Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There needs to be a generic way of doing this, free from Flash, IOS or Android executables, its just pictures and formatted text for the most part, just shows how far HTML hasn't come.
I may have misunderstood, but it's 30% of the subscription price, so if their profit margin is less than 30% then they lose money with every subscription.
It would be different if it was like 30% of their profits, but then everybody would just lie about their profits if they even chose to disclose them.
But if you do already have an online billing system for website sales, iTunes is a huge rip-off; especially if you're selling low-margin products or products that cost more than $2.
For instance, we sell $20 products online, and pay something like 30¢ + .03% per transaction, which amounts to 90¢ per $20 sale. Whereas we'd be paying Apple $6 for that sale.
Our margin on the $20 is about 15% ($3; even an all-digital product typically has overhead in terms of salaries and such, and we have per-sale third-party costs unrelated to payment processing or hosting), so with iTunes we'd be losing money on each sale unless we jack up our prices.
This was the company that was mad at Apple because Apple wouldn't let them steal their customer's private info secretly. I'm not saying the 30% isn't also a reason, but I'm wondering if it's not their main reason for doing this.
I'd be VERY nervous about signing up for any account with Financial Times. I suspect the whole 30% thing is just a cover for their real intentions.
I'd be VERY nervous about signing up for any account with Financial Times. I suspect the whole 30% thing is just a cover for their real intentions.
Just changed the user agent on my Xoom to iPad and it works fine. For this sort of content, I'd love to see HTML5 as the standard.
Cross platfom, standards compliant, available to everyone.
Cross platfom, standards compliant, available to everyone.
Why does everything have to be "appified"
I'm not sure why there has to be an application for everything. It seems like the Internet should be enough for many apps out there. I'm glad that FT Is doing this and I hope more follow. I like the idea of having a machine that I can do with what I want. I don't like one company dictating to me what I can view, limiting my choices.
I'm not sure why there has to be an application for everything. It seems like the Internet should be enough for many apps out there. I'm glad that FT Is doing this and I hope more follow. I like the idea of having a machine that I can do with what I want. I don't like one company dictating to me what I can view, limiting my choices.
Why do people forget how much Apple has benefitted from all the people building apps? I know a lot of iPhone owners (myself included) and not one wanted one until apps came about. It should be a symbiotic relationship between the platform and developers even though traditionally Apple has treated developers pretty poorly until recently.
Interesting. Good to know.
Yeah. Depends on publication. However, that's what people said about iTunes when Apple offered music. People think why would anyone want to do this. There are stores on one side and pirated content on the other side.
Apple won against free, and Apple might win again in terms of publication distribution.
I'm not quoting the exact wording, but I was reading the article in today's FT and the main reason FT was changing the app was because Apple wouldn't disclose private information about the users habits.
So by switching to their own app, FT can manage your personal information and sell it however it pleases.
This is the disturbing part of the change in app to me.
Personally, I preferred iOS when they didn't have those iAds that popped up. Sorry, I'll pay for an app that useful, don't clutter up my screen with ads.
So by switching to their own app, FT can manage your personal information and sell it however it pleases.
This is the disturbing part of the change in app to me.
Personally, I preferred iOS when they didn't have those iAds that popped up. Sorry, I'll pay for an app that useful, don't clutter up my screen with ads.
You're paying for the lead, you got the sub because they came to you from the app store. If you already get FT or send in one of those little cards, Apple does not get a cut. I don't see why people make such big deal out of this, if it wasn't for the app store, you wouldn't have a new sub, Apple should get paid for that....
Sorry, but not as well as the app...by a long shot...the app used to keep content which is NOT linked to today's edition, especially since articles are hyperlinked to other related articles.
Second: UI and overall navigation cannot be compared with the native iOS app; now it's FT trying to push its solution down our throats - I'd rather have this from Apple, which at least justifies its 30% cut through extensive back-office infrastructure instead of just subscriber-data greediness. No go, FT.
Last edited:
On the other hand, Apple have been highly successful selling profitable hardware based in part of there being an "app for that".
I don't think either way is right or wrong but I think people underestimate the huge success Apple have had based on what developers have provided to the platform.
I think it is a good thing that companies can take control of their services via HTML5 too. For the plug in powered internet to die, we need more companies to grasp and use html5 to its advantage.
see this is the bit of the argument i dont get , what are apple actively doing to sell the subcription for there cut, if there putting an ad in the app store for it or actively pushing the service then yes, but from what were seeing there gonna be doing nothing other than having a button in the app.
so the person still has to find the app in the first place which the FT in this case would be promoting themselves and will have to promote in app purchasing if they were gonna take part in it
Absolutely right. I was ALREADY a subscriber and Apple didn't get a single cent for that. Misinformation runs rampant these days, ya know...
You need to subscribe to more porn sites....
That is like an anti point. Nobody spends money on porn anymore except for their zombie apocalypse stash.
That 'math' may apply to your Men's Health subscription
, but for people who NEED professional journalism and real information, your 'math' fails.
Good Move FT
That is a good move and it show FT have to guts to do something like this - they will most likely lead the way for others...
That is a good move and it show FT have to guts to do something like this - they will most likely lead the way for others...
Actually this is a perfect example of why Apple's policy is no big deal, why whiners are just whiners, and that people still have a choice, just as they always did.
You can make your stuff available in any way and anywhere that you want.
The web is open so if you want to use the web, go ahead. If you want to be an iOS app, gotta play by the iOS rules, and so forth.
Customers aren't going to care.
You can make your stuff available in any way and anywhere that you want.
The web is open so if you want to use the web, go ahead. If you want to be an iOS app, gotta play by the iOS rules, and so forth.
Customers aren't going to care.
Why does everyone keep banging on about this? The web app downloads content into cache for offline viewing.
Strong move but it's sad to say The Financial Times will come back. As strong as they are no company can afford to lose money these days. I see them coming back. If not this year maybe next. It's so hard to fight with a company that is not just growing but dominating the market and apple is leading the way in every aspect. The saying goes, "He who has the gold rules"
