Topic: Subscriptions for magazines is an outdated concept i.e. you must by an entire album to get one song. Discuss.
The iTunes store has freed me from the obligation of buying an entire CD of crappy songs so that I might own the one song I want, while still allowing me to buy the entire album if I wish. And either way I don't get gouged by the price.
Here's a thought. The concept of subscriptions is outdated. If I want the magazine every month, why can't I buy it each month at a decent price? Why isn't it available at a decent price if I only want to buy it every couple of months? A subscription is just a, "Pay now, maybe you'll get what you want later, maybe not. Either way we've got your money."
As for the "..provide recurring revenue and customer data for advertisers." Provide recurring revenue? Absolutely, whether the magazine deserves it or not. Ever get an issue of a magazine via a subscription that you wish you hadn't already paid for because the content sucks? I have. "Customer data for advertisers"? How about, "We sold X number magazines last month, X number the month before, etc., etc." for advertising data?
Does someone have an arguement how subscriptions are good for consumers?
As for the "..provide recurring revenue and customer data for advertisers." Provide recurring revenue? Absolutely, whether the magazine deserves it or not.
Yep. If each issue has to sell on it's own merits, rather than on the "average" quality (which is what sells subscriptions), they will probably have to put more effort in than they do currently, which will raise the price. People who want subscriptions want quantity not quality.
Topic: Subscriptions for magazines is an outdated concept i.e. you must by an entire album to get one song. Discuss.
The iTunes store has freed me from the obligation of buying an entire CD of crappy songs so that I might own the one song I want, while still allowing me to buy the entire album if I wish. And either way I don't get gouged by the price.
Here's a thought. The concept of subscriptions is outdated. If I want the magazine every month, why can't I buy it each month at a decent price? Why isn't it available at a decent price if I only want to buy it every couple of months? A subscription is just a, "Pay now, maybe you'll get what you want later, maybe not. Either way we've got your money."
As for the "..provide recurring revenue and customer data for advertisers." Provide recurring revenue? Absolutely, whether the magazine deserves it or not. Ever get an issue of a magazine via a subscription that you wish you hadn't already paid for because the content sucks? I have. "Customer data for advertisers"? How about, "We sold X number magazines last month, X number the month before, etc., etc." for advertising data?
Does someone have an arguement how subscriptions are good for consumers?
Umm... they're more convenient? Pay once and forget?
I agree that subscriptions are an outdated concept, for exactly those reasons. I would also add that I think Apple isn't allowing traditional magazine subscriptions in digital forms is the avenue that it's received. With a print magazine it just shows up in your mailbox. A magazine subscription on the iPad would imply that, when there's a new issue, it'll download automatically. But this is not the case, it must be downloaded manually. This would create complications for publishing on top, as they can't have each issue labelled as "$5 now if you don't have a subscription, $0 now if you do" unless that subscription model is through the App Store. Even if they did it by in-app purchases (like the comic book apps), I don't think the model supports locking some users out based on information gathered from a third-party site.
If this is an app store policy it needs some revision. If this is a fluke it needs an apology. Issue cannot be ignored because iPad is nothing without the content the developers and publishers make.
More specifically, magazine publishers are not gonna lower the price without commitment and there needs to be a way to pay once and forget about it for 6 months to a year. I think that is obvious enough with magazines. As commenters pointed out Apple can integrate this with iBooks if they don't want publishers to create their own processing systems, or have the transactions go through app store, and work out some sort of agreement of how much will go to publishers.
With the cost of post-print production gone from their business model, if Print Magazine corporations plan on charging print magazine prices they will lose. If they want to collect private data and resell it, they will lose. End of story.
NY times going to paid subscription will be one of their biggest mistakes. As for the magazines, a DISCOUNTED subscription would be good in many names. Paying full newsstand price each month is ridiculous and will be a waste of time for everyone.
In order for magazines to be hit:
CUSTMOERS have to get a discount
PUBLISHERS have to offer Subscription
APPLE has to bless it.
Lastly everyone has to agree on limited or no data collecting.
Publishers looking to offer subscriptions to digital versions of their magazines on the iPad have been blocked by Apple, as the company has allegedly rejected subscriptions from the App Store without an explanation.
Do these subscriptions produce a continuing revenue stream for Apple? Or do these publishers think that they can come to the App Store, and sell stuff and not give a cut to Apple?
Does someone have an arguement how subscriptions are good for consumers?
Generally, the per-issue price for the physical magazine, when you subscribe, is so low as to be inconsequential. Newsstand prices are always a ripoff because the item is an impulse purchase.
You get your stuff with no effort. It just shows up at your house.
You can archive the complete set in order to refer to them later - many serious magazines publish periodic index issues.
But none of this replaces getting the entire world's knowledge for free on the 'web. Magazines are an outmoded technology. $5 is too much for any magazine. Even Make.
I have no problem with Apple wanting to make sure a subscription model works well, or even trying to break up the idea of subscriptions (like per song purchases).
The only thing is, they should have had their ducks in a row before they opened the store. This issue is just more fodder for complaints against Apple (bad PR), and makes them look incompetent, or like jackasses.
"allegedly" has never been a confirmation. Why publish it - other than as gossip filler. Subscriptions obviously are allowed through iTunes; so, the likelihood is a lousy app.
Subs are overpriced - which i why I haven't even experimented with them, yet.
Haven't tried Zinio in years; but, current reviews say it sucks as much as ever!
I use Zinio on the iPad to subscribe to the Economist, PC World, MacWorld, Popular Mechanics and Macleans. It's great. Performance is snappy, and I'm able to read the titles just like a magazine. I would recommend the app without reservation. And the prices are competitive with print subscriptions. In contrast, the Conde Nast stand-alone titles, like Vanity Fair, are AWFUL, buggy and annoying, not to mention over-priced.
I've been saying ever since (and long before) the iBooks App was announced that Magazines and newpapers should be sold through the iBookstore. I think it's a waste of home-screen space, and completely redundant. I think the only reason why it's done this way is to eliminate the added cost of selling magazines through the iBookstore...that's my wild-ass guess, but i'm thinking Apple charges publishers a surcharge for every book they sell.
that being said, i think Apple might be working on a way to bring magazines to the iBookstore. I sure hope they do.
My only complaint about the iBooks App is that it's SOOOOOOOO SLOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
Sure, i'm running iOS4 on a 3G iPhone, but it takes forever to load and the file sizes for books are enormous! A PDF version of similar books would be so much smaller.
Somehow, I think apple might be preparing it's own newspaper/magazine store to rival the kindle. There is no solid way to get many magazines or newspapers, something I thought should have been in there from the get-go
but amazon has exclusives with a lot of the content owners, right? Isn't that why ipad gets the craptastic NYT editors choice vs. the full content ? digital copies can't be sold for less than what amazon sells them for.
The recent report suggests the Times may have been forced to release a an iPad app with limited content due to existing terms tied to the Kindle Edition, which costs $20 per month. The publisher is said to be restricted from offering a comparable digital version that undercuts the Kindle pricing.
Somehow, I think apple might be preparing it's own newspaper/magazine store to rival the kindle. There is no solid way to get many magazines or newspapers, something I thought should have been in there from the get-go
Thou needs to dig a little deeper. :>)
If you want them they can be had without paying with the possible exception of Murdoch's dismissible newspaper property.
I get a custom combination of newspapers in newspaper format each day for the iPad and the Mac. If one did not own a versatile iPad it is conceivable with a laser printer and reams of paper one could print their own newspaper each day to carry around. I just read my paper in iBooks and the daily comics in NewRack using rss feed to the comicslurper.
If I want local classified ads I will use Craigslist Pro. What am I missing?
Oh by the way, I also get several magazines now in a similar manner automatically delivered to iBooks.
They come in a PDF (rss feed) as digital paper 'podcasts' complete with full formatting and images. iTunes syncs them to iBooks automatically. Apple plays no part in the subscription, I just use an advanced feature of iTunes to make it work.
NY times going to paid subscription will be one of their biggest mistakes. As for the magazines, a DISCOUNTED subscription would be good in many names. Paying full newsstand price each month is ridiculous and will be a waste of time for everyone.
In order for magazines to be hit:
CUSTMOERS have to get a discount
PUBLISHERS have to offer Subscription
APPLE has to bless it.
Lastly everyone has to agree on limited or no data collecting.
I'm trying out the NY Times sub in the B&N reader where they offer it at $20 per month, which is less than half of what I pay for the paper edition, though it doesn't come with the Sunday edition. If I discontinue the paper edition except for the Sunday one, and keep the digital one, it will cost half. That's fair.
But the digital edition is not exactly the same. They say that some photos and charts are left out. I suspect that will change over time.
The word was that The Times didn't offer a subto Apple directly because of a deal with Amazon over pricing.
Apple should get its act together on thos though and allow any mag to off a sub. Except for porno, I suppose.
Publishers looking to offer subscriptions to digital versions of their magazines on the iPad have been blocked by Apple, as the company has allegedly rejected subscriptions from the App Store without an explanation. ....
People are also forgetting that magazines in general and magazine subscriptions in particular, have always been one of the biggest scams going.
The production costs of a magazine is tiny compared to it's sales potential and it's advertising revenue. Magazine producers make money hand over fist even with the junkiest magazines. Most are vastly overpriced junk with minimal information and at least 50% advertisements. In fact, the only reason they usually stop at 50% advertising is that in some countries (mine included) you aren't allowed to sell a magazine that has more ads than content *as* a magazine. It has to be redefined what it really is, which is an "advertising circular."
Subscriptions give the consumer a very small and modest discount over the cover price, but the cover price is already so greatly inflated, that there is still a huge profit margin even in the subscription cost. The benefit of a subscription is almost entirely to the publisher. They sell something like 60 or 70% more magazines if you subscribe because magazines are basically all the same and they are an impulse buy when purchased individually.
An interesting fact: People who subscribe to magazines generally read them less often, and read less of them, than those that buy them individually.
These publishers are trying to move their print business mode, which doesn't work, over to digital, where it also will not work.
They're going about it ass-backwards. They should be selling individual articles for pennies rather than entire editions or subscriptions. That's the lesson from the iTunes music experience. Customers didn't want to pay for entire CDs which contained maybe one or two songs that they really wanted.
Conde Nast Traveler's current edition contains travel articles on Haiti (I'm not going there), cruises (I have no interest in cruises), Africa (nope), and Veracruz Mexico (maybe if the drug lords aren't killing each other there.
I just read this story, and there is some missing analysis here that is wanting.
There is a simple reason why these "subscriptions" are rejected, and why Zinio, WSJ and Amazon Kindle apps sail right along.
Here's the deal. Apple allows app developers to use a "pay once" or "subscription" system using iTunes, where customers do not need to re-enter purchasing information. This type of application is NO PROBLEM for Apple. Approval all but guaranteed. Apple keeps 30% and developers keep 70% as usual. If you wish to take customer billing information, however... Apple REQUIRES that you NOT do it through the application itself, but on the Internet where Safari is tasked with handling the proper encryption and giving users the feedback that their information transaction is secure. WSJ allows people to login to their EXISTING subscription from their website or set-up elsewhere. To my knowledge, the WSJ iPad app DOES NOT request that you enter billing information through the app itself. Likewise, Zinio allows people to setup subscriptions OUTSIDE of the app itself.
Solution... give your app its own protocol, so that after billing through Safari on your website, customers can be directed back to your app without a hitch. Super-easy. Using cookies, you can even determine whether your app is even installed. Sure, its an extra step, but its not rocket-science.
I have a hardtime understanding why this seems so obtuse. It is also my understanding that Android Marketplace has the same requirement that apps DO NOT directly record critical credit card information directly. This is a basic security requirement in place to protect consumers from potential fraud and abuse in ways they simply cannot track or easily understand. Browsers have a very basic and easy and standard method of showing "secure" transactions and detecting "phishing" of information. Apps do not. So, no "in app" subscriptions or billing of ANY kind.
Times can get around Apple's rejection by simply sending users to its website to set-up a subscription, then allowing those users to access those services independently from the iPad. iTunes/AppStore are the ONLY applications able to take credit card info directly inside of the app (and use the same interface to do it).
All said... I need to research this more to be accurate, but this seems like the most basic message here. I feel like Times is trying to bully Apple into allowing it to do something no one else is doing, and that Apple (as usual) is not providing clear instruction to people. You'd think there'd be a developer relations manager for high-profile rejections or communication. Why do these people feel like they're "reaching out" and not getting anywhere? Are they lying? I know of at least one developer that got Apple to change its policy simply because they felt the restriction was boneheaded, and pretended to not understand Apple's requested change and resubmission. I don't think that reaction is uncommon.
Comments
The iTunes store has freed me from the obligation of buying an entire CD of crappy songs so that I might own the one song I want, while still allowing me to buy the entire album if I wish. And either way I don't get gouged by the price.
Here's a thought. The concept of subscriptions is outdated. If I want the magazine every month, why can't I buy it each month at a decent price? Why isn't it available at a decent price if I only want to buy it every couple of months? A subscription is just a, "Pay now, maybe you'll get what you want later, maybe not. Either way we've got your money."
As for the "..provide recurring revenue and customer data for advertisers." Provide recurring revenue? Absolutely, whether the magazine deserves it or not. Ever get an issue of a magazine via a subscription that you wish you hadn't already paid for because the content sucks? I have. "Customer data for advertisers"? How about, "We sold X number magazines last month, X number the month before, etc., etc." for advertising data?
Does someone have an arguement how subscriptions are good for consumers?
As for the "..provide recurring revenue and customer data for advertisers." Provide recurring revenue? Absolutely, whether the magazine deserves it or not.
Yep. If each issue has to sell on it's own merits, rather than on the "average" quality (which is what sells subscriptions), they will probably have to put more effort in than they do currently, which will raise the price. People who want subscriptions want quantity not quality.
Topic: Subscriptions for magazines is an outdated concept i.e. you must by an entire album to get one song. Discuss.
The iTunes store has freed me from the obligation of buying an entire CD of crappy songs so that I might own the one song I want, while still allowing me to buy the entire album if I wish. And either way I don't get gouged by the price.
Here's a thought. The concept of subscriptions is outdated. If I want the magazine every month, why can't I buy it each month at a decent price? Why isn't it available at a decent price if I only want to buy it every couple of months? A subscription is just a, "Pay now, maybe you'll get what you want later, maybe not. Either way we've got your money."
As for the "..provide recurring revenue and customer data for advertisers." Provide recurring revenue? Absolutely, whether the magazine deserves it or not. Ever get an issue of a magazine via a subscription that you wish you hadn't already paid for because the content sucks? I have. "Customer data for advertisers"? How about, "We sold X number magazines last month, X number the month before, etc., etc." for advertising data?
Does someone have an arguement how subscriptions are good for consumers?
Umm... they're more convenient? Pay once and forget?
I agree that subscriptions are an outdated concept, for exactly those reasons. I would also add that I think Apple isn't allowing traditional magazine subscriptions in digital forms is the avenue that it's received. With a print magazine it just shows up in your mailbox. A magazine subscription on the iPad would imply that, when there's a new issue, it'll download automatically. But this is not the case, it must be downloaded manually. This would create complications for publishing on top, as they can't have each issue labelled as "$5 now if you don't have a subscription, $0 now if you do" unless that subscription model is through the App Store. Even if they did it by in-app purchases (like the comic book apps), I don't think the model supports locking some users out based on information gathered from a third-party site.
Just one example does not a trend make.
Btw, hasn't Time heard of Zinio?
zinio has the honor of being the first app i deleted from my ipad.
it sucks, and they send way too much spam.
If this is an app store policy it needs some revision. If this is a fluke it needs an apology. Issue cannot be ignored because iPad is nothing without the content the developers and publishers make.
More specifically, magazine publishers are not gonna lower the price without commitment and there needs to be a way to pay once and forget about it for 6 months to a year. I think that is obvious enough with magazines. As commenters pointed out Apple can integrate this with iBooks if they don't want publishers to create their own processing systems, or have the transactions go through app store, and work out some sort of agreement of how much will go to publishers.
With the cost of post-print production gone from their business model, if Print Magazine corporations plan on charging print magazine prices they will lose. If they want to collect private data and resell it, they will lose. End of story.
In order for magazines to be hit:
CUSTMOERS have to get a discount
PUBLISHERS have to offer Subscription
APPLE has to bless it.
Lastly everyone has to agree on limited or no data collecting.
Publishers looking to offer subscriptions to digital versions of their magazines on the iPad have been blocked by Apple, as the company has allegedly rejected subscriptions from the App Store without an explanation.
Do these subscriptions produce a continuing revenue stream for Apple? Or do these publishers think that they can come to the App Store, and sell stuff and not give a cut to Apple?
What are they, nuts?
Does someone have an arguement how subscriptions are good for consumers?
Generally, the per-issue price for the physical magazine, when you subscribe, is so low as to be inconsequential. Newsstand prices are always a ripoff because the item is an impulse purchase.
You get your stuff with no effort. It just shows up at your house.
You can archive the complete set in order to refer to them later - many serious magazines publish periodic index issues.
But none of this replaces getting the entire world's knowledge for free on the 'web. Magazines are an outmoded technology. $5 is too much for any magazine. Even Make.
The only thing is, they should have had their ducks in a row before they opened the store. This issue is just more fodder for complaints against Apple (bad PR), and makes them look incompetent, or like jackasses.
"allegedly" has never been a confirmation. Why publish it - other than as gossip filler. Subscriptions obviously are allowed through iTunes; so, the likelihood is a lousy app.
Subs are overpriced - which i why I haven't even experimented with them, yet.
Haven't tried Zinio in years; but, current reviews say it sucks as much as ever!
I use Zinio on the iPad to subscribe to the Economist, PC World, MacWorld, Popular Mechanics and Macleans. It's great. Performance is snappy, and I'm able to read the titles just like a magazine. I would recommend the app without reservation. And the prices are competitive with print subscriptions. In contrast, the Conde Nast stand-alone titles, like Vanity Fair, are AWFUL, buggy and annoying, not to mention over-priced.
that being said, i think Apple might be working on a way to bring magazines to the iBookstore. I sure hope they do.
My only complaint about the iBooks App is that it's SOOOOOOOO SLOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
Sure, i'm running iOS4 on a 3G iPhone, but it takes forever to load and the file sizes for books are enormous! A PDF version of similar books would be so much smaller.
A: Those are the three industries Steve Jobs hasn't pissed off this year.
I suspect that they'll add it as an option via iBooks.
"iNewsstand"?
Somehow, I think apple might be preparing it's own newspaper/magazine store to rival the kindle. There is no solid way to get many magazines or newspapers, something I thought should have been in there from the get-go
but amazon has exclusives with a lot of the content owners, right? Isn't that why ipad gets the craptastic NYT editors choice vs. the full content ? digital copies can't be sold for less than what amazon sells them for.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/05/...#ixzz0uzFK2jLE
The recent report suggests the Times may have been forced to release a an iPad app with limited content due to existing terms tied to the Kindle Edition, which costs $20 per month. The publisher is said to be restricted from offering a comparable digital version that undercuts the Kindle pricing.
Somehow, I think apple might be preparing it's own newspaper/magazine store to rival the kindle. There is no solid way to get many magazines or newspapers, something I thought should have been in there from the get-go
Thou needs to dig a little deeper. :>)
If you want them they can be had without paying with the possible exception of Murdoch's dismissible newspaper property.
I get a custom combination of newspapers in newspaper format each day for the iPad and the Mac. If one did not own a versatile iPad it is conceivable with a laser printer and reams of paper one could print their own newspaper each day to carry around. I just read my paper in iBooks and the daily comics in NewRack using rss feed to the comicslurper.
If I want local classified ads I will use Craigslist Pro. What am I missing?
Oh by the way, I also get several magazines now in a similar manner automatically delivered to iBooks.
They come in a PDF (rss feed) as digital paper 'podcasts' complete with full formatting and images. iTunes syncs them to iBooks automatically. Apple plays no part in the subscription, I just use an advanced feature of iTunes to make it work.
NY times going to paid subscription will be one of their biggest mistakes. As for the magazines, a DISCOUNTED subscription would be good in many names. Paying full newsstand price each month is ridiculous and will be a waste of time for everyone.
In order for magazines to be hit:
CUSTMOERS have to get a discount
PUBLISHERS have to offer Subscription
APPLE has to bless it.
Lastly everyone has to agree on limited or no data collecting.
I'm trying out the NY Times sub in the B&N reader where they offer it at $20 per month, which is less than half of what I pay for the paper edition, though it doesn't come with the Sunday edition. If I discontinue the paper edition except for the Sunday one, and keep the digital one, it will cost half. That's fair.
But the digital edition is not exactly the same. They say that some photos and charts are left out. I suspect that will change over time.
The word was that The Times didn't offer a subto Apple directly because of a deal with Amazon over pricing.
Apple should get its act together on thos though and allow any mag to off a sub. Except for porno, I suppose.
Publishers looking to offer subscriptions to digital versions of their magazines on the iPad have been blocked by Apple, as the company has allegedly rejected subscriptions from the App Store without an explanation. ....
People are also forgetting that magazines in general and magazine subscriptions in particular, have always been one of the biggest scams going.
The production costs of a magazine is tiny compared to it's sales potential and it's advertising revenue. Magazine producers make money hand over fist even with the junkiest magazines. Most are vastly overpriced junk with minimal information and at least 50% advertisements. In fact, the only reason they usually stop at 50% advertising is that in some countries (mine included) you aren't allowed to sell a magazine that has more ads than content *as* a magazine. It has to be redefined what it really is, which is an "advertising circular."
Subscriptions give the consumer a very small and modest discount over the cover price, but the cover price is already so greatly inflated, that there is still a huge profit margin even in the subscription cost. The benefit of a subscription is almost entirely to the publisher. They sell something like 60 or 70% more magazines if you subscribe because magazines are basically all the same and they are an impulse buy when purchased individually.
An interesting fact: People who subscribe to magazines generally read them less often, and read less of them, than those that buy them individually.
They're going about it ass-backwards. They should be selling individual articles for pennies rather than entire editions or subscriptions. That's the lesson from the iTunes music experience. Customers didn't want to pay for entire CDs which contained maybe one or two songs that they really wanted.
Conde Nast Traveler's current edition contains travel articles on Haiti (I'm not going there), cruises (I have no interest in cruises), Africa (nope), and Veracruz Mexico (maybe if the drug lords aren't killing each other there.
There is a simple reason why these "subscriptions" are rejected, and why Zinio, WSJ and Amazon Kindle apps sail right along.
Here's the deal. Apple allows app developers to use a "pay once" or "subscription" system using iTunes, where customers do not need to re-enter purchasing information. This type of application is NO PROBLEM for Apple. Approval all but guaranteed. Apple keeps 30% and developers keep 70% as usual. If you wish to take customer billing information, however... Apple REQUIRES that you NOT do it through the application itself, but on the Internet where Safari is tasked with handling the proper encryption and giving users the feedback that their information transaction is secure. WSJ allows people to login to their EXISTING subscription from their website or set-up elsewhere. To my knowledge, the WSJ iPad app DOES NOT request that you enter billing information through the app itself. Likewise, Zinio allows people to setup subscriptions OUTSIDE of the app itself.
Solution... give your app its own protocol, so that after billing through Safari on your website, customers can be directed back to your app without a hitch. Super-easy. Using cookies, you can even determine whether your app is even installed. Sure, its an extra step, but its not rocket-science.
I have a hardtime understanding why this seems so obtuse. It is also my understanding that Android Marketplace has the same requirement that apps DO NOT directly record critical credit card information directly. This is a basic security requirement in place to protect consumers from potential fraud and abuse in ways they simply cannot track or easily understand. Browsers have a very basic and easy and standard method of showing "secure" transactions and detecting "phishing" of information. Apps do not. So, no "in app" subscriptions or billing of ANY kind.
Times can get around Apple's rejection by simply sending users to its website to set-up a subscription, then allowing those users to access those services independently from the iPad. iTunes/AppStore are the ONLY applications able to take credit card info directly inside of the app (and use the same interface to do it).
All said... I need to research this more to be accurate, but this seems like the most basic message here. I feel like Times is trying to bully Apple into allowing it to do something no one else is doing, and that Apple (as usual) is not providing clear instruction to people. You'd think there'd be a developer relations manager for high-profile rejections or communication. Why do these people feel like they're "reaching out" and not getting anywhere? Are they lying? I know of at least one developer that got Apple to change its policy simply because they felt the restriction was boneheaded, and pretended to not understand Apple's requested change and resubmission. I don't think that reaction is uncommon.
~ CB