Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 1, 2012, 02:27 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Financial Times Ending Support for iOS App






Last year, the Financial Times, a major business newspaper, announced it would discontinue its iOS app in favor of an HTML5 based web app. The move was in response to Apple's requirement that it get a 30% cut of any subscription sold through iTunes, as well as Apple's refusal to pass along the personal information of subscribers without their permission.

The FT's sleek HTML5 web app has been very well received. The FT said it had no difficulty driving users to the mobile app, noting that "the world outside the App Store is not cold and desperate."

Though the FT's native iOS app continued working for customers who had already downloaded it, that support will be discontinued as upgrades the FT is making over the next month will render the app unusable, according to PaidContent.
Quote:
It is taking the step because only a relative handful of users remain and because it can no longer continue to maintain features inside the app.
The HTML5 web app has been a success for the Financial Times, with mobile accounting for 12% of new paid subscriptions and 19% of FT.com web traffic.

Article Link: Financial Times Ending Support for iOS App
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 02:34 PM   #2
tempusfugit
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
30% is a pretty big finder's fee. I would have done the same.
tempusfugit is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 02:39 PM   #3
FrizzleFryBen
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by tempusfugit View Post
30% is a pretty big finder's fee. I would have done the same.
Agreed. Updating to HTML5 is a no-brainer for many subscription based content providers. Plus you don't have all the app store hurdles.
FrizzleFryBen is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 03:00 PM   #4
rikscha
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Stupid web app. I turned from FT away after they introduced it. I want the FT in my newsstand. I don't need external apps for all my subscriptions, that's what newsstand is for. Absolutely love reading the economist over the news stand app
rikscha is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 03:06 PM   #5
johncrab
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
My problem is more with the pricing policy. They wanted me to subscribe to the hardcopy daily edition and then pay another $325 per year for the electronic version. So, $700/year? The FT is good but not that good. Their rival, The Economist, took the opposite approach. Full online and app access is free with a paid print subscription and the iPhone and iPad apps totally rock. Guess which one I read and which one I dropped.
johncrab is offline   11 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 03:35 PM   #6
vebs
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncrab View Post
My problem is more with the pricing policy. They wanted me to subscribe to the hardcopy daily edition and then pay another $325 per year for the electronic version. So, $700/year? The FT is good but not that good. Their rival, The Economist, took the opposite approach. Full online and app access is free with a paid print subscription and the iPhone and iPad apps totally rock. Guess which one I read and which one I dropped.
I wouldn't say you could substitute The FT for The Economist, unless your interest in the subject matter is only in passing. Pricing does seem pretty high though.
vebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 03:44 PM   #7
Stella
macrumors 603
 
Stella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
I see this happening more often in the future when it comes to mobile native vs webapps. As webapps become more rich, with better libaries ( i.e., jQuery mobile ) the gap between native vs webapp is decreasing.

Sure, webapps aren't suitable for all type of apps and native apps will continue. But.. there are a great many applications that do work.

Creating a webapp that runs of multiple platforms is vastly cheaper than developing individual native applications.
__________________
Hardware / Software: The right tools for the job - be it Apple or otherwise.

Last edited by Stella; May 1, 2012 at 04:05 PM.
Stella is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 03:50 PM   #8
SilentLoner
macrumors 65816
 
SilentLoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
I see this happening more often in the future. As webapps become more rich, with better libaries ( i.e., jQuery mobile ) the gap between native vs webapp is decreasing.

Sure, webapps aren't suitable for all type of apps and native apps will continue. But.. there are a great many applications that do work.

Creating a webapp that runs of multiple platforms is vastly cheaper than developing individual native applications.

Yeah I have no problem with it and with the FT's readership this isn't a problem but webapps "value" will be harder to sell
SilentLoner is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 03:53 PM   #9
valvoline
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
newspaper is a special case app that suite very well to html5 transition. I suppose that many other will follow their example.
valvoline is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 04:12 PM   #10
charlieegan3
macrumors 68020
 
charlieegan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: U.K
Quote:
Originally Posted by valvoline View Post
newspaper is a special case app that suite very well to html5 transition. I suppose that many other will follow their example.
or apple will adapt (when others start to do the same)
charlieegan3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 04:37 PM   #11
smoknmirrors
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
I can't disagree with the logic of FT's decision, but as an infrequent reader, I didn't bother convert. Granted, they weren't making any money off me, but I'm no longer a reader either. I guess it remains to be seen if the cost savings of going to a single format outweigh the impact to readership.
smoknmirrors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 04:54 PM   #12
theBB
macrumors 68020
 
theBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncrab View Post
My problem is more with the pricing policy. They wanted me to subscribe to the hardcopy daily edition and then pay another $325 per year for the electronic version. So, $700/year? The FT is good but not that good. Their rival, The Economist, took the opposite approach. Full online and app access is free with a paid print subscription and the iPhone and iPad apps totally rock. Guess which one I read and which one I dropped.
FT owns half of The Economist, so they are not really rivals. However, I agree, subscription policy of The Economist is much more reader friendly and their app is much nicer than a webapp. Offline reading, audio version of every article available as a download for offline listening, ease of navigation within each issue and of course the quality of their coverage is awesome.

I just wish there was a way to search and copy/paste. There is no reason for not having search in electronic media and if the copy/paste is missing due to piracy concerns, that is exceptionally dumb, as I can copy the text of every article easily from their website.
theBB is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 05:54 PM   #13
wikus
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Planet earth.
I'd rather have ONE application on my phone that has access to all my content rather than 20 different apps for each service I want to check into.

Facebook app? It sucks (everyone knows this)
Twitter app? I can do 90% of everything via mobile broswer.
Email? I use Opera Mini.

Etc, etc, etc.
wikus is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 06:54 PM   #14
genovelle
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by tempusfugit View Post
30% is a pretty big finder's fee. I would have done the same.
We seem to forget that apple supports HTML5 and web apps were actually forced on them by the community. They prefer an ecosystem where they can focus on building great products. The 30% covers their expenses including maintaining service and credit card fees. If FT has their own customer base then this is the best move for them. Many Apple Developers benefit from the millions of consumers who would have never heard of them or their service if they were not in the Appstore. Its a simple but effective concept. Apple invest millions in advertising their store, they maintain and support it, including backups and re-downloading to many devices.

FT will now do everything themselves and the cost to match the level of service will not be cheap, but they will have access to the data on their customers they want.
genovelle is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 10:53 PM   #15
cvaldes
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: somewhere else
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post
We seem to forget that apple supports HTML5 and web apps were actually forced on them by the community.
Dead wrong.

The initial iPhone (2007) did not have native apps apart from those Apple included on the device. Apple's stance was "go visit a website with Safari."

It wasn't until the iPhone 3G and the subsequent iPhone OS release (now known as iOS) a year later that Apple offered native third-party apps.

A few years ago Apple essentially banished all Google Voice apps from the App Store. That gave rise to HTML5 apps like Riverturn's Black Swan which performed the Google Voice functionality.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikus View Post
I'd rather have ONE application on my phone that has access to all my content rather than 20 different apps for each service I want to check into.

...Email? I use Opera Mini.

Etc, etc, etc.
Actually, using a web browser for email is one of the most dangerous things you can do with your device (PC, smartphone, tablet, etc.).

Pretty much the last way you should be accessing your e-mail is to use a web browser.
cvaldes is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 11:34 PM   #16
Snowshiro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes View Post
Pretty much the last way you should be accessing your e-mail is to use a web browser.
If you're an idiot.

But speaking as someone who has regularly used Gmail since launch and Hotmail before that, and has owned a computer since 1979 without ever getting a virus or malware, I sometimes wonder why people need these kinds of warnings.
Snowshiro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2012, 11:54 PM   #17
mdriftmeyer
macrumors 68020
 
mdriftmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncrab View Post
My problem is more with the pricing policy. They wanted me to subscribe to the hardcopy daily edition and then pay another $325 per year for the electronic version. So, $700/year? The FT is good but not that good. Their rival, The Economist, took the opposite approach. Full online and app access is free with a paid print subscription and the iPhone and iPad apps totally rock. Guess which one I read and which one I dropped.
Talk about a waste of money. You can use that $700/year for something that will actually have value. If you need the FT to help you decide to invest you shouldn't be investing. Same goes with the WSJ and any other `financial' magazine.
mdriftmeyer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 12:29 AM   #18
krkt
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
Disappointed with how the HTML5 app performs

FT has great content and analysis, world news, comments and analysis sections as well as quality columnists in-house and their ability to draw in interesting players like George Soros (their A-List blog) are all reasons I subscribe to their electronic edition.

I've tried the web-based app but I'm frustrated with it as it doesn't seem to update as effectively and fully across sections. The user interface is neat, smooth and easy to read but the contents of the web version of the FT site are often not reflected in the web app. That's poor service.

With a website as clean as the FT's, why don't they just make the site fully iOS friendly and skip the app, replacing it with a simple home screen link button on iOS devices? Get the people behind to web app to show the FT's editorial board what a home button and iOS friendly site looks like.

Let the chips fall on their (excellent) content and not on some silly malfunctioning app or choice between Newsstand or freestanding web-based app. That'd be my advice to the FT's decisionmakers.
krkt is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 02:57 AM   #19
Retryc
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Devon England
Angry FT Disappointing

Not a customer friendly decision. The iOS solution is superior. Short sighted decision.
Seems Pearson is heading this way on many fronts - not customer first and foremost but great content.
__________________
TC
User of MacBookPro and sponsor of further MacBookPro and iMac
Retryc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 03:59 AM   #20
Glenny2lappies
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikscha View Post
Stupid web app. I turned from FT away after they introduced it. I want the FT in my newsstand. I don't need external apps for all my subscriptions, that's what newsstand is for. Absolutely love reading the economist over the news stand app
Then you probably understand the free market: Apple charge an awful lot for their "services" when you're talking about repeat subscriptions. Therefore the market has come up with alternatives which don't include paying "Apple tax".

It's nice to see HTML5 being used in such a way.
Glenny2lappies is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 08:10 AM   #21
Winni
macrumors 68030
 
Winni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella View Post
I see this happening more often in the future when it comes to mobile native vs webapps. As webapps become more rich, with better libaries ( i.e., jQuery mobile ) the gap between native vs webapp is decreasing.

Sure, webapps aren't suitable for all type of apps and native apps will continue. But.. there are a great many applications that do work.

Creating a webapp that runs of multiple platforms is vastly cheaper than developing individual native applications.
It's really ironic, but this is what Apple gets for championing HTML5: For many applications, the App Store becomes completely irrelevant and Apple's business model will no longer work for them.

Okay, Steve Jobs praised HTML5 so high not because he actually liked the technology, but at the time it a) did not really exist "in the wild" and b) it sounded nice as an argument to kill Flash, that evil platform that allowed for easy development of multi-platform software. In other words, he tried to use HTML5 as a clever trap to lock people into iOS.

In the meantime, some companies that were unwilling to pay Apple a 30% tax did the unthinkable: Led by Amazon (who were the first to do this), they actually began using HTM5 to write platform independent software instead of using Adobe's ecosystem for the same purpose or using Apple's own tools to write native iOS apps.

I wonder when Apple begins ranting against HTML5, now that this technology works against their tight App Store business model. And not only that, every new HTML5 app also makes their competition stronger; all other platforms also have HTML5-compatible browsers and thus do not need a vast amount of native apps.

It's the browser that matters, not the operating system and the native software for it. That already was Bill Gates' nightmare back in the day when Netscape became huge and it caused Microsoft to go on a crusade against Netscape. Now Apple faces a similar situation with HTML5 web apps.
__________________
Coming soon: http://endnacht.de.
Winni is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 09:21 AM   #22
matrix07
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenny2lappies View Post
Then you probably understand the free market: Apple charge an awful lot for their "services" when you're talking about repeat subscriptions. Therefore the market has come up with alternatives which don't include paying "Apple tax".

It's nice to see HTML5 being used in such a way.
Then you could probably understand economic: It's not the 30% cut that bother FT but the user's data which Apple won't allow them to have automatically that's the problem (despite what this article said).
__________________
13" Macbook Air 2011, iPad 2 16 GB., iPad mini 16 GB., iPhone 4 16 GB.
matrix07 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 10:20 AM   #23
manu chao
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by krkt View Post
With a website as clean as the FT's, why don't they just make the site fully iOS friendly and skip the app, replacing it with a simple home screen link button on iOS devices? Get the people behind to web app to show the FT's editorial board what a home button and iOS friendly site looks like.
A webapp is a home screen link button to a website.
manu chao is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 11:19 AM   #24
ristlin
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni View Post
It's really ironic, but this is what Apple gets for championing HTML5: For many applications, the App Store becomes completely irrelevant and Apple's business model will no longer work for them.

Okay, Steve Jobs praised HTML5 so high not because he actually liked the technology, but at the time it a) did not really exist "in the wild" and b) it sounded nice as an argument to kill Flash, that evil platform that allowed for easy development of multi-platform software. In other words, he tried to use HTML5 as a clever trap to lock people into iOS.

In the meantime, some companies that were unwilling to pay Apple a 30% tax did the unthinkable: Led by Amazon (who were the first to do this), they actually began using HTM5 to write platform independent software instead of using Adobe's ecosystem for the same purpose or using Apple's own tools to write native iOS apps.

I wonder when Apple begins ranting against HTML5, now that this technology works against their tight App Store business model. And not only that, every new HTML5 app also makes their competition stronger; all other platforms also have HTML5-compatible browsers and thus do not need a vast amount of native apps.

It's the browser that matters, not the operating system and the native software for it. That already was Bill Gates' nightmare back in the day when Netscape became huge and it caused Microsoft to go on a crusade against Netscape. Now Apple faces a similar situation with HTML5 web apps.
"This is what Apple gets for championing HTML"? WTF.

Get your facts straight, fool!

It's a zero-sum game. FT isn't on the App store, it means Apple doesn't have to spend money to maintain their "storefront." The App store was never created to make money for Apple. FT obviously saw "success" after a year. But they also spend money maintaining their "storefront." Their biggest reason for moving was user data for advertising dollars.
ristlin is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 2, 2012, 11:58 AM   #25
thisrocks
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by ristlin View Post
"This is what Apple gets for championing HTML"? WTF.

Get your facts straight, fool!

It's a zero-sum game. FT isn't on the App store, it means Apple doesn't have to spend money to maintain their "storefront." The App store was never created to make money for Apple. FT obviously saw "success" after a year. But they also spend money maintaining their "storefront." Their biggest reason for moving was user data for advertising dollars.
The website-brochure for the iPad 3 is my favourite implementation of HTML5 so far, and I can't remember having such an integrated interactive experience with Flash. In my opinion, Flash lacks any demonstrated comparative integrations of Flash elements in webpages, they still feel quite clunky in the wild.

Maybe Jobs/Apple were sold on similar prototypes that produced results that closer matched their vision than Flash. As a Data Tech company, they quite rightly have every reason to promote standards that favour them.
__________________
One day my avatar will show...at the rate of my posting, it probably won't be until it's about 10 years out of date.

Last edited by thisrocks; May 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM.
thisrocks is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Netflix Updates iOS App with HD Video and AirPlay Support MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 20 Oct 8, 2013 01:08 PM
iOS App Store now allows legacy app downloads to support older hardware and software! user-name-here iOS 6 4 Sep 17, 2013 08:18 AM
Google Ending Support for Google Catalogs on iOS and Android August 15 MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 20 Aug 1, 2013 11:50 AM
Financial Times writer says Apple should focus on devices not iOS Rogifan iOS 7 17 May 27, 2013 10:12 PM
Google ending CardDAV and CalDAV support? jason2811 iPhone 8 Mar 28, 2013 02:16 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC