Because Apple doesn't do any hosting, distribution, and collecting sales data is a sore point. Publishers want that. it does do purchasing but the publishers can handled that.
Oh really? Who exactly is hosting and distributing all the content in iTunes then?
Judging from the money developers are making from Android apps, 70% of something from the Apple app store is better than 90% of nothing from Android.
If I were the magazine industry, I would sell my subscriptions through my own app, so the customer's exposure to the Android marketplace was minimal (and I kept all the money). If the iPad had no magazine support, but another platform did, it would put the iPad at a disadvantage over the long-term.
30% doesn't sound so bad to me... Coming from the newspaper business I can think of the following expenses that are offset with the iPad.
Printing
Postage
Packaging
Retail markup
We don't really make money on subscriptions, we make money on advertisers. There also is an economy of scale difference here. If a newspaper/magazine grows their print costs still increase. They have to hire more staff for distribution, install or use larger presses, etc. What cost increases the more digital subscriptions they sell???
Yep.
Plus, when it comes to books, brick and mortar stores take 50%. Not to mention the middlemen.
30% is an absolute bargain. It amazes me how many people think 30% is somehow gouging. Not to mention, Apple is absorbing the merchant credit card fee, and handling customer service issues, and has delivery expenses (server farms aren't free).
The nook (Android platform) currently has 20% of the electronic market. By this I mean they sell 20% of the electronic magazines and books, not that nook devices are 20% of iPad sales.
B&N's Nook Color does appear to have more success with magazine and newspaper sales than Apple's iPad according to this recent article.
The nook (Android platform) currently has 20% of the electronic market. By this I mean they sell 20% of the electronic magazines and books, not that nook devices are 20% of iPad sales.
This is probably just my opinion and I don't know how many people actually agree with me, but magazines on the iPad are pretty stellar and much more convenient (at least for me) than having physical copies. I can see the industry having issues adjusting from physical media to digital, but I don't think that it will take a couple decades to adjust and for them to be popular, probably more like a few years.
As for books, I do enjoy reading them on my iPad as well as physical media (I just normally have my iPad on me, which makes digital copies more convenient).
And I may be wrong but as far as I'm aware, while still popular, physical CDs have been on a downtrend while digital media is on the rise... But like I said, I could be wrong.
I agree with Rolling Stones that the industry is underestimating their value of content. I also agree that they will make less money per sale on e-publishing. That Apple gets 30% is really irrelevant, given "brick and mortar" takes 30% plus and you eat the unsold copies.
The reality is that readers are increasingly migrating to the web and e-publishing. It may start small, you may not want to lead the change, and the payback will take time, but in the end like CDs, now DVDs, and soon over the air/cable TV you need to follow your audience
If the business model does not simply transplant [and it usually doesn't], then its time to be inventive, innovative, etc. and build a new business model and value proposition.
To rail against Apple, or the digital publications, or the internet, or ... is like trying to push back the tides with a broom. Good exercise, but pointless.
I miss the Blender magazine, that was a great music magazine. Rolling Stone is way to political, I want to read about music not about how some senator I never heard of attended some university i never heard of to speak about foreign debt in colonial times.
What a load of shit, publishers practically give copy away to subscribers at the moment and advertising is where they make their money. That's why you can get 6 issues for a buck etc so they can 'lie' to their advertisers that they have xx number of readers etc.
Advertisers pay for video ads for the tv which can be quickly converted and built into a digital magazine, they can then be charged rates based on video instead of print which will pay for the digital mag.
Will it replace print media? No, but neither has mp3 replaced radio or cd's etc it complements it.
Rolling Stone has every reason to move over to the platform as soon as they can, even if it isn't profitable yet.
Right now, their authority when it comes to rock music is huge.
If they don't take the mindshare they have right now to the iPad, any other blogger may become the rock music authority of the App Store.
Even if that blogger doesn't make a lot of money, if Rolling Stone sits and does nothing, in maybe 10 years they might well have a *lot* of catching up to do.
let me tell you something, who give a rat's a** what he says. He's is a dying breed.
I'll tell you something, the next big thing is for the average Joe/Jane to go out and create their very own magazines for the ipad. Make them crazy awesome with all the bells and whistles independents know how to do. And if it is done right, those e-zines will sell like crazy.
Imagine a half dozen newly minted journalism students and a half dozen programmers. BAM! Saaaaaaaaaaaaaay Whaaaaaaat!
A pretty good article from the NYT that I missed at the time. A very believable explanation why the Nook may be a much more successful platform for magazines compared to the iPad (or Xoom or other full-fledged tablet)
The 30% is impossible for sellers like Sony who only have margins of 30%. It's 100% of profit. For magazine sellers it's not so bad.
The rolling stone, has, paradoxically a very good revenue model on the iPad. For every article or review link to iTunes or Amazon. You can get 5% of sales.
The co-founder of Rolling Stone can't roll with he times and responds to change with "sheer insanity and insecurity and fear." What ever happened to the green goal of a paperless society that embraces trees?
Trees are organic, good for the environment, necessary biomatter for landfills and most importantly - a renewable resource.
iPads and other electronics are the exact opposite. They are toxic, made with plastics, and engineered to be thrown away after an extremely short period of time. They clog landfills and the amount of waste is horrendous.
There is no such thing as a 'green goal of a paperless society'. Not among those with IQ's above 12.
One should not listen to such complete bullshit brought to you by your friendly gadget selling PR consortium's that focus on profit at the expense of our planet.
It's happening right now. I think Jann Wenner is insane if he thinks it's going to take decades.
I suggest he go back and review his high school math and take a look at the exponential curve; the rate of technological change clearly fits this model. The problem with people who are stuck in the past is they think the rate of change is linear. This change is going to happen faster than most people realize. Less than a decade. Publishers who are investing in this technology now will have a distinct advantage over those who waited.
Still, the ROI just isn't there, the numbers plainly reveal this, regardless of whether Apple takes their unfair share of sales or not. Whether change is coming sooner or later is immaterial, really. Gearing up for iPad sales is capital intensive, not time intensive.
And there's no advantage to be gained by losing money being on the bleeding edge. This man is very smart, he's made a billion or two running his media organization intelligently for years. Let others pave the path, plow the road, and then learn from their mistakes. Let them do the deep investing to develop the market, and wait for the numbers to rise. Hell, Apple's been doing that for years.
BTW, I truly hate the recurring subscription model. It's like trying to quit your health club. Once they have your money, good luck with that. I just won't buy any subscription service that auto-renews - I think there's a lot of folks out there who think the same way.
Trees are organic, good for the environment, necessary biomatter for landfills and most importantly - a renewable resource.
iPads and other electronics are the exact opposite. They are toxic, made with plastics, and engineered to be thrown away after an extremely short period of time. They clog landfills and the amount of waste is horrendous.
There is no such thing as a 'green goal of a paperless society'. Not among those with IQ's above 12.
One should not listen to such complete bullshit brought to you by your friendly gadget selling PR consortium's that focus on profit at the expense of our planet.
You don't need to get a new iPad per digital copy. You do need to take a part of a tree per print copy.
And trees may be renewable but not as fast as print would take them down.
That said. All consumer devices should be recyclable.
Comments
Because Apple doesn't do any hosting, distribution, and collecting sales data is a sore point. Publishers want that. it does do purchasing but the publishers can handled that.
Oh really? Who exactly is hosting and distributing all the content in iTunes then?
Judging from the money developers are making from Android apps, 70% of something from the Apple app store is better than 90% of nothing from Android.
If I were the magazine industry, I would sell my subscriptions through my own app, so the customer's exposure to the Android marketplace was minimal (and I kept all the money). If the iPad had no magazine support, but another platform did, it would put the iPad at a disadvantage over the long-term.
Hmm,
30% doesn't sound so bad to me... Coming from the newspaper business I can think of the following expenses that are offset with the iPad.
Printing
Postage
Packaging
Retail markup
We don't really make money on subscriptions, we make money on advertisers. There also is an economy of scale difference here. If a newspaper/magazine grows their print costs still increase. They have to hire more staff for distribution, install or use larger presses, etc. What cost increases the more digital subscriptions they sell???
Yep.
Plus, when it comes to books, brick and mortar stores take 50%. Not to mention the middlemen.
30% is an absolute bargain. It amazes me how many people think 30% is somehow gouging. Not to mention, Apple is absorbing the merchant credit card fee, and handling customer service issues, and has delivery expenses (server farms aren't free).
The nook (Android platform) currently has 20% of the electronic market. By this I mean they sell 20% of the electronic magazines and books, not that nook devices are 20% of iPad sales.
B&N's Nook Color does appear to have more success with magazine and newspaper sales than Apple's iPad according to this recent article.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/m...tions-on-nook/
Oh really? Who exactly is hosting and distributing all the content in iTunes then?
Right?!
B&N's Nook Color does appear to have more success with magazine and newspaper sales than Apple's iPad according to this recent article.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/m...tions-on-nook/
That well could be. I've only just started investigating the nook.
The nook (Android platform) currently has 20% of the electronic market. By this I mean they sell 20% of the electronic magazines and books, not that nook devices are 20% of iPad sales.
Source?
Source?
Try the nook web site. I think that's where I saw it.
As for books, I do enjoy reading them on my iPad as well as physical media (I just normally have my iPad on me, which makes digital copies more convenient).
And I may be wrong but as far as I'm aware, while still popular, physical CDs have been on a downtrend while digital media is on the rise... But like I said, I could be wrong.
Oh really? Who exactly is hosting and distributing all the content in iTunes then?
It hosts the app. That's for sure. It doesn't host the content of each edition of Popular science but it takes 30%.
The reality is that readers are increasingly migrating to the web and e-publishing. It may start small, you may not want to lead the change, and the payback will take time, but in the end like CDs, now DVDs, and soon over the air/cable TV you need to follow your audience
If the business model does not simply transplant [and it usually doesn't], then its time to be inventive, innovative, etc. and build a new business model and value proposition.
To rail against Apple, or the digital publications, or the internet, or ... is like trying to push back the tides with a broom. Good exercise, but pointless.
Advertisers pay for video ads for the tv which can be quickly converted and built into a digital magazine, they can then be charged rates based on video instead of print which will pay for the digital mag.
Will it replace print media? No, but neither has mp3 replaced radio or cd's etc it complements it.
Right now, their authority when it comes to rock music is huge.
If they don't take the mindshare they have right now to the iPad, any other blogger may become the rock music authority of the App Store.
Even if that blogger doesn't make a lot of money, if Rolling Stone sits and does nothing, in maybe 10 years they might well have a *lot* of catching up to do.
I'll tell you something, the next big thing is for the average Joe/Jane to go out and create their very own magazines for the ipad. Make them crazy awesome with all the bells and whistles independents know how to do. And if it is done right, those e-zines will sell like crazy.
Imagine a half dozen newly minted journalism students and a half dozen programmers. BAM! Saaaaaaaaaaaaaay Whaaaaaaat!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/bu...ref=technology
The rolling stone, has, paradoxically a very good revenue model on the iPad. For every article or review link to iTunes or Amazon. You can get 5% of sales.
The co-founder of Rolling Stone can't roll with he times and responds to change with "sheer insanity and insecurity and fear." What ever happened to the green goal of a paperless society that embraces trees?
Trees are organic, good for the environment, necessary biomatter for landfills and most importantly - a renewable resource.
iPads and other electronics are the exact opposite. They are toxic, made with plastics, and engineered to be thrown away after an extremely short period of time. They clog landfills and the amount of waste is horrendous.
There is no such thing as a 'green goal of a paperless society'. Not among those with IQ's above 12.
One should not listen to such complete bullshit brought to you by your friendly gadget selling PR consortium's that focus on profit at the expense of our planet.
It's happening right now. I think Jann Wenner is insane if he thinks it's going to take decades.
I suggest he go back and review his high school math and take a look at the exponential curve; the rate of technological change clearly fits this model. The problem with people who are stuck in the past is they think the rate of change is linear. This change is going to happen faster than most people realize. Less than a decade. Publishers who are investing in this technology now will have a distinct advantage over those who waited.
Still, the ROI just isn't there, the numbers plainly reveal this, regardless of whether Apple takes their unfair share of sales or not. Whether change is coming sooner or later is immaterial, really. Gearing up for iPad sales is capital intensive, not time intensive.
And there's no advantage to be gained by losing money being on the bleeding edge. This man is very smart, he's made a billion or two running his media organization intelligently for years. Let others pave the path, plow the road, and then learn from their mistakes. Let them do the deep investing to develop the market, and wait for the numbers to rise. Hell, Apple's been doing that for years.
BTW, I truly hate the recurring subscription model. It's like trying to quit your health club. Once they have your money, good luck with that. I just won't buy any subscription service that auto-renews - I think there's a lot of folks out there who think the same way.
Trees are organic, good for the environment, necessary biomatter for landfills and most importantly - a renewable resource.
iPads and other electronics are the exact opposite. They are toxic, made with plastics, and engineered to be thrown away after an extremely short period of time. They clog landfills and the amount of waste is horrendous.
There is no such thing as a 'green goal of a paperless society'. Not among those with IQ's above 12.
One should not listen to such complete bullshit brought to you by your friendly gadget selling PR consortium's that focus on profit at the expense of our planet.
You don't need to get a new iPad per digital copy. You do need to take a part of a tree per print copy.
And trees may be renewable but not as fast as print would take them down.
That said. All consumer devices should be recyclable.