'Early preview' of Android magazine service to launch this week
Even as the first magazine publishers have taken to Apple's iTunes subscription terms, an early version of an alternative service put together by the five big publishers is set to launch on the Android Market later this week.
Next Issue Media, which has been labeled "Hulu for magazines," plans to begin offering app versions of seven magazines to Android users on Thursday, MediaMemo reports.
The service, however, is still in the "early preview" stage, as only Samsung Galaxy tablet owners on the Verizon network will be able to buy the apps at launch. The apps will be available from the Vcast application store.
Next Issue had announced plans last year to debut a service by early 2011.
Four of the consortium's five main partners will begin selling titles this week: Esquire and Popular Mechanics from Hearst; Fitness and Parents from Meredith; The New Yorker from Conde Nast; and Fortune and Time from Time Inc. The fifth partner, News Corp., doesn't publish any print magazines.
According to Next Issue CEO Morgan Guenther, magazine publishers will get "at least" as much as the 70 percent available on Apple's platform, while device-makers or carriers will split the remaining share with the consortium.
Unlike on Apple's App Store, publishers will get "full access" to subscriber information from Next Issue's apps. Apple Vice President of Internet Services Eddy Cue confirmed last week that roughly half of iPad users voluntarily share their personal information with publishers.
After Apple announced the terms of its in-app subscription service, many publishers and developers balked. Publishers particularly took issue with Apple's control of subscriber information, the company's 30 percent cut and rules that require in-app pricing to at least match deals offered outside of the app. Apple also banned links to out-of-app purchases, prompting speculation that Amazon's Kindle store would be forced to change.
In recent weeks, however, several major publishers, including Bloomberg, Condé Nast and Hearst. Time has begun offering the iPad edition of its magazines free to print subscribers, but has yet to reach an agreement to sell digital subscriptions on the iPad.
Next Issue Media, which has been labeled "Hulu for magazines," plans to begin offering app versions of seven magazines to Android users on Thursday, MediaMemo reports.
The service, however, is still in the "early preview" stage, as only Samsung Galaxy tablet owners on the Verizon network will be able to buy the apps at launch. The apps will be available from the Vcast application store.
Next Issue had announced plans last year to debut a service by early 2011.
Four of the consortium's five main partners will begin selling titles this week: Esquire and Popular Mechanics from Hearst; Fitness and Parents from Meredith; The New Yorker from Conde Nast; and Fortune and Time from Time Inc. The fifth partner, News Corp., doesn't publish any print magazines.
According to Next Issue CEO Morgan Guenther, magazine publishers will get "at least" as much as the 70 percent available on Apple's platform, while device-makers or carriers will split the remaining share with the consortium.
Unlike on Apple's App Store, publishers will get "full access" to subscriber information from Next Issue's apps. Apple Vice President of Internet Services Eddy Cue confirmed last week that roughly half of iPad users voluntarily share their personal information with publishers.
After Apple announced the terms of its in-app subscription service, many publishers and developers balked. Publishers particularly took issue with Apple's control of subscriber information, the company's 30 percent cut and rules that require in-app pricing to at least match deals offered outside of the app. Apple also banned links to out-of-app purchases, prompting speculation that Amazon's Kindle store would be forced to change.
In recent weeks, however, several major publishers, including Bloomberg, Condé Nast and Hearst. Time has begun offering the iPad edition of its magazines free to print subscribers, but has yet to reach an agreement to sell digital subscriptions on the iPad.
Comments
Don't they offer an option to opt out of info sharing ?
Dont know, but apparently it's not such a big issues in the iOS space as fully half are prepared to give up that info. As long as there's full disclosure you can choose whether or not you wish to participate in the scheme. That's the real issue, right?
Is the reason why free iPad app with print editions are offered a way to get around the 30% fee?
Will these guys be thrilled when Apple offers their own Maps and Search Services?
Seriously,
Will these guys be thrilled when Apple offers their own Maps and Search Services?
What original works has google created and kept except the original search engine and streetview. There is a lot of money in cloning. Just ask any windows box name brand.
That said, this isn't a google product from the tone of the article so let's not beat em up. It would seem fair enough that magazine owners should want to make an electronic newsstand, it is their core business after all.
What original works has google created and kept except the original search engine and streetview. There is a lot of money in cloning. Just ask any windows box name brand.
Off the top of my head there's Google Sky, Google Body, Chrome Browser, Chrome OS, Google Voice. . .
These are all Google originals as far as I know. I'm sure there's others. And in effect they "invented" the free software market. Look how effective Google Apps has been at impacting Microsoft's Office products. Throw in Google Labs and Google Ventures and I think they're quite inventive.
While Apple may have a much higher profile (and more profits!) with their incredible consumer products and well-developed software programs, Google's no slouch in creating and/or backing technological advances.
Sure they've seen products that they've felt they could do better than the original. So has every other big corporation. Apple's iPod wasn't an original idea, but they thought they could do it better than Sony and they were right. Turned out to be the product that rescued Apple financially and allowed them to do what they do today.
Off the top of my head there's Google Sky, Google Body, Chrome Browser, Chrome OS, Google Voice. . .
These are all Google originals as far as I know. I'm sure there's others. And in effect they "invented" the free software market. Look how effective Google Apps has been at impacting Microsoft's Office products. Throw in Google Labs and Google Ventures and I think they're quite inventive.
While Apple may have a much higher profile (and more profits!) with their incredible consumer products and well-developed software programs, Google's no slouch in creating and/or backing technological advances.
Sure they've seen products that they've felt they could do better than the original. So has every other big corporation. Apple's iPod wasn't an original idea, but they thought they could do it better than Sony and they were right. Turned out to be the product that rescued Apple financially and allowed them to do what they do today.
Total nonsense.
Google "invented" the free software market?
Google is as inventive than Apple?
What are you smoking?
Total nonsense.
Google "invented" the free software market?
Google is as inventive than Apple?
What are you smoking?
I never commented that Google "is as inventive" as Apple. Not sure what you were smoking this morning either.
But not saying I might not have shared some with you.
I never commented that Google "is as inventive" as Apple. Not sure what you were smoking this morning either.
But not saying I might not have shared some with you.
Come on, Google has taken the aping Apple's ideas way too far. There's one thing I'd like to see Google try and clone ... Apple Stores
I for one hope to see Apple Maps, Apple Search, Apple Speech, Apple Earth and perhaps Apple Labs soon
Off the top of my head there's Google Sky, Google Body, Chrome Browser, Chrome OS, Google Voice.
They invented Chrome -- the browser based on Apple's Webkit? They certainly didn't invent Google Voice, they bought the company (it was called Grand Central, before Google got their claws into it). I'm too lazy to google, but I bet a large portion of their other "inventions" were in fact purchased. Heck, they bought Android as well.
They invented Chrome -- the browser based on Apple's Webkit?.
Which was built on Konqueror browser’s KHTML software library. Just as surely as Apple developed and "owns" Webkit, developed and "owns" OS X, Google "owns" Chrome.
BTW, thanks for the note on Google Voice. At least one new thing learned today, so much appreciated. I had done a search for each of those programs before posting my original answer, but confused Google Voice with Google Voice Search, a Google Labs venture.
So you were right, I was wrong.
They invented Chrome -- the browser based on Apple's Webkit? They certainly didn't invent Google Voice, they bought the company (it was called Grand Central, before Google got their claws into it). I'm too lazy to google, but I bet a large portion of their other "inventions" were in fact purchased. Heck, they bought Android as well.
So what? If Apple turns out and creates a great search engine out of Siri, are you going to suggest that Apple is not being "inventive"?
One of the things I like about both companies is that they both take tremendous financial risks to push forward new ideas. Apple has done things like getting rid of disks or implementing USB. And while they may not have "invented" the free software market, Google has certainly led the way on finding ways to commercialize free software and services through advertising.
Try and imagine for a second, the world without Google. Do you remember what search engines were like back then? Do you remember anything like image search in the past? Or a news aggregator like Google News? And do you remember how limited hotmail felt? Remember the talk of charging for hotmail before Gmail came along with immensely more storage? I had actually paid for that enhanced hotmail in the past. Before Google, would anybody here have thought that a service like Google Maps could be provided to the public for free? Sure, there was mapquest. But does anybody consider that anywhere as decent and versatile as Google Maps? Privacy concerns aside, how many of you here don't think Google Streetview is pretty cool? Likewise, could anybody have imagined a company giving away access to document editing tools? Or giving away an operating system? All this with merely the hopes that you might glance at some relevant ads?
And that's just the stuff that they had clear markets for. As mentioned, what about stuff that's just a hobby to Google so to speak, like Google Sky Maps? Or Google Goggles? Or Google Translate?
And so what if they bought up companies? Great ideas can languish if they don't have capital. I'm glad there are companies out there that can and will absorb the best ideas and push them forward. Would Android and Grand Central (now Google Voice) have been anywhere as successful as they are, without the Google brand and Google resources backing them?
It's one thing to dislike Google because you're an Apple fan. And Google most certainly has their faults, that they deserve to be criticized for. But I sincerely wish that people here had at least an ounce of perspective.
It's almost Pavlovian the reaction in AI, with any story that has the words 'Google' or 'Android' in it. This story was about a bunch of media outlets launching a virtual magazine stand on Android. Yet, somehow the thread becomes about Google's apparent lack of innovation? Really?
... And in effect they (Google) "invented" the free software market...
Free software was available since the beginning of the computing days they were called Public Domain software or Freeware.
Also Google does not give you free software, even in Google Docs they get to develop a massive database of your behavior and what content you use, what language you write, what do you write about, and if you use the spreadsheet they have access to all your financials.
Google Analytics and YouTube both use persistent cookies, so Google uses your info and any data they can get their hands on to make their money.
Come on, Google has taken the aping Apple's ideas way too far. There's one thing I'd like to see Google try and clone ... Apple Stores
Why? Software companies don't need stores. They have the interwebs.
I for one hope to see Apple Maps, Apple Search, Apple Speech, Apple Earth and perhaps Apple Labs soon
Apple software may sound like a great idea. But at its core, Apple is a hardware company (which I'm sure we all agree they are the best at). At the very least, they Apple's not that great at cloud-based software services. They could build amazing software, but I sincerely doubt they'll be able to commercialize it without going the Google route.
And while die-hard Apple fans here might shell out for iMaps, iSearch, iSpeech, or iEarth, most of the public certainly won't. They didn't buy iPhones en masse when they weren't subsidized. And they most certainly won't pay for iMaps when there's a very good "free" alternative available.
The most innovative thing Apple could do is to find a way to offer these services without charging for them or infusing them with advertising. If iAds is any indication, then Apple doesn't have the magic solution figured out either. And if all these services will come with iAds infused, then Apple will be no different than Google.
For a start though, I'd like to see MobileMe be offered for free to the purchaser of any iOS or OS X product.
Which was built on Konqueror browser?s KHTML software library. Just as surely as Apple developed and "owns" Webkit, developed and "owns" OS X, Google "owns" Chrome.
BTW, thanks for the note on Google Voice. At least one new thing learned today, so much appreciated. I had done a search for each of those programs before posting my original answer, but confused Google Voice with Google Voice Search, a Google Labs venture.
So you were right, I was wrong.
I didn't say anything about Google not owning Chrome whatever that means. I said they din't invent it, which they didn't.
Google invented a spectacularly good search algorithm and an even more spectacular way to profit from it. Other than that, they have a multitude of perpetual betas and bought a bunch of companies.
Yes, Apple buys companies (far fewer than Google), and Apple benefits from various open source projects, be they BSD Unix or KHTML. They also tend to be first to the market with innovations (as opposed to inventions), some quite radical, which companies like Google and Microsoft then copy.
Really Google is fast on its way to becoming the new Microsoft -- and that's a shame. They certainly have an amazing amount of talent/brain power amongst their employees, but their business tactics and serial copying are unfortunate -- they could be a much better and ironically, equally successful company, as 99% of their profit continues to come from their original pair of inventions, if they had stuck with the don't be evil motto, and concentrated on invention/innovation instead of copy/release for free to kill an existing market (a la Microsoft vs. Netscape). More driverless cars, less Android.
Free software was available since the beginning of the computing days they were called Public Domain software or Freeware.
Also Google does not give you free software, even in Google Docs they get to develop a massive database of your behavior and what content you use, what language you write, what do you write about, and if you use the spreadsheet they have access to all your financials.
Google Analytics and YouTube both use persistent cookies, so Google uses your info and any data they can get their hands on to make their money.
And yet they are some of the most popular services in the world. Apple fans can scream all the want about Google's apparently "evil" ways. But here's the truth of the matter: nobody cares (other than the most die-hard Google haters). Heck, I'll bet 90%+ of most Apple fans still use Google's services.
People like free. And they'll risk Google knowing how much they spend on porn and dog food, if they can avoid paying for services. Talk to any university student. In many places, services like Google Docs is supplanting MS Office. It's not absolute yet. But for cash-strapped college students, an 80% solution like Google Docs at no cost, is a rather tempting offer.
If you're financials matter that much, you'll shell out for Excel or Numbers. But the reality is that for most people, the privacy concerns just aren't that big a deal. If they were, Google would not be anywhere as popular as it is now. Seriously. I actually leave on my location sharing info on my phone. I want Google to provide better traffic results to other Android users. And so what if they know that I'm a rather boring guy who spends most of his time at work or home? What are they going to do with that info? Send out black helicopters in the middle of the night to pick me up?
I've worked in the intelligence business. A field which arguably makes you extremely paranoid about personal security and privacy. And I still find that most of anti-Google nuts are more concerned than I ever will be.
I was under the impression that Android folks didn't like paying for any apps... I thought they always waited until they were free on Amazon app store, etc. isn't that why there's such a huge difference between the sales of Android and iOS software?
If you get all your news from Apple sources, that's the impression you get.
Here's a perspective from an Android user (me). I've bought apps. I've never pirated an app. The only reason I don't spend that much on apps is because
1) Until very recently the quality of apps was terrible. And I wasn't willing to pay for something I didn't like. This is changing quite quickly. And I've seen dramatic improvements in the quality of apps, as more and more apps from the iOS ecosystem gets ported over.
2) The apps I used the most was the free stuff from Google (Maps, News, Gmail, GTalk, etc.) or elsewhere (Facebook, Epicurious, Catch Notes). And I'm not one to buy an alternative app/client for these services when the official app usually works just fine for me.
3) Try and buy. Unlike iOS, if I buy something and don't like it, I can get a refund within 15 mins of trying it out. I've made use of this policy countless times. I wonder how much app sales would deflate on iOS if iOS users were given such an option.
As for this app. Nothing like it on Android till now (to my knowledge). So it should do quite well.
...Apple fans can scream all the want about Google's apparently "evil" ways. But here's the truth of the matter: nobody cares (other than the most die-hard Google haters). Heck, I'll bet 90%+ of most Apple fans still use Google's services.
People like free...
No one is screaming, and I wasn't hating on Google. I was only arguing your statement that Google invented free software, which they didn't, and that Google's software is not free to begin with because they use harness your personal data and make money off of it.
And yes, I am an Apple fan and I do use Google, not for free.
3) Try and buy. Unlike iOS, if I buy something and don't like it, I can get a refund within 15 mins of trying it out. I've made use of this policy countless times.
I wouldn't risk buying anything with return window of 15 minutes. What's wrong with a day like before?
I wonder how much app sales would deflate on iOS if iOS users were given such an option.
For me it would mean more purchase. For example I'm trying to find the right OCR app but couldn't pull the trigger because there's no trail period. 0 purchase instead of 1.
What's the big deal? Consumers win when there are multiple choices. I use some Apple products, some Microsoft and some Google, Of the three Google is the only one that sends me a check every month. (Maybe once I finish my iOS app Apple will too.)