Apple and Magazine Publishers Yet to Agree on Subscription Terms

[acslater017]

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)

They obviously did not see how iTunes helped the music industry.

Yes and no. The music industry was in a bad place when iTunes came along, so yes they helped them to revive their business model. On the other hand, iTunes/Apple became the gatekeeper for a significant majority of their digital sales for years to come. It's never ideal to put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak (especially a basket that takes a 30% cut).

 

[mattspeed3]

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.

Agreed - Apple is providing next to nothing in the transaction.

 

[j_holtslander]

I am 38 y/o. I have had 1 magazine subscription in my entire life (PC Gamer)
I cancelled it after 2 months when I realized they were being delivered weeks after the magazine had already hit stores shelves. (I'm in Canada)

I've spent a FORTUNE on magazines in my life but have stopped buying magazines completely now.

1. I totalled up the cost of back issues of magazines I have on my bookshelves and nearly had a heart attack.
2. I can't get good prices on magazines (subscriptions) in a timely matter.
3. Magazines these days are filled with old news the moment they hit the shelves/arrive at my door.

If I had access to popular magazines through iTunes I guarantee I would go from 0 magazine consumption to at LEAST 6 annual subscriptions if the pricing was less than for a physical copy of the same magazine.

I think magazine publishers are idiots if they think I'm the only one like this.

 

[lanceh5]

We subscribe to the WSJ which has articles that cover subjects that are unique. This is one newspaper that we will keep.

 

[charlituna]

It's not the revenue share... it's the customer.

Yep. For various reasons Apple is very protective of their customer info and won't let just anyone have it full on. It is rather generous of them to allow the opt in.

30% commission on magazine subscription is simply outrageous.

Or look at the flip side. A mere 30% for Apple to host the files, provide the downloading system etc.

 

[errn]

The industry is having a tough time adapting

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.)

iAds probably won't be required. Maybe for FREE magazines, but this would be similar to apps (to pay for hosting, etc.). For the paid magazines, suppose you have a $10 magazine. The publisher gets $7 dollars of that. If they also choose to do iAds, they would probably get an additional cut of that, too (60%). Anyway, this is clearly a sweet deal for the publishers. Designers just aren't good at making great magazine apps yet. The first amazing magazine app for the iPad will be an enormous success.

 

[mazimoyo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Apple has interfered to a far greater extent than killing cats and worshipping satan.

And what happens when Say Wired magazine does a story on how great Android is?

touche. I think that would come down to the fineprint in the contracts the companies sign.

Actually, I think it comes down to Constitutional right to free speech. Apple is not yet above the law.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Steve should have final editorial approval.
Sleek and easy to understand iContent.
Steve knows what's best for us.

 

[dayneoram]

70% ?? I don't blame them! I think it should be a little higher than that! Between 75 and 85 would be more reasonable for the magazine companies I should think...

I can see why Apple wants to hold on to the subscriptions though, since that's how they work the podcasts... But why would the magazine companies want them to subscribe specifically through themselves?

 

[charlituna]

30% for doing nothing more then hosting is disgusting

Hosting isn't cheap.

And Apple is handling payment processing, which is also not cheap. The banks can charge a merchant as much as $1000 just to set up an account and then an easy $200-300 a year for maintanence. And that is on top of transaction fees that can be as high as 50 cents a pop. For someone like Wired, or WSJ, that might not be a big deal. But for smaller groups those fees alone could break the bank.

And remember that as of now Apple is not requiring magazines use their system, anymore than Mac OS developers will be forced to use the Mac Spp Store. It is just another option. One that could benefit both user and publisher

I really hope they get this deal done. But subscriptions have to be significantly lower than the normal rate. Why would i pay the same or more for a magazine that the publishers no longer have to pay to print or ship to me. Apple get this done but don't be greedy

I disagree. I am more than happy to pay the same amount, if I get added value out of it. Just converting it into a PDF or ePub is not enough. But a magazine that let's me watch the interview instead of just reading what he said. That could be worth it. A film magazine that let's me see in action the camera move they are trying to describe, worth it. And so on.

This to me is where I find things truly lacking. No one is really asking what they can do that wasn't possible before. And then doing it

 

[*LTD*]

Sounds like publishers do not yet fully appreciate the value of what iTunes Store can deliver to them. Sooner or later, they will.

 

[leroypants]

Zinio is far better than anything apple could offer though itunes.

 

[rstansby]

70% of the profit is insane. That is taking a way huge advantage of the situation.

Not worth it. Apple should be taking no more than 40% tops if they really believe in what they say to App Developers.

Apple please don't be like Microsoft about $$.

You misread the article. The numbers are: 70% to the publishers, 30% to Apple.

 

[wirelessmacuser]

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.

You've expressed it perfectly.