Apple tells newspapers: no free iPad edition for print subscribers

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 102
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corato View Post


    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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    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. Even other online electronic distribution systems are typically in the 30% range (look up what Google and Amazon and everyone else does).



    There is absolutely nothing illegal about charging a lot of money for a service. If the market, on average, was such that distributors kept 95% of the revenue, then keeping 95% would not be illegal.



    I ran a retail store and bought my merch generally at "Keystone" (50% off retail) and sometimes at "Triple key" (66% off), but my suppliers did nothing to drive traffic to me nor handle distribution, collection, deposits, etc., or to improve my "location." Seems very reasonable to me on a crowded web. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.



    Apple also incurs lots of extra cost for all the free software it does host, post and deliver, btw. Yeah, that's greedy. As is, for example, the fact that I buy little to no content on iTunes, but consume gigabytes of free podcasts every week - including many I'd never even find otherwise. Yep, another sign of the mark of the beast.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    For one time purchases it is 30%

    for in-app subscriptions, apple will charge closer to 10%



    Interesting if true. Got a source?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iLiver View Post


    Not cool. I get NYTimes for free on my iPhone. Why shouldn't I get it free on my iPad if NYTImes wants to give it to me?

    Apple products- so cool, Apple Inc- soo controlling.



    You do realize it is the App STORE, not some Apps.org? If the app improves the digital experience as compared to the Times free web site and is tied to a paid sub, why shouldn't Apple, by providing the distribution receptacle get a cut?



    NPR doesn't charge for any of its content (tho' it does "charge" the taxpayers and its loyal base of pledgers), so makes sense that that App is and will remain free.



    FYI, 'tho I regard the Times as the most agenda-driven major paper in the country, their new Chrome edition (developed I'm pretty certain with Google) http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/# is really pretty well done - it actually makes me "stick" longer since so easy to browse and load stories without page reloads - and while described as a "Chrome app," just a web site that's much easier to surf on Chrome and Firefox than the regular web edition. (Note: it won't come up at all on my old iBook's Safari and renders crappily on Safari-Win.)
  • Reply 62 of 102
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    This is pretty bad news - it would mean iPad subscriptions will always be at least 30% higher than print ones. I get free access to the Economist iPad app because I have a print sub, so my wife takes the print version, I read the iPad version.



    This would easily make me walk away, because what next, the same rule applied to Kindle books and other things?
  • Reply 63 of 102
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    Right... last time I looked AAPL was a charity set up to help poor, impoverished publishers like Rupert Murdoch.



    Bad example - last thing we need is for all print media to have to be like News Corp to survive...
  • Reply 64 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post


    This is pretty bad news - it would mean iPad subscriptions will always be at least 30% higher than print ones. I get free access to the Economist iPad app because I have a print sub, so my wife takes the print version, I read the iPad version.



    This would easily make me walk away, because what next, the same rule applied to Kindle books and other things?



    No it doesn't, if only because print has significant distribution costs.
  • Reply 65 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    An attitude that could only come from people who never pay for anything anyway...



    I say, great job Apple. Keep 'em on their toes!



    Hey! No soup for you!



    j/k
  • Reply 66 of 102
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 67 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ihxo View Post


    it's almost impossible to do.



    As long as they are not using Apple's infrastructure to deliver content, there is nothing Apple could do.



    Just like Kindle, you buy on Amazon store, content gets downloaded to your Kindle app.





    I believe what they are talking about is, some newspaper want to use app store's "in-app purchase" feature for free.



    As long as Apple has its iron grip on the App store - Apple can do something. They just don't approve apps like this. While I like the convenience of the app store, the power to do things like that and enforce politically correct values[1] are bad things



    [1] Like applying American morals to European newspapers - violence is good, a nipple is close to world war 3
  • Reply 68 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iLiver View Post


    Not cool. I get NYTimes for free on my iPhone. Why shouldn't I get it free on my iPad if NYTImes wants to give it to me?

    Apple products- so cool, Apple Inc- soo controlling.



    The New York Times doesn't want to give it to you for free; that's why they're going to start requiring higher volume users to get a subscription after Apple rolls out its subscription plan. The Times announced several months ago that they were moving all of their platforms to a modified pay wall in early 2011.
  • Reply 69 of 102
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


    I ran a retail store and bought my merch generally at "Keystone" (50% off retail) and sometimes at "Triple key" (66% off), but my suppliers did nothing to drive traffic to me nor handle distribution, collection, deposits, etc., or to improve my "location." Seems very reasonable to me on a crowded web. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes.



    It would seem to me that in the app store case *you* (as in the publisher) are the product, so what you write you right doesn't make so much sense to me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Could be, and might help explain that brand new data center.



    If it's all about the revenue, then perhaps this is how it might play out:



    1 Publishers need the demographic data to target their advertising

    2 Apple won't give them that information through the app store model

    3 ???

    4 Profit!!!!



    It would seem to me that Apple could be developing an iAds API which is sympathetic to publishing industry. The publishers then do not need to even have a marketing department as far as the App store is concerned, except to say to the API 'this is my target audience'. Even static ads could be presented, perhaps apple taking a lower take of the pie to compensate for the idea that there is far less development time. If the ads are relevant enough to the target audience, the revenue might be sufficient to even avoid the need altogether for a subscription service.



    Maybe that's what the data centre is for.
  • Reply 70 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    The difference is Netflix and Hulu are not a dying industry.

    Print is.



    Well then isn't Apple picking winners and losers? Doesn't this put them in the same boat as ISPs/Cable companies and the Net Neutrality debate? Speaking of which, AT&T's U-Verse software has a FREE iPhone app for subscribers so they can watch recorded shows and schedule recordings on their home DVR. Again, seems like the same business model. They're using the iOs devices as a bonus for their paying subscribers without Apple seeing a penny.
  • Reply 71 of 102
    technotechno Posts: 732member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post


    Put it like this: Why keep on dealing with paper at all? Why should I have to get paper copies sent to me? I do not want them!!! Period.



    Instead I would like the journalists to allow me to purchase/subscribe to their news thru a App on my iPad.



    Exactly. When someone subscribes, they should have to make a choice, print of digital. Simple as that. I am sure they can come to some agreement with Apple that allows a customer to switch midway their subscription. Make the customer pay a small fee to make the switch. But, no reason to have both at the same time.
  • Reply 72 of 102
    foobarfoobar Posts: 107member
    Same old story...



    [Music|Print] publishers are angry that they can't get people to pay money for their [music|content] online. Apple comes along and creates a successful store for them. Publishers then become mad that the service is a) not free, b) not controlled by them and c) that Apple is becoming too powerful/evil.



    By the way, it works the other way around, too.

    German populist newspaper Bild has blocked iPad users from seeing the free content on their website, in favor of their paid app.
  • Reply 73 of 102
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    It would seem to me that in the app store case *you* (as in the publisher) are the product, so what you write you right doesn't make so much sense to me.



    My rent, staff, shipping, time and advertising amounted to much more than 30% of my costs to sell and distribute my (sometimes self-manufactured) product and I was stuck in an out of the way location. THAT makes sense to me. My point is that 30% to take over all those functions, while also distributing free product for others, is in no way egregious to expect from a small biz.
  • Reply 74 of 102
    benicebenice Posts: 382member
    This is silly. The reason why the Phone platform become popular is precisely because, not only did it work well, but when you include all the free apps it delivered good value.



    If you start blocking suppliers delivering stuff to iPad users for free, you reduce the value of the device in people's hands. Seeing the huge list of other tablets due to be released Apple needs to do everything it can to keep customers happy by delighting us with unexpected value.
  • Reply 75 of 102
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    A simple solution would be for the newspaper to offer free printed version with 30% markup for those who bought iPad apps.
  • Reply 76 of 102
    There is likely another layer to this idea.



    This is strictly a suspicion on my part at the moment, but I'll bet $1 that the publishers will be hosting their recurring subscription content on Apple's new server farm and would also be using Apple for recurring billing and remittance. If correct, that would justify the 30% cut.



    Contrast that to Netflix which runs/contracts it's own CDN (content delivery network) and Netflix determines if you've paid, what movies you've queued and so on.
  • Reply 77 of 102
    zoolookzoolook Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    No it doesn't, if only because print has significant distribution costs.



    Right, which is evidenced by digital versions costing a lot less than shelf versions... oh wait, they don't.



    People grossly over-estimate how much is costs to print and distribute. The overheads are quite small because we've become pretty good at it (hundreds of years pf practice, economies of scale using existing distribution networks, etc). It barely comes into it.
  • Reply 78 of 102
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    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.



    All those European Newspapers which have iPad and iPhone apps already operate exactly as you suggested it. Take the Financial Times, The Economist, or the Wallstreet Journal (I know, not European) and others. They have offered online subscriptions for a while now (which cost between a third and a half of the print subscriptions). With this you can access their complete editions online, also via the web browser on the iPad. But they also offer iPad and iPhone apps for free, these apps then pull the content from the publishers servers (ie, Apple is only hosting the app, not the content).



    Take this one step further, and think of financial information services (eg, Bloomberg, Reuters). They certainly offer apps for Windows (and possibly Mac OS) for free but require a subscription to access any content. Neither Microsoft nor Apple get any revenue from them. If either MS or Apple could ban their apps from their operating systems, they could ask them to hand over a percentage. But they cannot ban them, on iOS, however, Apple can ban them.



    Go yet another step further, online 'retailers' like Amazon or Ebay, they offer apps for iOS (though not for desktop OSes) for free. Does Apple get a cut from what they sell through these apps? You can take this principle to any company that gets revenue through the help of a free iOS app, which can even be advertising revenue. Does Apple get a cut?



    Certainly Apple will never charge for web access but for anything that goes through the App Store, Apple could ask for a cut.
  • Reply 79 of 102
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post


    Right, which is evidenced by digital versions costing a lot less than shelf versions... oh wait, they don't.



    People grossly over-estimate how much is costs to print and distribute. The overheads are quite small because we've become pretty good at it (hundreds of years pf practice, economies of scale using existing distribution networks, etc). It barely comes into it.



    For the Economist, the online subscription is about 60% of the print subscription (which includes naturally the online subscriptions).
  • Reply 80 of 102
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SailorPaul View Post


    This is strictly a suspicion on my part at the moment, but I'll bet $1 that the publishers will be hosting their recurring subscription content on Apple's new server farm and would also be using Apple for recurring billing and remittance. If correct, that would justify the 30% cut.



    Well, this is actually not the case. The newspapers host their own content and do all their billings and payment processing over their own website. Apple is only hosting the app itself (and has to serve only updates to the app itself).
Sign In or Register to comment.