It's easy enough to get around it. As someone suggested, the paper could offer a $.99 discount to people if they sign up for their electronic subscription and then charge $0.99 for a lifetime subscription on iTunes.
what would stop one of your customers from then canceling their print subscription?
Now that customer never has to pay again.
The true solution is a real in-app subscription API for apps.
Apple understands this.
Apple does not want to kill these publications but it does want to bring them into the 21st century.
This is just like the record companies that wanted to preserve the past and cling to their antiquated models.
According to the article, apparently they do need to give Apple a cut or their app isn't going to be in the App Store. The comparison to Netflix is a good one. Apple gets nothing from them, even though it's a subscription service. It's unclear how newspapers are any different.
Are the newspapers distributing their own content like Netflix does? You only get the viewer from the App store. (Plus Apple maybe getting a kickback from Netflix to allow Netflix on AppleTV, so perhaps Apple is willing to let them have their app in the App Store for free.)
Or is the newspaper content distributed via the App Store as an application update with that day's edition? In that case Apple is hosting and distributing their content for them and they should get a cut.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.
Why do I keep reading about developers who say this is a very fair portion to pay for what they get? Oh, I see, first post. Probably last post. Never mind.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.
I'm not sure what to think about this issue?and I've learned not to necessarily believe what is written by other people about Apple?but what you wrote here is utter bullshit. Apple has a right to charge what they want for people to sell through their store. And more to the point, 30% is quite reasonable, not only as a profit split compared to other industries, but also given the fact that Apple isn't making bank off the App Store anyway.
This seems consistent with Apple's desire to initiate the subscription process through the App Store. This could be a reversal of the current standard: you subscribe to the publication through the App Store and get the paper version for free. If you don't have an iDevice you subscribe the regular way and get only the print edition. Elegant solution, but the publishers hate losing the credit card numbers and data on all their customers. That's the rub.
I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.
The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price.
But that's irrelevant because the article is about print subscriptions not purchasing at retail or newsstand.
I subscribe to The Economist so they post me a magazine (pennies for post rather than 50%+ to retailer) and give me access to archives and current issue on the web. Recently they added a free Economist app that enables subscribers to download current issue 'for free'; other magazines and newspapers are doing the same.
It is apparent that Apple hates this, although they don't seem to mind Hulu or Netflix doing this.
Quote:
It's easy enough to get around it. As someone suggested, the paper could offer a $.99 discount to people if they sign up for their electronic subscription and then charge $0.99 for a lifetime subscription on iTunes.
Why should they? I pay my $126.99 per year, which is 64% off the newsstand price ... it's a subscription!
Just a guess- if the updates and daily feed is hosted by Apple, by all means Apple has a right to the cut of the subsciption or charge a fee etc (which I suspect is the case).
But, if the hosting and updates are coming from someplace else... and Apple is just being a bully because it can (we are the only game in town, take it or leave it), that would be a monopolistic practice which people tend to not like(*cough* Microsoft).
Data comes from the magazine and newspapers servers, not from Apple.
Quote:
Why not just password access to web sites and have ability to save content pages or something. Either way your downloading a lot of info.
They already offer password access with cookies to website, if Apple annoys them too much they could just have iPad formatted web-pages. The thing about downloading entire newspaper/magazine means that it works offline too.
You're not downloading much info. The ones I've seen don't include pages of adverts, they're only the articles and artwork, the files are much smaller than you would imagine (text is low bytes).
I think Apple is on the run to REPLACE print editions. So, the co-existence and even more additional free content on the iPad is contradictory to this aim.
According to the article, apparently they do need to give Apple a cut or their app isn't going to be in the App Store. The comparison to Netflix is a good one. Apple gets nothing from them, even though it's a subscription service. It's unclear how newspapers are any different.
Apple gets to sell the standard device for distributing content previously only available in print. This is a short-sighted move. Publications should be treated differently from apps. If publishers can publish electronically for free on other tablets, those tablets get a leg up against the iPad as content delivery devices.
If this is actually Apple's reasoning here, it is a bit much. cmon Steve, sometimes letting something go to help build an ecosystem is a good thing.
The problem is that an ecosystem built on 'free' collapses when you try to monetize it. You need to build a paying user base in the modern economy, not build a user base who are used to getting something for free then start charging them, those users simply leave.
Isn't this the same model Netflix works on? You pay Netflix for instant streaming then get the Netflix app for free. Each month, Netflix gets their membership fee and Apple gets Zilch. .
It is very possible that Apple is getting something. It might be a blanket payment rather than per person.
Also where is the smoking gun of an email etc about this restriction.
There is a bit more complexity here than is apparent in the article:
The issue is giving the content away free to print subscribers while at the same time charging non-subscribers. What Apple seems to be saying here is that they don't want to deal with having a mechanism for free subscriptions within a system where they are processing paid subscriptions for others.
Examples: 1) a free app with free content -- Apple would have no objection; 2) paid app -- no additional charge for content -- again, no objection; 3) free app, charge for content -- again, no objection as long as the subscription goes through the app store; 4) free app, charge new customers for access, print customers get a freebie -- Apple objects.
What Apple objects to is the idea that publishers will do an end run around the app store by giving away iPad content if the buyer agrees to pay for print. Essentially, Apple would be subsidizing print media.
On the other hand, publishers, of course, would like to reward their print buyers by giving away their iPad editions. Part of the problem here is that many media executives want to port over their print content without considering the iPad as a separate medium.
Print publishers are deathly afraid of losing print customers because they are what is driving ad revenue. If everyone migrates to electronic products they are afraid -- and have reason to be -- that they will not make up the revenue. Then they are dead.
Edit: This is one reason why Rupert Murdoch's new iPad publication, The Daily, will not run into any problems: no print paper to worry about.
According to the article, apparently they do need to give Apple a cut or their app isn't going to be in the App Store. The comparison to Netflix is a good one. Apple gets nothing from them, even though it's a subscription service. It's unclear how newspapers are any different.
The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading. My comment is based on how the app store has operated for quite some time. You are free to process transactions on your website if you have an existing digital business. However, if you don't have an existing digital business, you must use Apple's in app purchasing system, subscription or otherwise.
Hulu and netflix work because they are existing digital businesses. Their iPhone and iPad apps are not their primary offerings, they are merely apps that allow you to access their subscription content on the iPhone/iPad in addition to the numerous other digital devices they are available on.
Print newspapers with no digital version who decide to offer an iPad app do not have an existing digital business and thus must use Apple's in app purchasing system (which will soon properly support subscriptions). If you use the in app purchasing system, Apple gets its 30% cut.
The workaround is simple. Offer an online version of your newspaper, available through your website and have users create accounts and require them to log in to access the newspaper. You can charge for the online version, or it can be a perk for existing print customers, it doesn't matter. Once you do that, you have an existing digital business and are free to create an app that requires users to log in to access an iPad formatted version of the newspaper. You're free to handle all the transactions on your website and Apple won't take a cut of the profits.
This is how the app store works and it will continue to work that way for the foreseeable future. If the article has mislead you to believe otherwise, I guess that's the fault of the article.
If it didn't work that way Netflix, Hulu, Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, crunchyroll, and many many others would not be available for iOS in their current forms.
The Kindle app is the perfect example. You can go to amazon.com and buy as many ebooks as you want and then view them through the Kindle app without Amazon giving Apple a dime. Books aren't too different from newspapers, and rest assured that if Amazon started offering subscriptions, those subscriptions would also show up in the Kindle app just fine.
It's all about having an existing digital business. If you don't have one, Apple will not permit you to set one up just to serve your app, they want you to go through their purchasing system instead. But if you do have one, Apple wants your customers to use iPhones and iPads, so they will allow you to provide access to your paid or subscription content through the app without taking a cut (because they never processed the transaction in the first place).
This serves a practical purpose in addition to the apparent money grabbing purpose. If Apple allowed everyone to manage their own purchases, in app purchases would suck. Each app would require you to set up a new account with a company that you may or may not trust. The user experience would suck.
Comments
It's easy enough to get around it. As someone suggested, the paper could offer a $.99 discount to people if they sign up for their electronic subscription and then charge $0.99 for a lifetime subscription on iTunes.
what would stop one of your customers from then canceling their print subscription?
Now that customer never has to pay again.
The true solution is a real in-app subscription API for apps.
Apple understands this.
Apple does not want to kill these publications but it does want to bring them into the 21st century.
This is just like the record companies that wanted to preserve the past and cling to their antiquated models.
According to the article, apparently they do need to give Apple a cut or their app isn't going to be in the App Store. The comparison to Netflix is a good one. Apple gets nothing from them, even though it's a subscription service. It's unclear how newspapers are any different.
Are the newspapers distributing their own content like Netflix does? You only get the viewer from the App store. (Plus Apple maybe getting a kickback from Netflix to allow Netflix on AppleTV, so perhaps Apple is willing to let them have their app in the App Store for free.)
Or is the newspaper content distributed via the App Store as an application update with that day's edition? In that case Apple is hosting and distributing their content for them and they should get a cut.
Interesting point, there are countless apps in the app store that make money in a way that does not give Apple a cut.
Netflix and Hulu+ being two of the most obvious.
The difference is Netflix and Hulu are not a dying industry.
Print is. They need to transition to true digital distribution to survive.
Apple is willing to help them upgrade their business plan to the 21st century.
Apple will only ask these companies for a very reasonable percentage in exchange for it's services.
The iPad is the future of print.
Apple will show them the way forward.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.
Why do I keep reading about developers who say this is a very fair portion to pay for what they get? Oh, I see, first post. Probably last post. Never mind.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple is sued or decides to be reasonable and reduce it's 30% cut on the revenue. This high a percentage is just not called for and is abusive.
I'm not sure what to think about this issue?and I've learned not to necessarily believe what is written by other people about Apple?but what you wrote here is utter bullshit. Apple has a right to charge what they want for people to sell through their store. And more to the point, 30% is quite reasonable, not only as a profit split compared to other industries, but also given the fact that Apple isn't making bank off the App Store anyway.
I love the way people without a clue are so eager to prove that.
The average cut that a retail store gets is 50% of selling price.
But that's irrelevant because the article is about print subscriptions not purchasing at retail or newsstand.
I subscribe to The Economist so they post me a magazine (pennies for post rather than 50%+ to retailer) and give me access to archives and current issue on the web. Recently they added a free Economist app that enables subscribers to download current issue 'for free'; other magazines and newspapers are doing the same.
It is apparent that Apple hates this, although they don't seem to mind Hulu or Netflix doing this.
It's easy enough to get around it. As someone suggested, the paper could offer a $.99 discount to people if they sign up for their electronic subscription and then charge $0.99 for a lifetime subscription on iTunes.
Why should they? I pay my $126.99 per year, which is 64% off the newsstand price ... it's a subscription!
Just a guess- if the updates and daily feed is hosted by Apple, by all means Apple has a right to the cut of the subsciption or charge a fee etc (which I suspect is the case).
But, if the hosting and updates are coming from someplace else... and Apple is just being a bully because it can (we are the only game in town, take it or leave it), that would be a monopolistic practice which people tend to not like(*cough* Microsoft).
Data comes from the magazine and newspapers servers, not from Apple.
Why not just password access to web sites and have ability to save content pages or something. Either way your downloading a lot of info.
They already offer password access with cookies to website, if Apple annoys them too much they could just have iPad formatted web-pages. The thing about downloading entire newspaper/magazine means that it works offline too.
You're not downloading much info. The ones I've seen don't include pages of adverts, they're only the articles and artwork, the files are much smaller than you would imagine (text is low bytes).
According to the article, apparently they do need to give Apple a cut or their app isn't going to be in the App Store. The comparison to Netflix is a good one. Apple gets nothing from them, even though it's a subscription service. It's unclear how newspapers are any different.
Apple gets to sell the standard device for distributing content previously only available in print. This is a short-sighted move. Publications should be treated differently from apps. If publishers can publish electronically for free on other tablets, those tablets get a leg up against the iPad as content delivery devices.
If this is actually Apple's reasoning here, it is a bit much. cmon Steve, sometimes letting something go to help build an ecosystem is a good thing.
The problem is that an ecosystem built on 'free' collapses when you try to monetize it. You need to build a paying user base in the modern economy, not build a user base who are used to getting something for free then start charging them, those users simply leave.
Isn't this the same model Netflix works on? You pay Netflix for instant streaming then get the Netflix app for free. Each month, Netflix gets their membership fee and Apple gets Zilch. .
It is very possible that Apple is getting something. It might be a blanket payment rather than per person.
Also where is the smoking gun of an email etc about this restriction.
The issue is giving the content away free to print subscribers while at the same time charging non-subscribers. What Apple seems to be saying here is that they don't want to deal with having a mechanism for free subscriptions within a system where they are processing paid subscriptions for others.
Examples: 1) a free app with free content -- Apple would have no objection; 2) paid app -- no additional charge for content -- again, no objection; 3) free app, charge for content -- again, no objection as long as the subscription goes through the app store; 4) free app, charge new customers for access, print customers get a freebie -- Apple objects.
What Apple objects to is the idea that publishers will do an end run around the app store by giving away iPad content if the buyer agrees to pay for print. Essentially, Apple would be subsidizing print media.
On the other hand, publishers, of course, would like to reward their print buyers by giving away their iPad editions. Part of the problem here is that many media executives want to port over their print content without considering the iPad as a separate medium.
Print publishers are deathly afraid of losing print customers because they are what is driving ad revenue. If everyone migrates to electronic products they are afraid -- and have reason to be -- that they will not make up the revenue. Then they are dead.
Edit: This is one reason why Rupert Murdoch's new iPad publication, The Daily, will not run into any problems: no print paper to worry about.
There is nothing Apple could do to stop them from giving subscribers content for free.
Don't see apple complaining about Hulu plus of Netflix.
According to the article, apparently they do need to give Apple a cut or their app isn't going to be in the App Store. The comparison to Netflix is a good one. Apple gets nothing from them, even though it's a subscription service. It's unclear how newspapers are any different.
The article repeatably mentions print and if it suggests anything else it is misleading. My comment is based on how the app store has operated for quite some time. You are free to process transactions on your website if you have an existing digital business. However, if you don't have an existing digital business, you must use Apple's in app purchasing system, subscription or otherwise.
Hulu and netflix work because they are existing digital businesses. Their iPhone and iPad apps are not their primary offerings, they are merely apps that allow you to access their subscription content on the iPhone/iPad in addition to the numerous other digital devices they are available on.
Print newspapers with no digital version who decide to offer an iPad app do not have an existing digital business and thus must use Apple's in app purchasing system (which will soon properly support subscriptions). If you use the in app purchasing system, Apple gets its 30% cut.
The workaround is simple. Offer an online version of your newspaper, available through your website and have users create accounts and require them to log in to access the newspaper. You can charge for the online version, or it can be a perk for existing print customers, it doesn't matter. Once you do that, you have an existing digital business and are free to create an app that requires users to log in to access an iPad formatted version of the newspaper. You're free to handle all the transactions on your website and Apple won't take a cut of the profits.
This is how the app store works and it will continue to work that way for the foreseeable future. If the article has mislead you to believe otherwise, I guess that's the fault of the article.
If it didn't work that way Netflix, Hulu, Kindle, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, crunchyroll, and many many others would not be available for iOS in their current forms.
The Kindle app is the perfect example. You can go to amazon.com and buy as many ebooks as you want and then view them through the Kindle app without Amazon giving Apple a dime. Books aren't too different from newspapers, and rest assured that if Amazon started offering subscriptions, those subscriptions would also show up in the Kindle app just fine.
It's all about having an existing digital business. If you don't have one, Apple will not permit you to set one up just to serve your app, they want you to go through their purchasing system instead. But if you do have one, Apple wants your customers to use iPhones and iPads, so they will allow you to provide access to your paid or subscription content through the app without taking a cut (because they never processed the transaction in the first place).
This serves a practical purpose in addition to the apparent money grabbing purpose. If Apple allowed everyone to manage their own purchases, in app purchases would suck. Each app would require you to set up a new account with a company that you may or may not trust. The user experience would suck.
I doubt this story is true.
There is nothing Apple could do to stop them from giving subscribers content for free.
Don't see apple complaining about Hulu plus of Netflix.
With print subscribers it's easy to do. Digital subscribers like those of Hulu and Netflix are a different story.
Then. Let. Them. Distribute. ePapers. Without. The. App. Store!
Good luck with that!