I have no problem subscribing to the Economist on iPad. It's not an in-app purchase either. I'd rather have publishers take all the revenue rather than only making 70% of the revenue. 30% commission on magazine subscription is simply outrageous.
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.
Apple and Magazine Publishers Yet to Agree on Subscription Terms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Well that's really fair.. Agree to the same terms with Amazon and reject the same terms from Apple.
Well that's really fair.. Agree to the same terms with Amazon and reject the same terms from Apple.
Agreed. For this very reason I thought Apple's explanation on why they removed the CD from iTunes's icon. iTunes does much more than just sell mp3s. In fact, I have only purchased 1 mp3 from iTunes in my life and many TV episodes.
It's going to take much more than iTunes to save the record industry. All iTunes did was shuffle the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic in an effort to slow the sinking.
I was initially going to agree with you. But, periodicals/magazines do much more than just report "news". In fact, most of their content are "human-interest stories", editorials, or educational pieces, not breaking news. That said, I do think its kinda obsolete for all these new pieces to come out at once every week or every month. Maybe these "subscriptions" should leak their stories over the span of a month, not once a month.
This has happened to one of my friends too. They sent her a bill for $60 months after she thought she cancelled her subscription. This is one of the few instances where I have to unanimously side with Apple.
Even when you think you are paying a magazine the full revenue, there are usually third party companies that handle the marketing and sales, taking a cut. Then there is postal service taking its cut for delivering each issue. Printing is another cost. 30% cut is actually pretty good. Amazon used to take 70% before iPad was announced.
in the past the people that wrote the "human interest" stories had to work for a magazine or newspaper since there was no other way to sell your work. these days you can do it on a website and sell advertising. a lot of "human interest" or non breaking news websites/blogs out there that make a living for their authors
I sometimes wonder where all those romantic fantasies about Apple come from. Apple's has always imposed more restrictions on its customers than Microsoft, Apple has always been a huge bully, Apple is a patent troll and they always put a big price tag on their products.
Anyway, 70% of the profit go to the publisher, not Apple. Should be fair enough, in theory. But seeing that Apple has almost zero costs and does not provide that much of a service, they're asking for a LOT of money.
But the real problem for the publishers is this: Apple makes it clear to them that Apple OWNS the customers and they do not grant the publishers direct access to their subscribers. Why is Apple doing this? Simple: iAd.
If I was a publisher, I wouldn't agree to these terms either. Why would I want to provide content so that Apple gets an additional revenue stream AND can leverage MY customers for marketing and ad campaigns?
Why should Apple get away with a business model that even Microsoft never got away with?
My friend... you're watching too much Jesse Ventura.
I use to work with Publishers Clearing house and have been around publishing for over 20 years and there are no legitimate Publishers or Publishers Clearing house scamming you. In particular, Publishers Clearing House was very much above the board on their contests.... they were heavily regulated and watched.Just to set the record straight.
Agreed, Jobs knows the value of that list...he wants to make sure thet Apple Shareholders own that list...if he gives it to the News Media then the Music Business will want that info too..
Well, yes, in the past, REAL journalism also was hard work, in many cases cost intensive and required a lot of serious research and information from verified sources. Blogs, which usually just represent opinions based upon unverified information, hardly fall in that category. But then again, today's journalism doesn't either. The days of the Bob Woodwards and Carl Bernsteins are over.
Winni... Please tell us how Microsoft or Apple has imposed all these restrictions?
Also... ITS NOT THE REVENUE SHARE! They don't give a HOOT about the 30%. I guarantee you! Publishers will make more subscription money selling electronic content than they do now distributing paper rags. No doubt.
It's all about control of the customer list. That is their issue. This I have no doubt.
Uh, Apple handles all of the credit card transactions on not just app sales but in-app sales. They also provide advertising for the app and bandwidth. Not to mention delivering a captive audience ready to "pay" for content.
Your anti-Apple views are well known on the forums but are you serious here? Apple has almost zero costs? Seems to me they've spent millions building an infrastructure to deliver content and updates to the content, not to mention a billing system, programming, web design and staff to manage the business. How is that almost zero?
As for the service Apple provides them, I don't see any magazine publishers with the infrastructure to do any of the above with the exception of web design.
Tech news magazines.
By the time they get into your hands, most of the information is no longer relevant. Great for people who are "so two months ago."
ummmmm....who and where are you expecting 100Mbit speeds from!? The phone companies?
Dude, it's been a good 10 years and the most my home cable speeds have changed is from 5Mbit downstream for basic service in 2000 to 10Mbit downstream in basic service. I can now get a max of 25Mbit service if I pay through the nose with my cable company. 50Mbit is promised sometime in 2011 but I'll believe it when I see it. Also remember that it's always "up to ___Mbit".
Cell phones on the newest 4G are only clocking in at about 10Mbit downstream max...yes, that's much faster than current 3G cell phone technology.
Don't get your hopes up on seeing 100Mbit downstream ANYWHERE for normal, basic service that is abundantly available...not just NY city or Chicago for example...there are millions of others who live in other towns.
Let's not also forget about UPSTREAM...which every ISP loves to give you at 1/10th to 1/20th the DOWNSTREAM speed. My 25Mbit downstream comes with a 2Mbit upstream. Slow as a turtle in comparison when I am trying to upload 100 2MB photos or send a 6MB email to friends. You wanna push a 50MB video up to Youtube?...gonna take you awhile from even a 4G phone and possibly your home internet connection.
True dat. People like these magazine publishers should be lined up begging to get a piece of the iTunes customer base.
My friend... you're watching too much Jesse Ventura.
Just to set the record straight.
I don't buy it.
Publishers clearing house is watched and regulated now because they need to be. It wasn't always the case.
As for TWX, I recommend avoiding companies like this. If you want a magazine, go to the publisher, not a third party.
Last edited:
Hummm... I think you may have it. I agree.
Also... in fairness, Barnes and Noble, or any retailer does not have to share their customer list with everyone that buys a magazine at retail. In fairness to Apple, they created the network. They've built the "store" and it has tremendous value... like over 200 million loyal customers value.... so if I were Apple, I don't think I'd be in too much of a hurry to give over my customers to my suppliers. They don't at retail.
Then you're citing issues before federal mail fraud regulations were put in place back in the 70's. Not in any recent history.
I'm not saying their have not been scams, but scams are everywhere. Apple giving subscriber lists to publishers has nothing to do with any scam.
iAds
This has to be about iAds. If Magazines can't show advertisers who their audience is, they won't have advertisers and they'll be relegated to incorporating ad services such as iAds.
Tell me this isn't Apple's end goal. First they get a cut of the subscription sale, then they get a cut of the advertising within the end product. Without iAds integrated into the magazine, magazines will reap 100% of the ad revenue. (probably rightfully so.)
This has to be about iAds. If Magazines can't show advertisers who their audience is, they won't have advertisers and they'll be relegated to incorporating ad services such as iAds.
Tell me this isn't Apple's end goal. First they get a cut of the subscription sale, then they get a cut of the advertising within the end product. Without iAds integrated into the magazine, magazines will reap 100% of the ad revenue. (probably rightfully so.)
Everyone will be better off if third party companies are left out of the data sharing. No TWX. No Publisher's clearing house.
And publisher's clearing house was just fined again this year. Not to mention problems in the nineties for PCH that sent subscriptions plummeting for the industry. Remember the lawsuits about not actually having a one in three chance at winning?
You can say everything is all fine now. But i don't want anything to do with them. Damage done.
I have a subscription to ImagineFX magazine. As much as I love the print media (because I keep all the magazines for referencing back to workshops inside) I would much prefer a digital copy if it meant getting it the same day, actually receiving it not lost in the mail or something, don't have to worry about missing dvd or damaged pages, stored forever and can't be lost in a house fire, all mags with you all the time (with your ipad) and a biggie in the environment.
My dad always shuns off technology like an old gramps would saying oh bla bla i wouldn't want to read the newspaper on a screen. Computers are the devil bla bla bla, next day he goes and buys a mac book pro and now never uses it. He still claims that computers are the devil but is fascinated by the technology. lol. There is no running from the future when it comes to this. If I were a popular magazine company, I would really push for this because they would sell a damn lot more digital copies than they do print copies and have 100% satisfied customers. Never have to sent out replacements for lost or damaged issues. It is really win win and I don't see how these people cannot see that. Tunnel vision will always affect the greater percent of the world's population. I guess that is how nature is selecting who to keep and who not to.
My dad always shuns off technology like an old gramps would saying oh bla bla i wouldn't want to read the newspaper on a screen. Computers are the devil bla bla bla, next day he goes and buys a mac book pro and now never uses it. He still claims that computers are the devil but is fascinated by the technology. lol. There is no running from the future when it comes to this. If I were a popular magazine company, I would really push for this because they would sell a damn lot more digital copies than they do print copies and have 100% satisfied customers. Never have to sent out replacements for lost or damaged issues. It is really win win and I don't see how these people cannot see that. Tunnel vision will always affect the greater percent of the world's population. I guess that is how nature is selecting who to keep and who not to.
So, the two sides of this argument can be seen as follows;
1. Those who see the future of journalism as digital and prefer to read and save media on their computers,
and
2. Those who see the future of journalism as digital and prefer to read and save media on their computers, And want the digital media to be organized, approved, filtered and distributed by their favorite earthly god named Apple.
In other words the split here is as usual between the Apple fanboys and the other 95% of people.
1. Those who see the future of journalism as digital and prefer to read and save media on their computers,
and
2. Those who see the future of journalism as digital and prefer to read and save media on their computers, And want the digital media to be organized, approved, filtered and distributed by their favorite earthly god named Apple.
In other words the split here is as usual between the Apple fanboys and the other 95% of people.
Um...magazines aren't going anywhere. Certain kinds of magazines have been replaced by online "news" sources, but only certain kinds.
I can't see a point in subscribing to most tech mags, but things like National Geographic and Bon Appetite are doing fine, and will continue to do fine for the foreseeable future.
If you've read a feature in National Geographic lately, you know that there's nothing like it on the internet. It is old-school journalism.
It is not alone out there. Less common than before, yes, but not alone.
I think single-issue sales via the ipad make sense on a 70/30 split at something close to "SRP" pricing, like 4 dollars per issue or so, for a typical ad-supported periodical.
If the magazine companies didn't have advertising to pay for their operating costs, an issue of National Geographic would probably be 15-20 dollars. How many blogs have staff photographers, map illustrators, research analysts and fact-checkers? Every sentence in National Geographic has been read by at least a dozen people before it gets printed, each one questioning the veracity, coherency, and relevance of the information contained therein. It's real journalism. It's not cheap. A $20 subscription with a 30% cut taken off the top and a significant percentage of the customer data and ad revenue intercepted by the distributor (Apple) is not a recipe for long-term solvency from the publisher's point of view.
Steve Jobs has said that nobody reads anymore. I'm pretty sure he's trying to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy with the iPad.
I can't see a point in subscribing to most tech mags, but things like National Geographic and Bon Appetite are doing fine, and will continue to do fine for the foreseeable future.
If you've read a feature in National Geographic lately, you know that there's nothing like it on the internet. It is old-school journalism.
It is not alone out there. Less common than before, yes, but not alone.
I think single-issue sales via the ipad make sense on a 70/30 split at something close to "SRP" pricing, like 4 dollars per issue or so, for a typical ad-supported periodical.
If the magazine companies didn't have advertising to pay for their operating costs, an issue of National Geographic would probably be 15-20 dollars. How many blogs have staff photographers, map illustrators, research analysts and fact-checkers? Every sentence in National Geographic has been read by at least a dozen people before it gets printed, each one questioning the veracity, coherency, and relevance of the information contained therein. It's real journalism. It's not cheap. A $20 subscription with a 30% cut taken off the top and a significant percentage of the customer data and ad revenue intercepted by the distributor (Apple) is not a recipe for long-term solvency from the publisher's point of view.
Steve Jobs has said that nobody reads anymore. I'm pretty sure he's trying to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy with the iPad.