Financial Times Web App More Popular Than Native iOS App

[MacRumors]

The Financial Times reports its web app, launched this past June, has more readers than the version sold on the App Store, which has since been removed.

The web app has more than 700,000 readers according to Reuters. The FT chose to develop an HTML5 app rather than a native iOS app because Apple takes a 30% cut of subscription revenue made through the App Store, and refuses to hand over all the personal data on customers who subscribe to publications -- data which is worth a lot of money to publishers.

FT.com Managing Director Rob Grimshaw told Reuters that the new Web-based app was drawing more traffic than the version that was sold through the App Store.

"People who are using the app are spending much more time with the content," he said. "They are consuming about three times as many pages through the app as they are through the desktop in an average visit."

The FT's Web-based mobile app accounts for 15 percent of FT.com subscriptions and 20 percent of total FT.com page views from mobile users, Grimshaw said.

The FT said that it was having no difficulty driving users to the mobile app, saying a simple message on the top of the FT's website has successfully driven traffic to the HTML5 app. "The world outside the App Store is not cold and desperate. Discovery is no problem at all."

Article Link: Financial Times Web App More Popular Than Native iOS App

[Wildog27]

Site hits does not equal app downloads. That doesn't mean it's not impressive and doesn't have strong value to have a web app versus a native one, especially if you disagree with Apple's rules, but it's not a one-to-one comparison.

[johncrab]

I'm not buying that unless they are talking about gross hits or those who went to check out the site once. FT has some pretty creepy paywall policies which I found out with the app. Your "ten free articles per month" end up being zero. It always said I had used up my ten. Unless you subscribe to the print version at $250/yr and then to the online version for a further $350, you get nothing. Subscribing binds the user into a perpetual renewal contract unless canceled well in advance of the anniversary date at which time you lose any remaining time on the subscription. With FT being unable to count to 10, I opted for The Economist which offers free, full access with a print subscription. Those who can afford $600 per year for the FT are welcome to it.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Wildog27

Site hits does not equal app downloads. That doesn't mean it's not impressive and doesn't have strong value to have a web app versus a native one, especially if you disagree with Apple's rules, but it's not a one-to-one comparison.

Doesn't matter

"spending much more time with the content," he said. "They are consuming about three times as many pages through the app as they are through the desktop in an average visit."

Is the key part.

More time + More page views = higher advertising costs.

Advertisers love sites with longer views and increase readership.

[TraceyS/FL]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

and refuses to hand over all the personal data on customers who subscribe to publications -- data which is worth a lot of money to publishers.

Gee, this sounds like the number one reason to get all my subscriptions thru the app store. Less junk mail!!

[Laird Knox]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

The Financial Times reports its web app, launched this past June, has more readers than the version sold on the App Store, which has since been removed.

In other news, Ford outselling Pontiac which has since been discontinued.

[Consultant]

FT probably had some kind of promotion to make that happen.

In addition, what is the net gain from App Store vs. web app?

[Keebler]

well duh, not everyone owns an iphone, but there are more computers than iphones / ipads so of course there would be more hits and maybe more dloads.

[Metal Dice]

In other news, not everyone using webapps use Apple devices.

[belsokar]

The quote seems deliberately worded. If you read it carefully, nowhere does it state an apples to apples comparison. While I'm not calling BS without knowing more, I would be surprised, as most content providers I have developed for, will most of the time select a native app experience because of the stickiness of the session. This means that app users tend to use the app longer, explore more, read more, etc....

I personally think they are combining numbers, and not mentioned iPad app numbers specifically so that they can hopefully stick it to apple that they are doing just fine without them. I'm happy if they are, but something seems a bit fishy here overall...

[dhrlove]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

If cloud computing is the future, then web apps are the futer as well.

[accessoriesguy]

The web makes news very very affordable now a days.

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Ashton kutcher has more twitter followers than his great grandpa too.

[byke]

Wonder if other news papers will follow suit? Such as the times.

[Elturco]

I am a paid FT subscriber..i love the native appp. But FT has been agressively pushing all the users to switch to the webapp to avoid paying future revenues to Apple. The main issue is that webapp is cache dependent. If you like to keep logged in, you cannot register your cookies etc. once you do so, you need to relog in with the webapp version. IOS 5 is coming with a private browse function that is clearing cache often, Which will force webapp users to relog in eachtime they use the webapp given they ios' private browse option is on.

Main reason FT webapp is more popular is only due to FTs aggressive force on native app users each time they use the app. It bugs to hell out of me to be promted that there is a webapp for FT, 5 times a day.

[run76]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well I actually canceled my subscription because they were pushing this web app idea so hard. I take the train to work every day where I only have a very slow to partly non-existent Internet connection. So I used to download the ft before leaving and read it on the train. Not possible anymore. Thanks FT. And I am sure I ain't the only one who feels that way.

[teme]

Native iOS app would be better of course, but I agree with publishers that Apple's 30% cut is too much, and I support publishers on this. And by the way, usually publishers have received personal info from subscribers, so why suddenly everyone is against it?

[shotts56]

Originally Posted by run76

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well I actually canceled my subscription because they were pushing this web app idea so hard. I take the train to work every day where I only have a very slow to partly non-existent Internet connection. So I used to download the ft before leaving and read it on the train. Not possible anymore. Thanks FT. And I am sure I ain't the only one who feels that way.

It is still possible, the web app downloads in exactly the same way for offline reading. That's exactly what I do before getting on a train or plane.

I was sceptical about the web app when they first announced it, but I think it's works excellently and kudos to them producing something so seamless out with the app store.

[brilliantthings]

Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (iPhone; Opera Mini/6.1.15738/25.872; U; en) Presto/2.5.25 Version/10.54)

I find it really irritating that they dont sell single issues on the web app. You can buy them in a Kindle, but not on a Kindle iOS app.

I wrote to FT about this. Theyre pretty smug and happy that you either subscribe or you dont read FT. I think the best way to get new regular subscribers is to let them buy single issues. I told them that - they didnt seem to care.

I used to buy single issues of the paper editions. Theyve lost me now though.

[kiljoy616]

So how many here need Financial news at the level of FT?