Funny how, just to plug my iphone into my computer to sync, etc., I had to create an iTunes account, give my full personal details including cc number and 3-digit security, etc,
I don't know what iTunes account you're talking about, but in my account Apple has no cc info and a user name and password I created ..... a hell of a lot different than what you're claiming ..... get your facts straight.
For once in my life I'm cheering for Rupert. I hope his product eats their lunch and other publishers have to come groveling.
Let?s hope to god Murdoch isn?t following Branson?s Virgin Publishing, Wired Magazine or Conde Nast with their use of InDesign for their iPad magazines.
A year ago, before the iPad was out I had stated that Apple needs to address and attack many areas with the iPad at launch if they want it to over take other areas. One of those areas was print publishing which means a robust tool for creating periodicals and newspapers in a manner that is easy for publishers and usable for consumers. To me, this means a Mac app for publishers. I also stated they need a method of delivery (just like you can get magazines and newspapers delivered to your home) that would have subscribed materials waiting for you, without the user first having to go through the rigamarole of accessing an app, going to the store, choosing the content, and inputing their password. this is fine for the iBookstore*, but I don?t think it works for a viable subscription service.
PS: I don?t care if a magazine or newspaper can be rotated on mobile device. I don?t see many publications being used in multiple rotations and having to code for these eventualities seems costly without increasing the user experience.
* What the hell is with the Kindle app on iDevices sending you to Safari to buy books from the Amazon site. I figure there is some in-app payment to Apple they are trying to avoid. I?m fine with that, but why is the damn site so unfriendly to iDevice users. I?ve never bought a book from Amazon on my iPhone or iPad because they made it a poor experience, yet I have bought plenty from the iBookstore that I have yet to read because they make it so simple. Unfortunately the IBookstore doesn?t have as good of a selection as the Amazon Store.
those newspapers and magazines better wake the f*** up!
The ipad is a phenomenon! And when things are done right on it all hell breaks loose. I'm going to start brain storming business opportunities for myself with the ipad.
I think that if more 'publishers' had the cajones of a Wikileaks, they would actually have a business model in today's world. One that might actually make money.
For what they (mostly) currently offer, their business model is finished.
If you are interested in subscribing to magazines check out Zinio. I get a half dozen magazines now and they appear automatically every month. Landscape it shows two pages at a time and portrait shows a page at a time. Squeeze works too.
So, as much as I like Steve protecting my privacy, I can already subscribe to just about any magazine for about $10-$20 a year.
I don't get it. If the information is that important have you customers subscribe through your web site and offer an app that is free for subscribers. This way also has the advantage of being cross platform. You'd be able to view it on the computer and other tablets and phones.
How much purchaser data to print publishers get when someone buys a printed newspaper? None.
I was going to reply, but this post pretty much sums up what I was going to say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
When somebody subscribes, they get the purchaser's name, address, sometimes email, and credit card number (and CC company). If someone buys single copies at a newsstand, they usually pay about double the subscription rate, which reflects the loss - although they still get sales data from the newsstand and can in turn use that to sell more ads as well.
And it's much, much more than double the price to purchase on the news stand. More like 3-4 times more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
You are completely misrepresenting the facts here.
- The difference between the publishers and Apple is that Apple is opt in, and the publishers want the same information from everyone regardless of whether the people want to opt in or not.
- The publishers *aren't* just asking for your name and address, that's the whole point and is explained at length in the article that you apparently didn't bother to read carefully before posting.
Actually, the post you replied to was pretty right-on. The "opt-in" you are referring to is for the info Apple would share. The original post talked about Apple collecting personal information for their own purposes, just like the magazines use subscription info for their business purposes.
I don't know why so many folks view Apple as the "white knight" in all this. You don't think they'll use your personal information to drive ads from their own mobile ad business? So many people think Apple is protecting your personal information for altruistic purposes. The truth is that Apple, like the publishers, sees your personal information as a very important asset, and Apple wants to keep it for themselves.
The data IS a valuable asset. Without it the publishes won't be able to charge as much to advertisers. That in turn means they will need to charge higher subscription prices. Given the choice, most folks would rather get their content free or at a reduced priced via advertising than pay for it outright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_dog
apple is hardly forcing ping down my throat. i merely opted not to enable it and it's forgotten.
you must have just wanted something to complain about.
Haven't made any purchase on iTunes lately, have you. Practically every time I download a song from iTunes Apple detects that I haven't turned on Ping and nags me about joining their social network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
These publishers become more irrelevant with every passing day. They will finally agree to Apple's terms when they can afford no longer to be part of the iTunes ecosystem.
Or they will simply sell their content at subscription prices on Android devices and sell it on iOS at the higher newsstand prices. And that will become a major selling point for Android devices over iOS because, as I stated above, most people will care more about saving money than giving up the personal info. And let's face it, you are already giving up your personal info on a daily basis. Not letting the publishers have it is like using your finger to plug the hole in the Titanic.
If you are interested in subscribing to magazines check out Zinio. I get a half dozen magazines now and they appear automatically every month. Landscape it shows two pages at a time and portrait shows a page at a time. Squeeze works too.
So, as much as I like Steve protecting my privacy, I can already subscribe to just about any magazine for about $10-$20 a year.
Love it!
What device are you viewing the magazines on? the iPad? how well have they been implemented?
Yup. Thankfully, AI is helping by putting this story out in front of the public. We need other media outlets to start reporting this out as well. Spread the word.
The big deal is that they want to require this against the users' preferences. Apple is offering an opt-in, which is perfectly reasonable. By definition, if the publishers are pushing to get this user data via non opt-in methods when opt-in is available, then they are explicitly pushing for rules that run counter to what users want? What good could possibly come from that?
The question is: Why would ANYONE think this is okay?!
If the economics don't work for the publishers, they won't publish through Apple. Most of these magazines are marginally profitable anyway. The loss of demographic data which would lower the value of their ads, the cost of distribution through Apple, and who knows what else may be just enough to push them into other alternatives. I wonder what Zinio charges to distribute. From Wikipedia, they appear to be privately owned so no chance of getting that kind of data. Zinio's subscription prices are very competitive with what I pay for paper magazines on long term subscriptions. So the cost to the end user is about the same. I wonder what the cost is to print and mail a paper magazine vs 30% of the revenue? But if the value of the advertising is lower in the electronic version, then the the distribution cost savings, if there are any, better be more than 30%.
To be honest, this whole article is precisely why I am going almost exclusively Apple and trying to wean myself off of Google. Google has become the information whores of the internet and are willing (and do) snoop, store, and share all sorts of personal information from on anyone and are always more than willing to share information to others (especially advertisers).
I'm really glad Apple at least makes attempts to severally limit: 1. The amount of personal information they store about you and 2. Who they share that information with, generally keeping your personal information close; basically not sharing with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
This is why I like Apple. Their tightly controlled ecosystem is more secure than just about any other platform out there, especially when compared to Android.
To be honest, this whole article is precisely why I am going almost exclusively Apple and trying to wean myself off of Google. Google has become the information whores of the internet and are willing (and do) snoop, store, and share all sorts of personal information from on anyone and are always more than willing to share information to others (especially advertisers).
I'm really glad Apple at least makes attempts to severally limit: 1. The amount of personal information they store about you and 2. Who they share that information with, generally keeping your personal information close; basically not sharing with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
This is why I like Apple. Their tightly controlled ecosystem is more secure than just about any other platform out there, especially when compared to Android.
No Google (and Google Ads) and no Apple Insider. It is the money that comes from advertisers make websites like this one possible.
No Google (and Google Ads) and no Apple Insider. It is the money that comes from advertisers make websites like this one possible.
Just something for you to think about.
Yeah but publishers want you to subscribe to it and be forced into advertising. Apple should be limiting people's credit card information going out to publishers when it's not needed to complete the sale.
If the economics don't work for the publishers, they won't publish through Apple. Most of these magazines are marginally profitable anyway. The loss of demographic data which would lower the value of their ads, the cost of distribution through Apple, and who knows what else may be just enough to push them into other alternatives. I wonder what Zinio charges to distribute. From Wikipedia, they appear to be privately owned so no chance of getting that kind of data. Zinio's subscription prices are very competitive with what I pay for paper magazines on long term subscriptions. So the cost to the end user is about the same. I wonder what the cost is to print and mail a paper magazine vs 30% of the revenue? But if the value of the advertising is lower in the electronic version, then the the distribution cost savings, if there are any, better be more than 30%.
It's either that or die. People weren't scrambling around for these dying publications anyway.
I don't get it. If the information is that important have you customers subscribe through your web site and offer an app that is free for subscribers. This way also has the advantage of being cross platform. You'd be able to view it on the computer and other tablets and phones.
you don't need an app for that. safari works just fine. I actually wouldn't mind a google chrome browser for IPhone and IPad.
Apple and magazine publishers have still not been able to reach a deal for selling subscriptions on the iPad, as publications reportedly want extensive subscriber data, but Apple is unwilling to give it.
Those magazines are crazy. They would rather that they continue to lose money the way they are used to doing things instead of doing it Apple's way and making money. Typical.
I don't get it. If the information is that important have you customers subscribe through your web site and offer an app that is free for subscribers. This way also has the advantage of being cross platform. You'd be able to view it on the computer and other tablets and phones.
Apple already said they no like that. (What? I carry your water and you no pay me?)
Seriously, I think one of the iOS App Store rules is you cannot publish a supposedly free app but then charge for it outside of the App Store, thus cutting Apple out of its 30 percent. That's percent not pieces of silver. I think that's a fair rule.
Comments
Funny how, just to plug my iphone into my computer to sync, etc., I had to create an iTunes account, give my full personal details including cc number and 3-digit security, etc,
I don't know what iTunes account you're talking about, but in my account Apple has no cc info and a user name and password I created ..... a hell of a lot different than what you're claiming ..... get your facts straight.
For once in my life I'm cheering for Rupert. I hope his product eats their lunch and other publishers have to come groveling.
Let?s hope to god Murdoch isn?t following Branson?s Virgin Publishing, Wired Magazine or Conde Nast with their use of InDesign for their iPad magazines.A year ago, before the iPad was out I had stated that Apple needs to address and attack many areas with the iPad at launch if they want it to over take other areas. One of those areas was print publishing which means a robust tool for creating periodicals and newspapers in a manner that is easy for publishers and usable for consumers. To me, this means a Mac app for publishers. I also stated they need a method of delivery (just like you can get magazines and newspapers delivered to your home) that would have subscribed materials waiting for you, without the user first having to go through the rigamarole of accessing an app, going to the store, choosing the content, and inputing their password. this is fine for the iBookstore*, but I don?t think it works for a viable subscription service.
PS: I don?t care if a magazine or newspaper can be rotated on mobile device. I don?t see many publications being used in multiple rotations and having to code for these eventualities seems costly without increasing the user experience.
* What the hell is with the Kindle app on iDevices sending you to Safari to buy books from the Amazon site. I figure there is some in-app payment to Apple they are trying to avoid. I?m fine with that, but why is the damn site so unfriendly to iDevice users. I?ve never bought a book from Amazon on my iPhone or iPad because they made it a poor experience, yet I have bought plenty from the iBookstore that I have yet to read because they make it so simple. Unfortunately the IBookstore doesn?t have as good of a selection as the Amazon Store.
The ipad is a phenomenon! And when things are done right on it all hell breaks loose. I'm going to start brain storming business opportunities for myself with the ipad.
Thanks Steve!
Krreagan
For what they (mostly) currently offer, their business model is finished.
So, as much as I like Steve protecting my privacy, I can already subscribe to just about any magazine for about $10-$20 a year.
Love it!
How much purchaser data to print publishers get when someone buys a printed newspaper? None.
I was going to reply, but this post pretty much sums up what I was going to say...
When somebody subscribes, they get the purchaser's name, address, sometimes email, and credit card number (and CC company). If someone buys single copies at a newsstand, they usually pay about double the subscription rate, which reflects the loss - although they still get sales data from the newsstand and can in turn use that to sell more ads as well.
And it's much, much more than double the price to purchase on the news stand. More like 3-4 times more.
You are completely misrepresenting the facts here.
- The difference between the publishers and Apple is that Apple is opt in, and the publishers want the same information from everyone regardless of whether the people want to opt in or not.
- The publishers *aren't* just asking for your name and address, that's the whole point and is explained at length in the article that you apparently didn't bother to read carefully before posting.
Actually, the post you replied to was pretty right-on. The "opt-in" you are referring to is for the info Apple would share. The original post talked about Apple collecting personal information for their own purposes, just like the magazines use subscription info for their business purposes.
I don't know why so many folks view Apple as the "white knight" in all this. You don't think they'll use your personal information to drive ads from their own mobile ad business? So many people think Apple is protecting your personal information for altruistic purposes. The truth is that Apple, like the publishers, sees your personal information as a very important asset, and Apple wants to keep it for themselves.
The data IS a valuable asset. Without it the publishes won't be able to charge as much to advertisers. That in turn means they will need to charge higher subscription prices. Given the choice, most folks would rather get their content free or at a reduced priced via advertising than pay for it outright.
apple is hardly forcing ping down my throat. i merely opted not to enable it and it's forgotten.
you must have just wanted something to complain about.
Haven't made any purchase on iTunes lately, have you. Practically every time I download a song from iTunes Apple detects that I haven't turned on Ping and nags me about joining their social network.
These publishers become more irrelevant with every passing day. They will finally agree to Apple's terms when they can afford no longer to be part of the iTunes ecosystem.
Or they will simply sell their content at subscription prices on Android devices and sell it on iOS at the higher newsstand prices. And that will become a major selling point for Android devices over iOS because, as I stated above, most people will care more about saving money than giving up the personal info. And let's face it, you are already giving up your personal info on a daily basis. Not letting the publishers have it is like using your finger to plug the hole in the Titanic.
If you are interested in subscribing to magazines check out Zinio. I get a half dozen magazines now and they appear automatically every month. Landscape it shows two pages at a time and portrait shows a page at a time. Squeeze works too.
So, as much as I like Steve protecting my privacy, I can already subscribe to just about any magazine for about $10-$20 a year.
Love it!
What device are you viewing the magazines on? the iPad? how well have they been implemented?
thanks,
alan
Yup. Thankfully, AI is helping by putting this story out in front of the public. We need other media outlets to start reporting this out as well. Spread the word.
The big deal is that they want to require this against the users' preferences. Apple is offering an opt-in, which is perfectly reasonable. By definition, if the publishers are pushing to get this user data via non opt-in methods when opt-in is available, then they are explicitly pushing for rules that run counter to what users want? What good could possibly come from that?
The question is: Why would ANYONE think this is okay?!
If the economics don't work for the publishers, they won't publish through Apple. Most of these magazines are marginally profitable anyway. The loss of demographic data which would lower the value of their ads, the cost of distribution through Apple, and who knows what else may be just enough to push them into other alternatives. I wonder what Zinio charges to distribute. From Wikipedia, they appear to be privately owned so no chance of getting that kind of data. Zinio's subscription prices are very competitive with what I pay for paper magazines on long term subscriptions. So the cost to the end user is about the same. I wonder what the cost is to print and mail a paper magazine vs 30% of the revenue? But if the value of the advertising is lower in the electronic version, then the the distribution cost savings, if there are any, better be more than 30%.
I'm really glad Apple at least makes attempts to severally limit: 1. The amount of personal information they store about you and 2. Who they share that information with, generally keeping your personal information close; basically not sharing with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
This is why I like Apple. Their tightly controlled ecosystem is more secure than just about any other platform out there, especially when compared to Android.
To be honest, this whole article is precisely why I am going almost exclusively Apple and trying to wean myself off of Google. Google has become the information whores of the internet and are willing (and do) snoop, store, and share all sorts of personal information from on anyone and are always more than willing to share information to others (especially advertisers).
I'm really glad Apple at least makes attempts to severally limit: 1. The amount of personal information they store about you and 2. Who they share that information with, generally keeping your personal information close; basically not sharing with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
This is why I like Apple. Their tightly controlled ecosystem is more secure than just about any other platform out there, especially when compared to Android.
No Google (and Google Ads) and no Apple Insider. It is the money that comes from advertisers make websites like this one possible.
Just something for you to think about.
For protecting my privacy... shame on you publishers for wanting my information without letting me know about it.
There is no way these people should even have access to people's personal information in the first place.
No Google (and Google Ads) and no Apple Insider. It is the money that comes from advertisers make websites like this one possible.
Just something for you to think about.
Yeah but publishers want you to subscribe to it and be forced into advertising. Apple should be limiting people's credit card information going out to publishers when it's not needed to complete the sale.
If the economics don't work for the publishers, they won't publish through Apple. Most of these magazines are marginally profitable anyway. The loss of demographic data which would lower the value of their ads, the cost of distribution through Apple, and who knows what else may be just enough to push them into other alternatives. I wonder what Zinio charges to distribute. From Wikipedia, they appear to be privately owned so no chance of getting that kind of data. Zinio's subscription prices are very competitive with what I pay for paper magazines on long term subscriptions. So the cost to the end user is about the same. I wonder what the cost is to print and mail a paper magazine vs 30% of the revenue? But if the value of the advertising is lower in the electronic version, then the the distribution cost savings, if there are any, better be more than 30%.
It's either that or die. People weren't scrambling around for these dying publications anyway.
I don't get it. If the information is that important have you customers subscribe through your web site and offer an app that is free for subscribers. This way also has the advantage of being cross platform. You'd be able to view it on the computer and other tablets and phones.
you don't need an app for that. safari works just fine. I actually wouldn't mind a google chrome browser for IPhone and IPad.
I doubt the publishers would agree to even that sensible approach.
WSJ, FT, USA Today and NYT are likely to end up in this lot. All already have Ipad apps.
Apple and magazine publishers have still not been able to reach a deal for selling subscriptions on the iPad, as publications reportedly want extensive subscriber data, but Apple is unwilling to give it.
Those magazines are crazy. They would rather that they continue to lose money the way they are used to doing things instead of doing it Apple's way and making money. Typical.
I don't get it. If the information is that important have you customers subscribe through your web site and offer an app that is free for subscribers. This way also has the advantage of being cross platform. You'd be able to view it on the computer and other tablets and phones.
Apple already said they no like that. (What? I carry your water and you no pay me?)
Seriously, I think one of the iOS App Store rules is you cannot publish a supposedly free app but then charge for it outside of the App Store, thus cutting Apple out of its 30 percent. That's percent not pieces of silver. I think that's a fair rule.