PDA

View Full Version : New York Times Offers In-App Subscriptions




MacRumors
Jul 1, 2011, 12:28 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/new-york-times-offers-in-app-subscriptions/)


The New York Times has begun offering (http://www.macstories.net/news/the-new-york-times-enables-in-app-subscriptions-for-their-ipad-and-iphone-apps/) digital subscriptions via Apple's in-app subscription (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/15/apple-debuts-app-store-subscriptions/) feature. The subscription offering puts the Times app in compliance with Apple's revised in-app subscription (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/09/apple-reverses-course-on-in-app-subscriptions/) guidelines. The Times rolled out its digital subscription offerings (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/17/the-new-york-times-announces-digital-access-with-in-app-subscriptions/) earlier this year, but they couldn't be purchased directly in an app until today.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/NY4-500x375.png

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/NY4.png)
The Times is now the highest profile app to work with Apple's requirements surrounding subscriptions. Current NYT subscribers can login and access their content, and non-subscribers can quickly sign up using their iTunes accounts.

For new users signing up through the app, the Times is charging $14.99/month for NYTimes.com + iPhone App access, $19.99 for website + iPad, and $34.99/month for website + iPhone + iPad. Apple will receive a 30% cut of these subscriptions.

These prices are similar to those offered via the Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.html), though NYTimes.com offers a $0.99 promotional price for the first month. In-App subscribers will receive a week-long subscription for free if they share their name, email address and ZIP code with the Times.

Article Link: New York Times Offers In-App Subscriptions (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/new-york-times-offers-in-app-subscriptions/)



Chaos215bar2
Jul 1, 2011, 12:37 PM
So they want me to pay 75% more if I happen to have an iPhone and iPad and want to use my subscription on both?! How can they possibly justify charging as much as the iPhone + web subscription just to add iPhone access to the iPad + web subscription?

marksman
Jul 1, 2011, 12:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Someone gets it. There is significant vale to the iOS ecosystem for most publications. More will get it as time goes on. Being able to sell subs right away to a dedicated iOS userbase is worth the price.

Fuchal
Jul 1, 2011, 12:40 PM
$15 additional to access on your iPhone? What a crock

wordoflife
Jul 1, 2011, 12:42 PM
Too bad they started charging for access. It was nice while it was free. I would still read the NYT, but I'm already paying for the WSJ, which I like a bit better.

aawil
Jul 1, 2011, 12:49 PM
Pretty difficult to justify spending that much every month for news I can get somewhere else for free.

rdowns
Jul 1, 2011, 12:55 PM
I guess the NY Times found out the hard way that 70% of something is way better than 100% of nothing.

pksteffen
Jul 1, 2011, 12:56 PM
I love the NYtimes but the content is still not easy to sift through - it based on the old newspaper model. For example, I want to look at ART alone but have to sift through design etc. to find. Newspaper is actually easier to read. Plus it just costs too much. We are used to paying max $9.99 for apps etc. on iOS. I see that as being their biggest hurdle. For what it is worth, I think the only way this and other news organizations can make it work is by volume. Sell lots of it and very cheaply...

Lennholm
Jul 1, 2011, 01:07 PM
So they want me to pay 75% more if I happen to have an iPhone and iPad and want to use my subscription on both?! How can they possibly justify charging as much as the iPhone + web subscription just to add iPhone access to the iPad + web subscription?

$15 additional to access on your iPhone? What a crock

Blame Apple for that, their rediculous transaction fee of 30% is what created these prices.

Porchland
Jul 1, 2011, 01:11 PM
$15 additional to access on your iPhone? What a crock

On my iPhone, I prefer the mobile.nytimes.com site to the iPhone app because the app is so slow to update.

PDE
Jul 1, 2011, 01:17 PM
I don't get the NYT pricing. I mean, they could go after a huge market and yet they choose to overprice and limit themselves to a small, but affluent market.

By contrast, I subscribe to the UK's Guardian app for 4 pounds/year and get superb content. Of course, the Guardian still has a free website too.

Crazy to make customers pay for each device they access information on. Why not just limit how many devices you can use at any given time? Well, actually we know why: because they want more money.

I used to read the NYT daily, but because of this I've pretty much stopped.

cozmot
Jul 1, 2011, 01:26 PM
Blame Apple for that, their rediculous transaction fee of 30% is what created these prices.

You're incorrect. This pricing plan was in effect before this. Do your research before making claims like this. Take a look: http://bit.ly/iWwDJo

KALLT
Jul 1, 2011, 01:34 PM
I think that the NYT could do much better. A subscription of the paper version of the IHT costs in Europe at around 35 per month and includes website access. I would have to pay the same amount just to get access on an iPhone and iPad. I do not understand why they just don't offer one reasonable, flat price for any online content, regardless from which device I read it.

The iPhone app of the Guardian, for example, offers a 6-months subscription for just 3,99. There is no iPad version yet, but the price for the iPhone subscription alone speaks for itself. The price does not have to be that low, but certainly not too high either.

cozmot
Jul 1, 2011, 01:35 PM
The App store issue aside, the Times' pricing scheme, unveiled this spring, is delusional. You will pay more to access the paper's content on your browser, iPad and iPhone than getting a daily paper subscription. Check out the comparison chart at http://read.bi/mJnnDZ. It is this, and not Apple getting a slice of the pie that will make them fail. There aren't enough fools out there to pay these ridiculous prices to sustain the model.

I would have gladly subscribed to a more reasonable pricing scheme, but the Time's has shown that just like most of the old news media, they've got their heads stuck in the past.

Xtremehkr
Jul 1, 2011, 01:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

To purchase the paper edition of the NYT's in Arizona would cost $5 a day. $15 a month for iPhone and computer access is not a bad deal.

The NYTs are a business and can't be expected to give away their product for free.

Lennholm
Jul 1, 2011, 01:39 PM
You're incorrect. This pricing plan was in effect before this. Do your research before making claims like this. Take a look: http://bit.ly/iWwDJo

Before what? Before Apple introduced in-app subscriptions with the 30% toll? Not if the date in the image you asked me to take a look at is any indication.

kiljoy616
Jul 1, 2011, 01:39 PM
So they want me to pay 75% more if I happen to have an iPhone and iPad and want to use my subscription on both?! How can they possibly justify charging as much as the iPhone + web subscription just to add iPhone access to the iPad + web subscription?

No one said you have to get it, but the prices are in par and if it keeps something as valuable as the NY Times afloat I am all for it. :cool:

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 01:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Someone gets it. There is significant vale to the iOS ecosystem for most publications. More will get it as time goes on. Being able to sell subs right away to a dedicated iOS userbase is worth the price.

Agreed. Again the 70% of something wins out over the 100% of nothing. Good business.

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 01:42 PM
$15 additional to access on your iPhone? What a crock

NYT is $20 on Kindle (and from what I understand it's not the whole paper). So the pricing seems to have something to do with size of device, who knows. In iOS for $20 you get web + iPad. Seems like the iOS deal is better.

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 01:45 PM
I guess the NY Times found out the hard way that 70% of something is way better than 100% of nothing.

Oop! Just saw you beat me to this. Hats off.

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 01:48 PM
You're incorrect. This pricing plan was in effect before this. Do your research before making claims like this. Take a look: http://bit.ly/iWwDJo

Good point, agreed. I appreciate you trying to make people understand. But don't worry there are tons of people who think the 30% should have never been there, Apple should not make any money of other people's sales, and should run the whole infrastructure for free.

Scott6666
Jul 1, 2011, 01:58 PM
I like the Times and read the free Top News page daily. But there is NO way I'd pay $35 a month for it and I won't pay to just get an iPad/web version.

If they had saner pricing like maybe up to $20 a month for all I might. For $10 a month it would be an easy decision to say yes.

I would think that their market is tiny at $20/$35 a month. They'd make a lot more money with the quantity they'd get with more reasonable pricing.

Lennholm
Jul 1, 2011, 02:05 PM
Good point, agreed. I appreciate you trying to make people understand. But don't worry there are tons of people who think the 30% should have never been there, Apple should not make any money of other people's sales, and should run the whole infrastructure for free.

The only part of Apple's infrastructure that is used for subscriptions is the payment processing, and that is certainly not worth more than a 5% cut, which is in the area of what other payment processing services charge.
The other parts of Apple's infrastructure, the hosting and delivery of apps to customers, is covered by the developers yearly license and the 30% cut of the price of the app, nothing wrong with Apple charging 30% when the infrastructure IS ACTUALLY USED.

cozmot
Jul 1, 2011, 02:07 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

To purchase the paper edition of the NYT's in Arizona would cost $5 a day. $15 a month for iPhone and computer access is not a bad deal.

The NYTs are a business and can't be expected to give away their product for free.

You're quoting a New York Times subscription in Arizona to make your point, which is only by mail? The NYT is not a national newspaper; of course the digital subscription in this case is better. Why not cite the daily price for Juneau, Alaska, to make an even better case?

The fact is, if you live in New York City, you pay more for a total digital subscription (browser, iPhone and iPad), than you do for a paper delivery subscription. You don't have to be an economist to figure out that distribution costs for a hard copy newspaper is more than for digital content.

Nobody is saying the Times has to give it away for free. But to your point about their being a business, overpricing their product is not a smart business decision either. If the Times wants to use a subscription model, it can't succeed by an Old World model -- "Other" World may be a better description -- but has to have an adaptive one.

cozmot
Jul 1, 2011, 02:12 PM
Good point, agreed. I appreciate you trying to make people understand. But don't worry there are tons of people who think the 30% should have never been there, Apple should not make any money of other people's sales, and should run the whole infrastructure for free.

Oh, I'm in agreement with your point. Apple's take of 30% is ridiculous.

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 02:22 PM
The only part of Apple's infrastructure that is used for subscriptions is the payment processing, and that is certainly not worth more than a 5% cut, which is in the area of what other payment processing services charge.
The other parts of Apple's infrastructure, the hosting and delivery of apps to customers, is covered by the developers yearly license and the 30% cut of the price of the app, nothing wrong with Apple charging 30% when the infrastructure IS ACTUALLY USED.

Dude, I understand you have a different point of view. We're having the same discussion we had in the Amazon Kindle thread. I really don't want to go all over it again. Fine disagree. That's cool.

But clearly the NYT (and soon most all others) think 30% for subs is fine. They see it Apple's way - Apple should get 30% of all (types still to be clearly defined) transactions that happen due to them and in the context of their device. Sure the 30% might change. But all business see that paying a % to make all this new money they would not be able to may otherwise, is worth it. That's business. You can disagree, if you want. But in the end whatever the percent, all the money Apple makes is to support the infrastructure (app store, marketing, advertising, all the other tech and logistics). There's really no difference.

InfernoShade
Jul 1, 2011, 02:25 PM
Oh, I'm in agreement with your point. Apple's take of 30% is ridiculous.

Haha, well played man. :)

But no one with business understanding thinks that. Hell, every app store does this. Google/Android does it too. And all the devs think it makes sense, that they should pay a percent. I've never heard devs ever say they should not have to pay a percent. Ever. It's all the other people, without biz sense, that say it.

Anyway good luck to ya!

ChrisSD
Jul 1, 2011, 02:30 PM
Haha. Oh NYT, you're so funny with your $20 a month price point to read news that can be found elsewhere. You can stop with the trolling now. You're not that special.

X-GI-Joe
Jul 1, 2011, 02:38 PM
What would really be worth something is the NYT on AppleTV. Then I could leisurely read the paper without eye strain or stress from my comfy chair, the same place I would read the hard copy if it wasn't such a strain on my eyes, wallet, trip to driveway, missed issues, etc.

An Apple TV version: Now that would be worth paying for, all 46" of it!:cool:

cozmot
Jul 1, 2011, 02:39 PM
Before what? Before Apple introduced in-app subscriptions with the 30% toll? Not if the date in the image you asked me to take a look at is any indication.

The Times had its digital subscription plan in the works long before Apple announced its in-apps subscription policy. The above story states, "These prices are similar to those offered via the Times website, though NYTimes.com offers a $0.99 promotional price for the first month." The Times' website breaks down pricing for website, smartphone and tablet access.

writingdevil
Jul 1, 2011, 02:58 PM
... But in the end whatever the percent, all the money Apple makes is to support the infrastructure (app store, marketing, advertising, all the other tech and logistics).

The App Store is, at best, a bit above break even, and some business geniuses want it to take a loss on the operation so other companies with products can make a profit?

If an entrepreneur has a competitive idea, then fire up your creativity and go for it, but don't expect a thriving enterprise to fund your start up. Kickstarter is already doing that letting people vote with their dollar about what they want to see developed and rewarding those who the public puts money, not words, in.

Seems like the "why are they taking 30%" crowd is still limping along holding their pitards high (as high as they can get them). The NYT pricing isn't about Apple. Please explain how Apple causes NYT to add on charges for using additional hardware to view the same product, a product which now has a potential audience of millions more who were never buying the hard copy. How much more do you think it costs them to let you view it on your ipad in addition to your iphone? Maybe a better understanding of successful business strategy would be of value.

kjw22x
Jul 1, 2011, 03:37 PM
The 0.99 promo is for the first four weeks, NOT the first month. And they charge your card well in advance of the 4 week period expiring, so you really have to cancel about 2.5 weeks after subscribing to avoid being charged the ridiculous prices. I only discovered this from going through my credit card statement and realizing that I was charged despite canceling several days before I was due to be billed. I have called support several times, and despite their apologies, I have received no refund, so I have had to dispute the charge.

Lennholm
Jul 1, 2011, 03:44 PM
The App Store is, at best, a bit above break even, and some business geniuses want it to take a loss on the operation so other companies with products can make a profit?

If an entrepreneur has a competitive idea, then fire up your creativity and go for it, but don't expect a thriving enterprise to fund your start up. Kickstarter is already doing that letting people vote with their dollar about what they want to see developed and rewarding those who the public puts money, not words, in.

Seems like the "why are they taking 30%" crowd is still limping along holding their pitards high (as high as they can get them). The NYT pricing isn't about Apple. Please explain how Apple causes NYT to add on charges for using additional hardware to view the same product, a product which now has a potential audience of millions more who were never buying the hard copy. How much more do you think it costs them to let you view it on your ipad in addition to your iphone? Maybe a better understanding of successful business strategy would be of value.

Do you have any source to back up your claim that the app store is at best just over break even? Seeing the popularity of it and numbers of developers I think it's more likely that it's a HUGE revenue source for Apple. If the App store is not making profit, Apple should charge more for when the developers use it, when they get their developers license and ask Apple to host and deliver their app (this doesn't include subscriptions and in-app purchases, obviously)

Lennholm
Jul 1, 2011, 03:47 PM
Dude, I understand you have a different point of view. We're having the same discussion we had in the Amazon Kindle thread. I really don't want to go all over it again. Fine disagree. That's cool.

But clearly the NYT (and soon most all others) think 30% for subs is fine. They see it Apple's way - Apple should get 30% of all (types still to be clearly defined) transactions that happen due to them and in the context of their device. Sure the 30% might change. But all business see that paying a % to make all this new money they would not be able to may otherwise, is worth it. That's business. You can disagree, if you want. But in the end whatever the percent, all the money Apple makes is to support the infrastructure (app store, marketing, advertising, all the other tech and logistics). There's really no difference.

So, you've moved from being condecending to people and caliming they have no understanding of business to acknowledging that it's simply a difference of oppinion. Thank you! I'm done with you.

Chaos215bar2
Jul 1, 2011, 03:48 PM
Blame Apple for that, their rediculous transaction fee of 30% is what created these prices.

Blame Apple for the NY Times charging more (by $0.01) for added iPhone access than for iPhone + web access alone? The NY Times has every right to charge an extra 30% for in-app purchases, but their pricing structure just doesn't make any sense.

It's as if they're saying content in the iPhone app is costing you $15 and they're just throwing in the web access to go with it. Shouldn't it be the reverse? I thought the New York Times was in the business of selling news, not news reader apps.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 1, 2011, 04:05 PM
Dude, I understand you have a different point of view. We're having the same discussion we had in the Amazon Kindle thread. I really don't want to go all over it again. Fine disagree. That's cool.

But clearly the NYT (and soon most all others) think 30% for subs is fine. They see it Apple's way - Apple should get 30% of all (types still to be clearly defined) transactions that happen due to them and in the context of their device. Sure the 30% might change. But all business see that paying a % to make all this new money they would not be able to may otherwise, is worth it. That's business. You can disagree, if you want. But in the end whatever the percent, all the money Apple makes is to support the infrastructure (app store, marketing, advertising, all the other tech and logistics). There's really no difference.

They could also be playing the game thinking that Amazon will force Apple to back down and drop back so they are taking a short term hit to keep subscribers but if things do not change in the next few months they could easily pull the service to be able to subscribe in the App.

caddisfly
Jul 1, 2011, 08:46 PM
Oh, I'm in agreement with your point. Apple's take of 30% is ridiculous.

it might be ridiculous, except in my case, NYT has been totally incapable of processing subscription payments via paypal. I have tried for months.

First, it was some lame "paypal rejects it because it is only 99 cents"....well, no. My paypal account has no problem with my 69/99 cent itunes purchases and has never had a problem for YEARS.

Second, "oh, it was your bank that rejected the paypal payment because it was only 99 cents".....well no, for the same reason. It is the same account I use for itunes *and* I asked the VP of my bank who saw no rejections on my account and the bank has no lower limits on a debit card type of transaction.

third...then NYT sends me a special offer via email but when you click "paypal" option, the NYT site NEVER REDIRECTS TO THE PAYPAL SITE to allow you to login and confirm payment. Instead, it just says the subscription is active...allows access for 1 or 2 days and then cancels it because of lack of payment from paypal.....which, of course, NYT never went to to complete the transaction.

I spent many an hour and email telling is to their help desk to no avail. Sent them screen shot after screen capture, but it was like talking to a clod of dirt...and a different one each time. I tried it on 5 machines, 4 networks, 5 different browsers and three different OS...same result.

I finally gave up....even when you wanted to be on their side and support what they were doing, they couldn't pull off what thousands of mom and pop websites pull off every day.

...but yet they offered to take my credit card....and I should feel comfortable about that, why?

Gasu E.
Jul 1, 2011, 09:52 PM
You're incorrect. This pricing plan was in effect before this. Do your research before making claims like this. Take a look: http://bit.ly/iWwDJo

That's a very illogical observation. The Times was well aware of Apple's policies when they announced their pricing 3 months ago. Apple's charges were incorporated into the Times' pricing model.

mward333
Jul 2, 2011, 07:39 AM
I posted a similar message in another thread when the same discussion about the NY Times. Here's a much less expensive solution for everyone who still wants ALL of the unlimited access.

Order the large print edition of the NY Times. It comes once a week and costs $1.65 per week. I believe that this is the very, very least expensive way to get a print subscription to the NY Times.

It comes with---FREE---the new all digital access, including the nytimes.com and the smartphone and tablet subscriptions, ALL with unlimited content.

I've called the NY Times a couple times during the last year, and they stay committed to offering this plan. You have to call them directly to get this service, but it's easy and very inexpensive if you want all of the digital content. Their phone is:
1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637)

It's just that not many people know about this method because they don't advertise it broadly. I've done it for 5 years, and I continue to get all the digital content, even for smartphone and for tablet. Other people can get this deal too. It works under the new digital vs print structure they introduced earlier this year.

I believe it's the very, very, very cheapest way to go. We've done this since 2006 and will continue to do it now, since it provides a solution to the subscription troubles discussed here.

cozmot
Jul 2, 2011, 07:41 AM
...but yet they offered to take my credit card....and I should feel comfortable about that, why? No, you're not supposed to be comfortable about that. It's okay.

cozmot
Jul 2, 2011, 07:55 AM
That's a very illogical observation. The Times was well aware of Apple's policies when they announced their pricing 3 months ago. Apple's charges were incorporated into the Times' pricing model.
I don't know that the Times and the WSJ knew that Apple was going to treat subscriptions this way, but even if they did, you can't blame Apple for their pricing. The Times' digital subscription rates are essentially the same across smartphone and tablet platforms, i.e., on Androids and Xooms too.

Even if you factor in Apple's 30%, the Times' pricing scheme is illogical. They won't even sell you a subscription to NYTimes.com by itself; they force you to bundle it with your smartphone. So why wouldn't they try to get you to use the website subscription alone, instead of cutting Apple in?

b0blndsy
Jul 2, 2011, 10:06 AM
Good point, agreed. I appreciate you trying to make people understand. But don't worry there are tons of people who think the 30% should have never been there, Apple should not make any money of other people's sales, and should run the whole infrastructure for free.

Maybe Steve Jobs will disagree on this.

bsolar
Jul 2, 2011, 06:48 PM
But clearly the NYT (and soon most all others) think 30% for subs is fine. They see it Apple's way - Apple should get 30% of all (types still to be clearly defined) transactions that happen due to them and in the context of their device. Sure the 30% might change. But all business see that paying a % to make all this new money they would not be able to may otherwise, is worth it.

Which "all business"? As far as I understand many other business see it in a completely different way and are not going to adopt Apple's IAP at all. The NYT App is the biggest one which adopted it until now, and to be honest they have such ridiculously inflated prices in the first place that I might understand why the 30% fee is ok for them...

Other business don't have such margins, so most likely either they would sale at loss or would need to increase the prices (overall, due to the same-price rule) to take the 30% fee and still turn a profit.

There is nothing unreasonable about Apple taking a fee for processing payments on their platform. Typical fees for this kind of service are around 2%. With that pricing it would most likely work.

marksman
Jul 2, 2011, 10:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Anyone who thinks the only value apple provides is cc processing should stop posting on the Internet. Even on that single issue you are wrong as there are more costs with accepting and processing credit cards than just the bank fees.

This does explain why so many small businesses fail. The average consumer has a completely crazy lack of understanding of how even the most
basic businesses work. The biggest
failure is a major gap in not knowing
and understanding the number and
variety of expenses any businness has.
The other is not understanding where the value is in a given product or service.

Do any of you who keep mindlessly parroting that the 30% fee is outrageous have any practical experience in owning or even just managing / running a business of any kind? Since the answer is no does it ever cross your mind, even fleetingly, that you might hold a high level of ignorance on the subject matter and discuss accordingly? There are lots of things I dont know or understand but at least I am willing to stipulate to that when discussing something. One area where I am not ignorant in , though, is owning, running and managing businesses. If all you can contribute is 30% is too much or they are just processing credit cards can you at least caveat those things by saying "I don't have any experience or in depth knowledge here but I think..."

bsolar
Jul 3, 2011, 09:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Anyone who thinks the only value apple provides is cc processing should stop posting on the Internet. Even on that single issue you are wrong as there are more costs with accepting and processing credit cards than just the bank fees.


Apple with their IAP is technically just processing payments, it's obvious its cost gets compared to similar offers from other companies. I don't care about their internal costs, I only care that there are other companies able to process my payments for much lower fees than Apple (when they actually are not barred from competing).

Apple claims iOS is providing added-value to the apps, since being in iOS is providing the opportunity for the sale to happen in the first place. This is something I agree with, but Apple cannot forget that also the apps do provide added-value to iOS.

I'll talk about my case, I have bought an iOS device because the Kindle App was available for it, not the other way around. With the Kindle App not available in iOS I would have bought exactly the same number of eBooks, but Apple would have sold an iPhone less and I'd have most likely got some Android device instead. So who is exactly boosting the sales of who? Even Apple leverages the availability of apps in their ads to sell more iOS devices.

This does explain why so many small businesses fail. The average consumer has a completely crazy lack of understanding of how even the most
basic businesses work. The biggest
failure is a major gap in not knowing
and understanding the number and
variety of expenses any businness has.
The other is not understanding where the value is in a given product or service.

Do any of you who keep mindlessly parroting that the 30% fee is outrageous have any practical experience in owning or even just managing / running a business of any kind? Since the answer is no does it ever cross your mind, even fleetingly, that you might hold a high level of ignorance on the subject matter and discuss accordingly? There are lots of things I dont know or understand but at least I am willing to stipulate to that when discussing something. One area where I am not ignorant in , though, is owning, running and managing businesses. If all you can contribute is 30% is too much or they are just processing credit cards can you at least caveat those things by saying "I don't have any experience or in depth knowledge here but I think..."
I don't consider my opinion to be the only and holy truth, it's obvious that what I think can be completely wrong, but this is true no matter who you are or what your experience is, that's why you should take into account every opinion no matter who happens to be voicing it and only judge the actual content.

In any case it's not like only we "average customers without a clue" argue that 30% is too much. Many third-parties basically vouched the same complaints with the fee with basically the same arguments. Many of these are surely not "failing small businesses" handled by people "ignorant in the matter" and if they consider this 30% unreasonable probably it's not because they are stupid.

In any case, the market is already deciding the issue. If companies think having Apple's IAP is worth the 30% fee they will "buy" it. From what I see until now it was not such a huge succes as Apple hoped for, but time will tell.

mustnotsleep
Jul 3, 2011, 01:34 PM
Just use realclearpolitics and link into their articles for free. Most NYT articles are just Paul Krugman telling you that you are evil if you dont want higher taxes. They went from the nr1 newspaper in America to a Democratic party advertisement. They definitely dont deserve anywhere close to that kind of money.

AppleZilla
Jul 4, 2011, 11:39 AM
I am not the kind of person that complains that an App is 1.99 instead of .99 or free. I'm really not.

I would really like to subscribe, but it is so damn expensive. $34.99? I would take that package in a heartbeat for $14.99.

AppleZilla
Jul 4, 2011, 11:42 AM
Just use realclearpolitics and link into their articles for free. Most NYT articles are just Paul Krugman telling you that you are evil if you dont want higher taxes. They went from the nr1 newspaper in America to a Democratic party advertisement. They definitely dont deserve anywhere close to that kind of money.

Taxes are lower than they were under President Bush and lower than they've been for 60 years. If the current administration wants to increase taxes on the rich to get us out of this leftover mess, then fine by me.

And public opinion polls are strongly in favor of this action.

mustnotsleep
Jul 5, 2011, 09:38 AM
Taxes are lower than they were under President Bush and lower than they've been for 60 years. If the current administration wants to increase taxes on the rich to get us out of this leftover mess, then fine by me.

And public opinion polls are strongly in favor of this action.

No, its really not. I read politics and polls every day so your baseless claims are meaningless without proof. And your knowledge of history is meager at best. During WW2, FDR made taxes over some amount (I think $30k, but it may have been as high as $45k) 100% and this tax rate stuck around for decades. Meaning any amount made over that was taken completely by the feds. To say that taxes are lower than 100% is a pretty lame excuse for saying they are low now. It is obvious you know nothing about politics or US history and so you might as well stop now before you keep embarassing yourself. Or just keep reading Krugman, either way stop debating others who are not nearly as ignorant as you are.

ILikeTurtles
Jul 5, 2011, 10:38 AM
$34.99 a month for the NYT!

OMFG - That's obscene.

DiamondMac
Jul 5, 2011, 02:25 PM
No, its really not. I read politics and polls every day so your baseless claims are meaningless without proof.

So, you say that because he doesn't offer proof...it is invalid...then claim he is wrong with some vauge, over-reaching statement about "some amount" during FDR times that you aren't really sure about?

Do I have that right?

And even if he is wrong and what you are saying is right, the idea that suddenly there is one period of lower taxes....I mean, where exactly is the "gotcha" part to that?

"I got you! You aren't paying the lowest ever! You are paying the 2nd lowest ever! HAHAHAHA"

I mean, really?

Sparky9292
Jul 5, 2011, 11:45 PM
I posted a similar message in another thread when the same discussion about the NY Times. Here's a much less expensive solution for everyone who still wants ALL of the unlimited access.

Order the large print edition of the NY Times. It comes once a week and costs $1.65 per week. I believe that this is the very, very least expensive way to get a print subscription to the NY Times.

It comes with---FREE---the new all digital access, including the nytimes.com and the smartphone and tablet subscriptions, ALL with unlimited content.

I've called the NY Times a couple times during the last year, and they stay committed to offering this plan. You have to call them directly to get this service, but it's easy and very inexpensive if you want all of the digital content. Their phone is:
1-800-NYTIMES (1-800-698-4637)

It's just that not many people know about this method because they don't advertise it broadly. I've done it for 5 years, and I continue to get all the digital content, even for smartphone and for tablet. Other people can get this deal too. It works under the new digital vs print structure they introduced earlier this year.

I believe it's the very, very, very cheapest way to go. We've done this since 2006 and will continue to do it now, since it provides a solution to the subscription troubles discussed here.

Good tip.

Here's the other wierd and stupid thing:

You can go to their website and subscribe to a Sunday print version for $7.50 per week which is $30 per month and get full digital access.

As a home delivery subscriber, you get our All Digital Access package free.

That includes the iPhone and iPad NYTimes app. They say in fine print that the e-Reader editions are not included.. I guess that is a PDF?..

So it's cheaper to get the print edition if you want it on the Ipad/iPHone.

Am I wrong?:confused:

Oh by the way, when you look this up, the prices are 50% lower for the first three months.. mine here are the normal price...

leatherlaptop
Jul 11, 2011, 02:16 AM
So they want me to pay 75% more if I happen to have an iPhone and iPad and want to use my subscription on both?! How can they possibly justify charging as much as the iPhone

more details check:www.google.com

Leather Laptop Bag (http://www.sbuckinghams.com/categories/Bags/Laptop-Bags/), Designer Laptop Bags
(http://www.sbuckinghams.com/categories/Bags/Laptop-Bags/)