and several other similar ones) assumes that Apple is hosting content for one or more of these news services. Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.
If they want to do it their way, they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
I agree that they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
Edit: That's probably what my other posts should have focussed on. That's primarily what I meant by existing digital business. They need their own infrastructure to serve the data and process payments without replying on Apple to do so. If they rely on Apple to do it, they should expect to pay.
As far as I understand it though, that infrastructure would have to be used to serve more than just the iPad app. I don't think Apple will permit apps with infrastructure designed with the sole purpose of circumventing the app store. For instance Amazons eBooks can be read on the computer, iPhone, iPad, Kindle, and I believe Android now. If Amazon sold ebooks that could only be used on the iPad from their website, I don't think Apple would allow the app to remain in the app store.
I think that if Apple wants to charge for subscriptions, they should have a distribution system for it. Charging for it, then making the publisher handle distribution doesn't seem fair. I think this is what they are doing though. We'll see when they announce their new publishing platform.
I think that if Apple wants to charge for subscriptions, they should have a distribution system for it. Charging for it, then making the publisher handle distribution doesn't seem fair. I think this is what they are doing though. We'll see when they announce their new publishing platform.
Apple handles e-distribution. Maybe I missed something... How do you mean "making the publisher handle distribution"?
Your explanation (and several other similar ones) assumes that Apple is hosting content for one or more of these news services. Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
I think that in the subscription model Apple will be hosting the content. What differs with Netflix for example, is that not just a single movie is advertised in the App Store. You download the App and then access a selection of movies hosted by Netflix. In the magazine subscription model, when you read the details of the app in the App store, it will highlight the articles and topics included in that particular issue. If you have the subscription already, it just downloads for free, if not you purchase the subscription or maybe even just the single issue. The first time you buy an issue it bundles the player and the magazine. Subsequently just the magazine. Just speculation on my part.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.
30% is a small price to pay for the kind of exposure you get on the App Store and Mac App Store. Especially for small businesses who would, in addition, need to publicize their apps, team up with an e-commerce partner (who would take their own cut by the way), develop their own auto-update mechanism, and develop their own anti-piracy techniques.
Oh, and don't even think about using the M-word. (Hint: starts with "mono," ends with "poly.")
Did you hear about all the craplets announced last week at CES? Have you heard about the impending iPad-killers from Google and RIM? Sure, they're vaporcrap now, but is Apple doing anything illegal to crush them? Nope.
I think that in the subscription model Apple will be hosting the content. What differs with Netflix for example, is that not just a single movie is advertised in the App Store. You download the App and then access a selection of movies hosted by Netflix. In the magazine subscription model, when you read the details of the app in the App store, it will highlight the articles and topics included in that particular issue. If you have the subscription already, it just downloads for free, if not you purchase the subscription or maybe even just the single issue. The first time you buy an issue it bundles the player and the magazine. Subsequently just the magazine. Just speculation on my part.
Could be, and might help explain that brand new data center.
Comments
With print subscribers it's easy to do. Digital subscribers like those of Hulu and Netflix are a different story.
it's almost impossible to do.
As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.
Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.
I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.
Also, if a news company wanted to give each subscriber a username and password, couldnt' they do this from the web, and use any browser on any device??
I would be looking at more open platform models quickly and circumvent Apple by using my own tools on a website.
PS. All of this information may be leaked falsly to drive other tablets!! Bad news isn't always the truth, and neither is good news.
If this is actually Apple's reasoning here, it is a bit much. cmon Steve, sometimes letting something go to help build an ecosystem is a good thing.
Right... last time I looked AAPL was a charity set up to help poor, impoverished publishers like Rupert Murdoch.
it's almost impossible to do.
As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.
Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.
I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.
You are correct about the issue at hand, free use of the in-app purchase system and you are right that there is a workaround (I described it in my previous post). My point was that once you implemented the workaround, you're no longer a print only business.
This is not netflix. With netflix your down load the app from apple and the content from netflix. What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time. Bandwidth costs money. These papers are free to provide there content by themselves and pay the millions to set up data centers and pay for bandwidth.
A publisher who wants to give away the content for free, but charge others has no mechanism for doing this inside the App Store -- and Apple would prefer not to create one because this would mean the publisher would be able to get 100% of the revenue generated while Apple gets zip.
On the other hand, the number one complaint people have concerning publications in the app store is having to pay for content that they already are paying for when they bought their print copies. Apple didn't create this problem, the publishers did by developing their apps.
I personally think the solution is to charge a "reasonable" amount for an iPad subscription -- low enough to entice new readers and some print readers, high enough to generate profits even if a print subscriber drops their print edition.
But there will always be those who complain that publishers are "greedy" for charging for content in products that contain ads. It's a strange complaint since no one seems to complain about ads in print publications, they see the ads as part of the content.
Also: Netflix and Amazon handle their own billing for their products -- Apple simply lists the apps in the app store. Have you noticed that you can not buy a book in the Kindle app? Click the button and it takes you outside the app to the website where Amazon handles the whole transaction. This is why it is not a violation of the developer license.
Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.
FYI I already paid Apple when I purchased the device. Apple adds nothing of value in the magazine->consumer relationship they're merely exploiting monopoly profits from restricting publishers to making their content accessible through their North Korean App Store (tm).
Also the story doesn't hold up logically unless Apple has somehow begun pursuing stupid business strategy. What would be the point for Apple to scare off all the publishers monetising content on their platform when the publishers could basically sidestep Apple's demands by starting to charge symbolic amounts for access to the content or alternatively jump ship altogether (to Android or purely web distribution).
As soon as you're doing that, you're not running a print business anymore. Amazon is an existing online business that provides digital products, so the comparison doesn't fit.
Additionally, if you created a website portal solely to serve your app, Apple could just reject the app, seems pretty simple to me.
don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.
If they want to do it their way, they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
Get a clue people. Apple is the provider here of course they need to be paid to be able to provide the service.
This is not netflix. With netflix your down load the app from apple and the content from netflix. What we are talking about are papers that are downloaded from apple each time. Bandwidth costs money. These papers are free to provide there content by themselves and pay the millions to set up data centers and pay for bandwidth.
Using that logic then why isn't Apple paying me for evertime it wants Ping and Genius information from me- not to mention the endless iTunes updates. The should pay me for the relentless updates that I need to keep my Mac, etc from rendering useless.
A publisher who wants to give away the content for free, but charge others has no mechanism for doing this inside the App Store
Not inside the App Store but surely they can do it 'inside' the app relying on App Store-related API's and reliant on their app having been approved by the App Store? At least that's what The Economist is currently doing among others.
don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.
Or Zinio or pressdisplay, which are even more to the point.
The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading. My comment is based on how the app store has operated for quite some time. You are free to process transactions on your website if you have an existing digital business. However, if you don't have an existing digital business, you must use Apple's in app purchasing system, subscription or otherwise.
Hulu and netflix work because they are existing digital businesses. Their iPhone and iPad apps are not their primary offerings, they are merely apps that allow you to access their subscription content on the iPhone/iPad in addition to the numerous other digital devices they are available on.
Print newspapers with no digital version who decide to offer an iPad app do not have an existing digital business and thus must use Apple's in app purchasing system (which will soon properly support subscriptions). If you use the in app purchasing system, Apple gets its 30% cut.
The workaround is simple. Offer an online version of your newspaper, available through your website and have users create accounts and require them to log in to access the newspaper. You can charge for the online version, or it can be a perk for existing print customers, it doesn't matter. Once you do that, you have an existing digital business and are free to create an app that requires users to log in to access an iPad formatted version of the newspaper. You're free to handle all the transactions on your website and Apple won't take a cut of the profits.
This is how the app store works and it will continue to work that way for the foreseeable future. If the article has mislead you to believe otherwise, I guess that's the fault of the article.
If it didn't work that way Netflix, Hulu, Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, crunchyroll, and many many others would not be available for iOS in their current forms.
The Kindle app is the perfect example. You can go to amazon.com and buy as many ebooks as you want and then view them through the Kindle app without Amazon giving Apple a dime. Books aren't too different from newspapers, and rest assured that if Amazon started offering subscriptions, those subscriptions would also show up in the Kindle app just fine.
It's all about having an existing digital business. If you don't have one, Apple will not permit you to set one up just to serve your app, they want you to go through their purchasing system instead. But if you do have one, Apple wants your customers to use iPhones and iPads, so they will allow you to provide access to your paid or subscription content through the app without taking a cut (because they never processed the transaction in the first place).
This serves a practical purpose in addition to the apparent money grabbing purpose. If Apple allowed everyone to manage their own purchases, in app purchases would suck. Each app would require you to set up a new account with a company that you may or may not trust. The user experience would suck.
Your explanation (and several other similar ones) assumes that Apple is hosting content for one or more of these news services. Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
Yet another reason that makes me dislike the creator of my favorite products. Apple sucks when it comes to this crap.
An attitude that could only come from people who never pay for anything anyway...
I say, great job Apple. Keep 'em on their toes!
don't see apple rejecting the kindle app or the nook app.
If they want to do it their way, they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
I agree that they need to roll out their own infrastructure.
Edit: That's probably what my other posts should have focussed on. That's primarily what I meant by existing digital business. They need their own infrastructure to serve the data and process payments without replying on Apple to do so. If they rely on Apple to do it, they should expect to pay.
As far as I understand it though, that infrastructure would have to be used to serve more than just the iPad app. I don't think Apple will permit apps with infrastructure designed with the sole purpose of circumventing the app store. For instance Amazons eBooks can be read on the computer, iPhone, iPad, Kindle, and I believe Android now. If Amazon sold ebooks that could only be used on the iPad from their website, I don't think Apple would allow the app to remain in the app store.
I think that if Apple wants to charge for subscriptions, they should have a distribution system for it. Charging for it, then making the publisher handle distribution doesn't seem fair. I think this is what they are doing though. We'll see when they announce their new publishing platform.
Apple handles e-distribution. Maybe I missed something... How do you mean "making the publisher handle distribution"?
Your explanation (and several other similar ones) assumes that Apple is hosting content for one or more of these news services. Is there any evidence that Apple does this for anyone? I am asking because I don't actually know, but I suspect that they do not. Practically every newspaper in the country if not the world already supplies digital content, so I don't think this distinction is a useful one.
I think that in the subscription model Apple will be hosting the content. What differs with Netflix for example, is that not just a single movie is advertised in the App Store. You download the App and then access a selection of movies hosted by Netflix. In the magazine subscription model, when you read the details of the app in the App store, it will highlight the articles and topics included in that particular issue. If you have the subscription already, it just downloads for free, if not you purchase the subscription or maybe even just the single issue. The first time you buy an issue it bundles the player and the magazine. Subsequently just the magazine. Just speculation on my part.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.
30% is a small price to pay for the kind of exposure you get on the App Store and Mac App Store. Especially for small businesses who would, in addition, need to publicize their apps, team up with an e-commerce partner (who would take their own cut by the way), develop their own auto-update mechanism, and develop their own anti-piracy techniques.
Oh, and don't even think about using the M-word. (Hint: starts with "mono," ends with "poly.")
Did you hear about all the craplets announced last week at CES? Have you heard about the impending iPad-killers from Google and RIM? Sure, they're vaporcrap now, but is Apple doing anything illegal to crush them? Nope.
I think that in the subscription model Apple will be hosting the content. What differs with Netflix for example, is that not just a single movie is advertised in the App Store. You download the App and then access a selection of movies hosted by Netflix. In the magazine subscription model, when you read the details of the app in the App store, it will highlight the articles and topics included in that particular issue. If you have the subscription already, it just downloads for free, if not you purchase the subscription or maybe even just the single issue. The first time you buy an issue it bundles the player and the magazine. Subsequently just the magazine. Just speculation on my part.
Could be, and might help explain that brand new data center.