Inside subscription content: Apple iPad vs Google One Pass vs Amazon Kindle

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 90
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20031967-261.html



    excerpt:

    Quote:

    Apple said this is the same digital-subscription billing service that the company recently launched with The Daily app, created by News Corp. for the Apple iPad.



    In that case as with the latest announcement, Apple is giving subscribers the option to provide personal information, such as name and e-mail address, to publishers. This won't meet the needs of the publishers, McCullagh said, adding that publishers don't want third parties overseeing their relationship with readers.



    Apple said that the relationship between the publisher and the App Store isn't exclusive. Publishers can sell subscriptions on their own site or offer free access to existing customers.



    Subscriptions can be weekly, monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, biannual, or annual.

    Publishers must provide their own authentication process within the app for subscribers who have signed up for service outside the App Store, according to Apple.



  • Reply 42 of 90
    I think you are just ranting here. This first sentence ...
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.



    Has absolutely no bearing on this second sentence.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.



    Neither have any logical connection at all to this third sentence.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS.



    ... which is essentially an "Apples and Oranges" comparison.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post


    iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime. Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.



    It's not clear what you are arguing at all really, since you are mixing up your metaphors so badly. You are essentially comparing a software/licensing situation to a hardware purchase. I'm not saying you do or don't have a point, just that in all this confused writing, it's not clear what you are actually trying to say.
  • Reply 43 of 90
    droodroo Posts: 27member
    I don't care about magazines or newspapers. I think magazines and newspapers, paper and digital, are going to quickly contract to specialized niche markets.



    But I am keenly interested in books. I am worried that Apple policies will force the Kindle app and my practice of reading Kindle books off my iPod touch. And then I will be annoyed. And I will care little whether it is Apple's fault or Amazon's fault. All I will care about is that my iPod touch isn't doing what I want it to and I will look at buying a Kindle. I won't be happy about it because I am happy with my iPod touch.



    No, I won't embrace iBooks instead. iBooks is a dog on my two-year-old ipod and has very few books. Until iBooks is comparable, Amazon has leverage.
  • Reply 44 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drobforever View Post


    If Apple allows sideloading apps then you're right. But right now Apple doesn't allow you to install apps except from Apple's app store, which basically bundles the iOS platform with the app store.



    I'm not so sure this is true.



    No one is talking about it so maybe i'm wrong, but I don't see anything in the way of publishers essentially making electronic HTML versions of their magazines and distributing them on both the web and any mobile devices. iOS allows "side-loading" of any web app as does Android, WebOS and any other platform I've ever heard of. I have several web apps. They have buttons on the home screen and generally behave identically to other apps.



    The iOS market is a like huge golden plum for magazine producers, and 30% is a better deal than they currently get with print distribution. If I was a small magazine publisher I would leap at this deal and my only concern would be how fast can I get into the store.



    If I was a larger publisher that was trying to resist loosing all that nefarious control that I have now, I would be setting up an entirely web-based operation and distribute the magazines myself. The problem is that the HTML distribute it yourself option has been available for many years and no large publisher has yet figured it out or really wants to do it that way. As it says in this article, the reason is that they don't really care about the magazine, it's all about the advertising.



    More and more I don't think it's really sensible to even talk about this topic without separating out the small (actual) magazine producers that actually serve unique content, from the bulk of the market which is just about churning out this months version of the exact same crap magazine full of advertisements.
  • Reply 45 of 90
    If I walk into a newsagents and buy a magazine a percentage of the cover price goes to the newsagent/retailer selling the magazine. In the same way if I buy a magazine through iTunes (as an app or in-app purchase) then Apple/iTunes is acting as the retailer and are entitled to their commission. I don't know how much commission retailers take on magazine sales but my guess would be that it's not far short of Apple's 30%. There really is no difference that I can see.



    If publishers want people to supply their details then offer an incentive for users to register their subscription once they have purchased it. A prize draw or money off vouchers or something. They could easily stick an email reply form in the digital edition. If you just go into a newsagent a buy the magazine they have no idea who are.



    I've been in the position as a Product/Marketing Manager where I had newspapers and magazines sending me their media packs with all the demogarphics. It was all very good but to be honest most of the time I didn't need to read it. Most of the time it's obvious who a magazine is aimed at and if that's your target audience you go with the advert, if it's not then you don't.
  • Reply 46 of 90
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drobforever View Post


    Actually this new policy is about subscription of content, and there's no way to sideload "a subscription", unless through an app environment in which you consume the content you subscribed through the app. Of course, there's webapp but that doesn't run digital content well unless Apple can improve the Safari browser to a certain point or when html5 evolves to a certain point (neither of which would happen in the next few years).



    Untrue. Apple has explicitly said publishers are allowed to offer subscriptions off-store. I can imagine a couple ways to get them into the iPad, the worst case being a download and then import into iTunes via an app filespace (which is how I manage iPad OmniGraffle inbound/outbound files right now).
  • Reply 47 of 90
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    .....
  • Reply 48 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass View Post


    Article Summary for anyone who doesn't want to read 3 pages:



    Apple is looking out 100% for the consumer and transforming the world with goodness.



    Google is evil and secretly selling your credit card information and a list of ugly girls you slept with in college to even more evil people.



    Amazon represents our horribly misguided history as a flawed species.



    No better word to express than this.
  • Reply 49 of 90
    I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this article. Simply brilliant, well written, clearly and concisely lays out the issues in an understandable way. Really made me realize just how Apple has been able to start to achieve the Holy Grail of monetizing the web. People are willing to pay, at least some $, for small apps they could just as easily Google. I am willing to pay for magazines and have started to consider paying for full newspaper access. It's the totality of the user experience - hardware, software, iOS, apps, iTunes, etc that attracts customers willing to pay a premium. Trite, but true, the sum is greater than the parts.
  • Reply 50 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post




    *Sold on an iPad for the Kindle app on that iPad or any other device, I get $4.00

    --Apple does nothing but process the billing and yet gets $6.00



    Note just how crazy that scheme is. Apple iBookstore scheme is fair. They earn what Amazon is earning. But notice the third case, where Apple earns twice as much when it does almost nothing as when it is running its own online store. That's where Apple is likely to get in deep, deep trouble with the federal government. There's no rationale basis for that difference except as an attempt by Apple to crush its competition.



    Apple does a LOT more than that. They aggregate the best customers in the world and give you access to them. If you don't think that Apple should get their fair share, then don't try to woo Apple's customers. Instead, build your own distribution empire. Or don't sell using two different retailers (both Apple and Amazon) for one transaction. The choice is entirely yours, so don't cry about being forced to accept a raw deal. Take some personal responsibility.
  • Reply 51 of 90
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MyopicPaideia View Post


    I see what you are trying to say, but that is not an accurate analogy. iTunes and the App Store are the platform - not iOS itself.



    For example - you want to access Pop. Sci. online, you have two choices. You can use your iOS browser (Safari) and navigate to the website and purchase access directly there. Or, you can go to iTunes/The App Store and download the Pop. Sci. app and pay for a subscription through the app, which you gained access to through iTunes/App Store. iOS isn't the marketplace, iTunes/App Store is the marketplace.



    Apple wants a cut of the business it generates through its marketplace (And rightly so). iTunes/App Store IS a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple. I think you are trying to say that by extension, every iOS device is also dragged under the iTunes/App Store umbrella and essentially becomes a POS owned by Apple. While practically speaking this often becomes the case (as the user experience is just better), it is technically not so.



    Please correct me if I'm wrong.



    You are not wrong, but there are a few things that need to be addressed.



    There is no other "store" available on iOS platform (unless you jailbreak)

    So you have to get ALL software coded for iOS though apple's app store



    Apple wants 30% even thought they are not hosting or proving the content. They are just processing fees and making it "easier" for a user to purchase something.

    At the same time they are BLOCKING a company from including a way in the app to buy outside of the app (i.e. a link to there online web store)



    The biggest issue is they are forcing companies if they offer a way to subscribe or buy content out side of the app store they MUST sell the same content or subscription in the app store at the SAME price. This is what is going to get apple in hot water because they are trying to control prices out side of the store. I have a feeling the FTC is going to strike this down and if they do apple might just ban all outside sales. If that happens any app that you can purchase content for outside of the app store will be banned. I.E kindle, netflix, hulu, mog, +1000 others.



    I have never seen something like this, it would be like adobe saying if you want to let people access your PDF's they must be-able to buy them through the Adobe store @ the same price you are selling them any where else, oh yeah we are going to take a 30% cut to.
  • Reply 52 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Selling books in-app is going to be a losing game for everyone but Apple now so soon the iBookstore will be the only option left. Is that part of Apple's goal?



    Yes. I sure hope so.



    These freeloaders use Apple devices and OS to get money from Apple's customers? And they won't give Apple their fair share? Screw 'em.



    And as for the people who want to use Apple's iPad to read stuff they bought elsewhere? Use a Nook. Good luck with that.



    I think that Apple is being 100% fair to everybody here. If the customer is using Apple's stuff, then the seller gives Apple their due. If the seller thinks he can get people to use their crappy hardware instead of an iPad, then they need not pay one red cent to Apple. Easy enough.
  • Reply 53 of 90
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Untrue. Apple has explicitly said publishers are allowed to offer subscriptions off-store. I can imagine a couple ways to get them into the iPad, the worst case being a download and then import into iTunes via an app filespace (which is how I manage iPad OmniGraffle inbound/outbound files right now).



    What you do not understand is if you offer a subscription/content outside of the app store you MUST offer it within the app. This is the Whole issue. So any company that sells any content outside the app store and wants the user to be able to use that content on iOS they MUST also sell the same content in the app store.



    I.E. Buy a book for iReader from my computer (they dont make hardware) . iReader wants to come to the iSO so their customers can read on any device. Apple blocks iReader because it does not sell the content through their iOS app (even though its just a reader). So the user couldn't not even side load it through iTunes because the app will never get approved.



    I really cant see just because I want to read something on my iPad, apple should get a cut.

    Should apple get a cut of ad sales for web pages I go to in safari?
  • Reply 54 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Droo View Post




    No, I won't embrace iBooks instead. iBooks is a dog on my two-year-old ipod and has very few books. Until iBooks is comparable, Amazon has leverage.





    How will iBooks become comparable if everyone boycotts it? I don't think that your position is the popular one. People seem to love iBooks, and they will use it more and more. Generally, Apple's offerings quickly become best in class. Just look at iTunes.
  • Reply 55 of 90
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Long On Apple View Post


    Yes. I sure hope so.



    These freeloaders use Apple devices and OS to get money from Apple's customers? And they won't give Apple their fair share? Screw 'em.



    And as for the people who want to use Apple's iPad to read stuff they bought elsewhere? Use a Nook. Good luck with that.



    I think that Apple is being 100% fair to everybody here. If the customer is using Apple's stuff, then the seller gives Apple their due. If the seller thinks he can get people to use their crappy hardware instead of an iPad, then they need not pay one red cent to Apple. Easy enough.



    What I really cant wait for is when they lock Mac OS down so you can only install apps bought from the MAC app store (to stop virus's and malware of course) and then they make it so you can not view any content unless its also sold in the Mac app store. This will be GREAT!!!!!!!!!!

    I mean really they won't give Apple their fair share? Screw 'em
  • Reply 56 of 90
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by peteo View Post


    What you do not understand is if you offer a subscription/content outside of the app store you MUST offer it within the app. This is the Whole issue. So any company that sells any content outside the app store and wants the user to be able to use that content on iOS they MUST also sell the same content in the app store.



    I.E. Buy a book for iReader from my computer (they dont make hardware) . iReader wants to come to the iSO so their customers can read on any device. Apple blocks iReader because it does not sell the content through their iOS app (even though its just a reader). So the user couldn't not even side load it through iTunes because the app will never get approved.



    I really cant see just because I want to read something on my iPad, apple should get a cut.

    Should apple get a cut of ad sales for web pages I go to in safari?



    So what stops a "third party" from coming out with a reader that can read multiple formats but does not sell any content?
  • Reply 57 of 90
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by peteo View Post


    What I really cant wait for is when they lock Mac OS down so you can only install apps bought from the MAC app store (to stop virus's and malware of course) and then they make it so you can not view any content unless its also sold in the Mac app store. This will be GREAT!!!!!!!!!!

    I mean really they won't give Apple their fair share? Screw 'em



    I guess what I dont understand is why people who dont want to pay apple just work towards using the web to access thier content.



    Apple can't lock down the internet.



    If the content providers see no value in the APP STORE, then dont use the APP STORE. It's not like apple has banned the internet.
  • Reply 58 of 90
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Long On Apple View Post


    How will iBooks become comparable if everyone boycotts it? I don't think that your position is the popular one. People seem to love iBooks, and they will use it more and more. Generally, Apple's offerings quickly become best in class. Just look at iTunes.



    HAHAHAHAHA iTunes software best in class??? its a joke, the dam thing crashes all the time and is full of so much bloat it barely even runs. Im not the only one who to think the iTunes software is a price of sh*t
  • Reply 59 of 90
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    I guess what I dont understand is why people who dont want to pay apple just work towards using the web to access thier content.



    Apple can't lock down the internet.



    If the content providers see no value in the APP STORE, then dont use the APP STORE. It's not like apple has banned the internet.



    They see value in the app store, it makes it very easy to install software & remove software and purchases are easy. But 30% of all the content you sell is a joke.



    People would be FLIPPING if they did this on Mac OS. I don't see what the difference is. The iPad/iPhone is a computer.
  • Reply 60 of 90
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jcoz View Post


    So what stops a "third party" from coming out with a reader that can read multiple formats but does not sell any content?



    Nothing. Of course you would still have to side load the content.



    What I really do not understand is if I sell digital content and I want to let me users view that content with an iOS app I must now also sell that content through the app store. I just does not make sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.