If I go to Walmart to buy a product, I pay the price in Walmart, the original manufacturer of the product isn't sat in Walmart saying "you can also buy from me and save a little money, don't bother going to the cashier here, i can take payment from you instead".
Consumers accept then when in a retail outlet/distribution model you pay the mark-up of the retail outlet/distributor selling the product. Sure - there are always ways to save money on your purchase, or alternative places to purchase, but when in the store, you buy from the store at the in-store price. If you want to purchase elsewhere, you leave the store.
I don't understand why people think Apple are doing anything new? They are protecting their business/profit model while giving a convenient distribution/purchase outlet for software.
In fact, before Apple came alone Amazon was charging newspaper companies 70% to be on their kindle app and Amazon got to set the price of the subscription.
If I go to Walmart to buy a product, I pay the price in Walmart, the original manufacturer of the product isn't sat in Walmart saying "you can also buy from me and save a little money, don't bother going to the cashier here, i can take payment from you instead".
I'm not sure that is an apt analogy. What might be closer is if WalMart were to tear out the subscription cards from all the magazines it sells, or to prohibit the publishers from including them in the first place.
Yes, because giving end users the choice of not sending data to the publisher is bad.
Newspapers and magazines make their profits on advertisements. NO advertisements = NO profits = NO newspaper or magazine. HOW is this hard for people to understand. The same people who complain about their information being collected for advertisements then scratch their heads and complain when the newspaper or magazine goes under.
Yes, in a way it is bad. The cost of the content consumers get from publications like the FT is subsidised by advertising. Publications sell advertising based on subscriber/reader data. The provision of this data by readers is part of an implicit agreement between publishers and readers that enables the business model to exist.
If you break this business model (as Apple, sadly, appears to be trying to do) then advertisers don't advertise, the publisher can't generate content, and the readers can't read it. Apple wins in the short term, everyone loses in the long term.
You said it so much more eloquently than I could have.
In fact, before Apple came alone Amazon was charging newspaper companies 70% to be on their kindle app and Amazon got to set the price of the subscription.
This isn't about the company taking a percentage of the profits...it is about advertising. These papers and magazines need our info to allow for advertisements...plain and simple. This is how they stay in business. If you don't want to take part, don't complain when your magazine or newspaper folds (excuse the pun).
This isn't about the company taking a percentage of the profits...it is about advertising. These papers and magazines need our info to allow for advertisements...plain and simple. This is how they stay in business. If you don't want to take part, don't complain when your magazine or newspaper folds (excuse the pun).
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
Or, they can sell the e-magazine for a different price than the print magazine and have fewer (or no) ads in the e-magazine.
There's nothing inconsistent between Apple's policy and the magazine's desire to sell ads.
I look at this as a good thing, we shouldn't rely on apps to use the iPad, we should just be able to use webapps and then put all the links of the webapps on the home screen. That'd be the same as apps without going through Apple, which would make the iPad more like a computer in the long run. Apple will still make the money off hardware, people would still buy iPads but also gives users more flexibilities in terms of using webapps that Apple might not otherwise approve.
If I go to Walmart to buy a product, I pay the price in Walmart, the original manufacturer of the product isn't sat in Walmart saying "you can also buy from me and save a little money, don't bother going to the cashier here, i can take payment from you instead".
Consumers accept then when in a retail outlet/distribution model you pay the mark-up of the retail outlet/distributor selling the product. Sure - there are always ways to save money on your purchase, or alternative places to purchase, but when in the store, you buy from the store at the in-store price. If you want to purchase elsewhere, you leave the store.
I don't understand why people think Apple are doing anything new? They are protecting their business/profit model while giving a convenient distribution/purchase outlet for software.
But this is in app purchases, your not in an Apple Store your in the App manufacturers store, in this case the Financial Times. Apps on an iPhone are no more Apples than this website is when you look at it on an iPhone.
The correct comparison where Apple fit into this transaction is they are the service the retail outlet uses to process credit cards. Biggest difference here though is credit card processing is usually charged at around 2% and Apple are charging 30%.
Except Apple won't do things like send you post and doesn't really make it money from Ads. Ads for papers on the other hand are a main revenue stream in some cases. These papers have no need for your data, on the other hand Apple only uses your App data and you can choose not to turn genius on. You only have compare Apple to Google for a clearer picture. Google are a shower of bastards who like Facebook benefit a lot from not caring about you. Apple has the reputation they have because they are the opposite.
You really should read the privacy policy of both Apple and Google. IMHO, Apple is much more likely to share your personal details with a third party than Google is. And unlike Google who requires that you OPT-IN for any sharing of information, Apple requires you to OPT-OUT to avoid that.
So if you don't make the conscious effort to change your preferences, Apple, without further notice, reserves the right to ". . . make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers". They might also share your personal information "with companies who provide services such as information processing, extending credit, fulfilling customer orders, delivering products to you, managing and enhancing customer data, providing customer service, assessing your interest in our products and services, and conducting customer research or satisfaction surveys" They may also "disclose information about you if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or protect our operations or users".
In reality you have no idea what Apple shares with others or what it does with the extensive information they've collected on you including browsing habits, credit report files, communications on forums, communications with "Apple partners", etc.
So while you may be more concerned about what Google knows about you, Apple is much less clear on what they've gathered and who it's shared with. That doesn't make one necessarily better than the other, but if you look objectively, it doesn't make Apple any less of a concern either, especially as they've become one of the most powerful companies on earth.
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
Or, they can sell the e-magazine for a different price than the print magazine and have fewer (or no) ads in the e-magazine.
There's nothing inconsistent between Apple's policy and the magazine's desire to sell ads.
So what? If they don't make enough money due to lack of advertising options they GO OUT OF BUSINESS and then, again, people scratch their heads and complain. HOW DIFFICULT is this to understand?
In the end wouldn't you rather get advertisements that focus on things you do want or need versus crap that simply doesn't apply to you in any way? I have found many interesting websites, stores, items, places to travel, etc. through directed advertisements.
So what? If they don't make enough money due to lack of advertising options they GO OUT OF BUSINESS and then, again, people scratch their heads and complain. HOW DIFFICULT is this to understand?
In the end wouldn't you rather get advertisements that focus on things you do want or need versus crap that simply doesn't apply to you in any way? I have found many interesting websites, stores, items, places to travel, etc. through directed advertisements.
If someone can't come up with a business model that allows them to stay in business, that's their problem, not Apple's.
No one is stopping them from selling subscriptions any way they wish. They can hire you to stand on the busiest street corner in Tokyo to try t convince people how great the ads are for all I care.
Apple is simply expecting them to follow the terms that they agreed to when signing up for an App. And those terms are not inconsistent with the desire to stay in business. It may simply require them to adjust their model.
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
I think their argument might be this:
If they collect aggregate data about their readers, then they can give targeted statistics about their readership demographic to their advertisers, which they believe would lead those advertisers to be more willing to place advertisements in the publication, and also make them willing to pay a higher premium to place those ads.
If they cannot present reliable demographics about their readership to their advertisers, they may fear that their traditional advertisers may begin to consider withdrawing their advertisements, or may start to demand lower prices to place their ads.
Quote:
Or, they can sell the e-magazine for a different price than the print magazine and have fewer (or no) ads in the e-magazine.
I think their response here would be that a significant majority of the revenue, on a per-reader basis, comes from advertising rather than from readers paying the magazine's cover price. If you separate out the advertising revenue, but wanted to maintain the same overall margins for an electronic issue as they'd always had for print issues, then the electronic edition would increase in price by (guesswork) tenfold or more. That would be counter intuitive for a customer who naturally thinks that electronic distribution, with no raw materials, no shipping costs, etc, should automatically be less expensive than physical distribution. And it would drive away customers.
Furthermore, they probably realize that their print edition is on its way out. Paper publications will play a less and less significant role in the publishing business very soon. So, if you were to take away the advertising from the electronic readership, the publishers would be left with increasingly smaller circulation numbers to present to their advertisers for inserting advertisements in the remaining print issues. This would tend to lead to advertisers choosing to pull out over time.
The publishers don't want any of they to happen -- they're comfortable with their present business model, and they want to continue to have advertising revenues that are just as lucrative with their electronic distribution model as they have traditionally been with their print distribution model.
If someone can't come up with a business model that allows them to stay in business, that's their problem, not Apple's.
No one is stopping them from selling subscriptions any way they wish. They can hire you to stand on the busiest street corner in Tokyo to try t convince people how great the ads are for all I care.
Apple is simply expecting them to follow the terms that they agreed to when signing up for an App. And those terms are not inconsistent with the desire to stay in business. It may simply require them to adjust their model.
You just don't get it. So many people these days act so entitled. You just expect things for free? I took a class last semester (an old man in a sea of young kids) and one day we discussed the legality and morality of illegal downloads of music, videos, games, books. We also talked about newspapers and how they stay in business via advertisements, etc. considering individual sales of papers and subscriptions simply are not enough of a revenue stream to say in business. Over 90% of my class (ages 18 - 23) though it was okay to illegally download and also EXPECTED their news to be FREE. It just doesn't work that way. Newspapers and magazines are a business that require income and there are only so many ways to do advertising so that you can make a profit and stay in business. Using directed advertisements is a reliable method AND you can choose to opt out if you want to.
You seem to be the type of person I just described. What do you do when your "free" downloads and "free" newspapers? Complain about the lack of news and/or the shoddy reporting of the remaining few news sources.
This is a simple idea. You have to pay for services and things. They simply are not free. There is no reason for this 30% fee other than greed. There is also no reason for Apple to withhold subscribers information from purchasers of newspapers and magazines that are provide through an app. So, it is okay for Apple to collect demographic data and make a profit off of it, but not for others to do so? Sounds rather one-sided, don't you think?
It is a disappointing situation. I can understand Apple wanting to get a percentage, it is a business after all, not a charity I think their charges are too inflexible, the FT is a very popular on line publication. Is this a case of Apple cut its nose off to spite its face? It looks as though the FT won't lose out it any event.
Apple has simply figured out a business model where it keeps all of the demographic data for themselves (and iAds).
And they try to sell this as being better than the publisher also getting the demographic data.
Then it's simple. The publisher chooses not to use the App Store. Or they find another revenue stream. Apple doesn't owe them a living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing
You just don't get it. So many people these days act so entitled. You just expect things for free? I took a class last semester (an old man in a sea of young kids) and one day we discussed the legality and morality of illegal downloads of music, videos, games, books. We also talked about newspapers and how they stay in business via advertisements, etc. considering individual sales of papers and subscriptions simply are not enough of a revenue stream to say in business. Over 90% of my class (ages 18 - 23) though it was okay to illegally download and also EXPECTED their news to be FREE. It just doesn't work that way. Newspapers and magazines are a business that require income and there are only so many ways to do advertising so that you can make a profit and stay in business. Using directed advertisements is a reliable method AND you can choose to opt out if you want to.
You seem to be the type of person I just described. What do you do when your "free" downloads and "free" newspapers? Complain about the lack of news and/or the shoddy reporting of the remaining few news sources.
This is a simple idea. You have to pay for services and things. They simply are not free. There is no reason for this 30% fee other than greed. There is also no reason for Apple to withhold subscribers information from purchasers of newspapers and magazines that are provide through an app. So, it is okay for Apple to collect demographic data and make a profit off of it, but not for others to do so? Sounds rather one-sided, don't you think?
You've got it completely backwards. I have never (not even once) downloaded music or movies illegally. I am more than happy to pay for the things I use.
OTOH, you seem to be arguing that Apple somehow owes these publishers something. Your argument is that the publishers have the right to demand something that Apple doesn't want to sell. That is, of course, nonsense.
Then it's simple. The publisher chooses not to use the App Store. Or they find another revenue stream. Apple doesn't owe them a living.
And I find one reason to be slightly less positive about Apple products because I cannot use my FT iPad app anymore (ok, I can still use it but it might not work with future iOS versions, eg, iOS 5).
Comments
No, it isn't
Furthermore it is standard industry practice.
If I go to Walmart to buy a product, I pay the price in Walmart, the original manufacturer of the product isn't sat in Walmart saying "you can also buy from me and save a little money, don't bother going to the cashier here, i can take payment from you instead".
Consumers accept then when in a retail outlet/distribution model you pay the mark-up of the retail outlet/distributor selling the product. Sure - there are always ways to save money on your purchase, or alternative places to purchase, but when in the store, you buy from the store at the in-store price. If you want to purchase elsewhere, you leave the store.
I don't understand why people think Apple are doing anything new? They are protecting their business/profit model while giving a convenient distribution/purchase outlet for software.
In fact, before Apple came alone Amazon was charging newspaper companies 70% to be on their kindle app and Amazon got to set the price of the subscription.
If I go to Walmart to buy a product, I pay the price in Walmart, the original manufacturer of the product isn't sat in Walmart saying "you can also buy from me and save a little money, don't bother going to the cashier here, i can take payment from you instead".
I'm not sure that is an apt analogy. What might be closer is if WalMart were to tear out the subscription cards from all the magazines it sells, or to prohibit the publishers from including them in the first place.
Yes, because giving end users the choice of not sending data to the publisher is bad.
Newspapers and magazines make their profits on advertisements. NO advertisements = NO profits = NO newspaper or magazine. HOW is this hard for people to understand. The same people who complain about their information being collected for advertisements then scratch their heads and complain when the newspaper or magazine goes under.
People are idiots.
Nice doublespeak :-)
Yes, in a way it is bad. The cost of the content consumers get from publications like the FT is subsidised by advertising. Publications sell advertising based on subscriber/reader data. The provision of this data by readers is part of an implicit agreement between publishers and readers that enables the business model to exist.
If you break this business model (as Apple, sadly, appears to be trying to do) then advertisers don't advertise, the publisher can't generate content, and the readers can't read it. Apple wins in the short term, everyone loses in the long term.
You said it so much more eloquently than I could have.
In fact, before Apple came alone Amazon was charging newspaper companies 70% to be on their kindle app and Amazon got to set the price of the subscription.
This isn't about the company taking a percentage of the profits...it is about advertising. These papers and magazines need our info to allow for advertisements...plain and simple. This is how they stay in business. If you don't want to take part, don't complain when your magazine or newspaper folds (excuse the pun).
This isn't about the company taking a percentage of the profits...it is about advertising. These papers and magazines need our info to allow for advertisements...plain and simple. This is how they stay in business. If you don't want to take part, don't complain when your magazine or newspaper folds (excuse the pun).
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
Or, they can sell the e-magazine for a different price than the print magazine and have fewer (or no) ads in the e-magazine.
There's nothing inconsistent between Apple's policy and the magazine's desire to sell ads.
I look at this as a good thing, we shouldn't rely on apps to use the iPad, we should just be able to use webapps and then put all the links of the webapps on the home screen. That'd be the same as apps without going through Apple, which would make the iPad more like a computer in the long run. Apple will still make the money off hardware, people would still buy iPads but also gives users more flexibilities in terms of using webapps that Apple might not otherwise approve.
No, it isn't
Furthermore it is standard industry practice.
If I go to Walmart to buy a product, I pay the price in Walmart, the original manufacturer of the product isn't sat in Walmart saying "you can also buy from me and save a little money, don't bother going to the cashier here, i can take payment from you instead".
Consumers accept then when in a retail outlet/distribution model you pay the mark-up of the retail outlet/distributor selling the product. Sure - there are always ways to save money on your purchase, or alternative places to purchase, but when in the store, you buy from the store at the in-store price. If you want to purchase elsewhere, you leave the store.
I don't understand why people think Apple are doing anything new? They are protecting their business/profit model while giving a convenient distribution/purchase outlet for software.
But this is in app purchases, your not in an Apple Store your in the App manufacturers store, in this case the Financial Times. Apps on an iPhone are no more Apples than this website is when you look at it on an iPhone.
The correct comparison where Apple fit into this transaction is they are the service the retail outlet uses to process credit cards. Biggest difference here though is credit card processing is usually charged at around 2% and Apple are charging 30%.
Except Apple won't do things like send you post and doesn't really make it money from Ads. Ads for papers on the other hand are a main revenue stream in some cases. These papers have no need for your data, on the other hand Apple only uses your App data and you can choose not to turn genius on. You only have compare Apple to Google for a clearer picture. Google are a shower of bastards who like Facebook benefit a lot from not caring about you. Apple has the reputation they have because they are the opposite.
You really should read the privacy policy of both Apple and Google. IMHO, Apple is much more likely to share your personal details with a third party than Google is. And unlike Google who requires that you OPT-IN for any sharing of information, Apple requires you to OPT-OUT to avoid that.
So if you don't make the conscious effort to change your preferences, Apple, without further notice, reserves the right to ". . . make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers". They might also share your personal information "with companies who provide services such as information processing, extending credit, fulfilling customer orders, delivering products to you, managing and enhancing customer data, providing customer service, assessing your interest in our products and services, and conducting customer research or satisfaction surveys" They may also "disclose information about you if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or protect our operations or users".
In reality you have no idea what Apple shares with others or what it does with the extensive information they've collected on you including browsing habits, credit report files, communications on forums, communications with "Apple partners", etc.
So while you may be more concerned about what Google knows about you, Apple is much less clear on what they've gathered and who it's shared with. That doesn't make one necessarily better than the other, but if you look objectively, it doesn't make Apple any less of a concern either, especially as they've become one of the most powerful companies on earth.
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
Or, they can sell the e-magazine for a different price than the print magazine and have fewer (or no) ads in the e-magazine.
There's nothing inconsistent between Apple's policy and the magazine's desire to sell ads.
So what? If they don't make enough money due to lack of advertising options they GO OUT OF BUSINESS and then, again, people scratch their heads and complain. HOW DIFFICULT is this to understand?
In the end wouldn't you rather get advertisements that focus on things you do want or need versus crap that simply doesn't apply to you in any way? I have found many interesting websites, stores, items, places to travel, etc. through directed advertisements.
So what? If they don't make enough money due to lack of advertising options they GO OUT OF BUSINESS and then, again, people scratch their heads and complain. HOW DIFFICULT is this to understand?
In the end wouldn't you rather get advertisements that focus on things you do want or need versus crap that simply doesn't apply to you in any way? I have found many interesting websites, stores, items, places to travel, etc. through directed advertisements.
If someone can't come up with a business model that allows them to stay in business, that's their problem, not Apple's.
No one is stopping them from selling subscriptions any way they wish. They can hire you to stand on the busiest street corner in Tokyo to try t convince people how great the ads are for all I care.
Apple is simply expecting them to follow the terms that they agreed to when signing up for an App. And those terms are not inconsistent with the desire to stay in business. It may simply require them to adjust their model.
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
I think their argument might be this:
If they collect aggregate data about their readers, then they can give targeted statistics about their readership demographic to their advertisers, which they believe would lead those advertisers to be more willing to place advertisements in the publication, and also make them willing to pay a higher premium to place those ads.
If they cannot present reliable demographics about their readership to their advertisers, they may fear that their traditional advertisers may begin to consider withdrawing their advertisements, or may start to demand lower prices to place their ads.
Or, they can sell the e-magazine for a different price than the print magazine and have fewer (or no) ads in the e-magazine.
I think their response here would be that a significant majority of the revenue, on a per-reader basis, comes from advertising rather than from readers paying the magazine's cover price. If you separate out the advertising revenue, but wanted to maintain the same overall margins for an electronic issue as they'd always had for print issues, then the electronic edition would increase in price by (guesswork) tenfold or more. That would be counter intuitive for a customer who naturally thinks that electronic distribution, with no raw materials, no shipping costs, etc, should automatically be less expensive than physical distribution. And it would drive away customers.
Furthermore, they probably realize that their print edition is on its way out. Paper publications will play a less and less significant role in the publishing business very soon. So, if you were to take away the advertising from the electronic readership, the publishers would be left with increasingly smaller circulation numbers to present to their advertisers for inserting advertisements in the remaining print issues. This would tend to lead to advertisers choosing to pull out over time.
The publishers don't want any of they to happen -- they're comfortable with their present business model, and they want to continue to have advertising revenues that are just as lucrative with their electronic distribution model as they have traditionally been with their print distribution model.
So what? The magazine has the option of including advertising in its app, as well. So they can get the same revenue stream without collecting data.
Don't you get it that the main point here is that they do not get the same revenue stream without the demographic data?
If someone can't come up with a business model that allows them to stay in business, that's their problem, not Apple's.
No one is stopping them from selling subscriptions any way they wish. They can hire you to stand on the busiest street corner in Tokyo to try t convince people how great the ads are for all I care.
Apple is simply expecting them to follow the terms that they agreed to when signing up for an App. And those terms are not inconsistent with the desire to stay in business. It may simply require them to adjust their model.
You just don't get it. So many people these days act so entitled. You just expect things for free? I took a class last semester (an old man in a sea of young kids) and one day we discussed the legality and morality of illegal downloads of music, videos, games, books. We also talked about newspapers and how they stay in business via advertisements, etc. considering individual sales of papers and subscriptions simply are not enough of a revenue stream to say in business. Over 90% of my class (ages 18 - 23) though it was okay to illegally download and also EXPECTED their news to be FREE. It just doesn't work that way. Newspapers and magazines are a business that require income and there are only so many ways to do advertising so that you can make a profit and stay in business. Using directed advertisements is a reliable method AND you can choose to opt out if you want to.
You seem to be the type of person I just described. What do you do when your "free" downloads and "free" newspapers? Complain about the lack of news and/or the shoddy reporting of the remaining few news sources.
This is a simple idea. You have to pay for services and things. They simply are not free. There is no reason for this 30% fee other than greed. There is also no reason for Apple to withhold subscribers information from purchasers of newspapers and magazines that are provide through an app. So, it is okay for Apple to collect demographic data and make a profit off of it, but not for others to do so? Sounds rather one-sided, don't you think?
If someone can't come up with a business model that allows them to stay in business, that's their problem, not Apple's.
Apple has simply figured out a business model where it keeps all of the demographic data for themselves (and iAds).
And they try to sell this as being better than the publisher also getting the demographic data.
Apple has simply figured out a business model where it keeps all of the demographic data for themselves (and iAds).
And they try to sell this as being better than the publisher also getting the demographic data.
Then it's simple. The publisher chooses not to use the App Store. Or they find another revenue stream. Apple doesn't owe them a living.
You just don't get it. So many people these days act so entitled. You just expect things for free? I took a class last semester (an old man in a sea of young kids) and one day we discussed the legality and morality of illegal downloads of music, videos, games, books. We also talked about newspapers and how they stay in business via advertisements, etc. considering individual sales of papers and subscriptions simply are not enough of a revenue stream to say in business. Over 90% of my class (ages 18 - 23) though it was okay to illegally download and also EXPECTED their news to be FREE. It just doesn't work that way. Newspapers and magazines are a business that require income and there are only so many ways to do advertising so that you can make a profit and stay in business. Using directed advertisements is a reliable method AND you can choose to opt out if you want to.
You seem to be the type of person I just described. What do you do when your "free" downloads and "free" newspapers? Complain about the lack of news and/or the shoddy reporting of the remaining few news sources.
This is a simple idea. You have to pay for services and things. They simply are not free. There is no reason for this 30% fee other than greed. There is also no reason for Apple to withhold subscribers information from purchasers of newspapers and magazines that are provide through an app. So, it is okay for Apple to collect demographic data and make a profit off of it, but not for others to do so? Sounds rather one-sided, don't you think?
You've got it completely backwards. I have never (not even once) downloaded music or movies illegally. I am more than happy to pay for the things I use.
OTOH, you seem to be arguing that Apple somehow owes these publishers something. Your argument is that the publishers have the right to demand something that Apple doesn't want to sell. That is, of course, nonsense.
Then it's simple. The publisher chooses not to use the App Store. Or they find another revenue stream. Apple doesn't owe them a living.
And I find one reason to be slightly less positive about Apple products because I cannot use my FT iPad app anymore (ok, I can still use it but it might not work with future iOS versions, eg, iOS 5).