Apple Kills Financial Times App For In-App Subscription Non-Compliance

[Wyvernspirit]

They also had a lot less competition before the App store was created. Their App store definitely could be a deal breaker for somebody deciding between Android or iOS.

Yes, but where would android be with out the iPhone or iOS? How would it loom if the app store was not created?

There is also choice, if you don't like what apple is doing, buy something else. Design your products foe something else. There is everything from Windows to Linux, Android to Windows phone. Plenty of opportunity to go somewhere else.

----------

No, they won't. If the world moves to HTML5 and other web technologies, then Apple will lose. Android is worse for native apps, but it's already better at web apps than iOS is.

How anyone can think this is good news for iOS is beyond me.

Phazer

How is android better at web apps, it use webkit as its browser, the foundation of safari is webkit?

Now I don't think its great news for them to move to HTML5 but it is their choice.

 

[manu chao]

Only for new customers they generate.
Much like the newsagent gets paid for your subscription if your buy it at their store.

This newsagent will get paid a one-off sum not a perpetual cut.

----------

The ridiculous thing is, Apple isn't refusing to give them the customer data. Apple is simply requiring that the customer OPT-IN.:

What is ridiculous about publishers saying the opt-in rate is too low to generate them enough aggregate data to maintain their current advertising revenue? It might be a simple commercial decision. What is ridiculous about simple commercial decisions?

 

[friedduck]

For the folks who think that FT is being greedy you need to do some reading. There've been several articles on the topic from neutral sources that point out that a lot of pubs break even or lose money with the 30% cut, and coupled with the loss of subscriber data it's just not a workable proposition.

Besides, it's a shaky argument at best to say that Apple can do as it pleases but any response by its partners is 'greedy'. It's just business--companies either choose to play or not.

 

[samcraig]

I don't see any big deal here. Apple set certain requirements for apps to be allowed in their store and if you don't like it or don't agree with them - then you're free to create a web app.

You don't HAVE to be in the app store. And in fact, the App Store is so hard to navigate and is flooded with so many apps - it's probably better for publications (at least) to have a web app which they can completely control.

If you want to accuse FT of being greedy though - you have to also accuse Apple of the same. Truth is - both companies are looking out for their best interest. Which is how it should be. So again - no big deal here. Just smart(er) business.

 

[manu chao]

You don't HAVE to be in the app store. And in fact, the App Store is so hard to navigate and is flooded with so many apps - it's probably better for publications (at least) to have a web app which they can completely control.

No, the FT does not really care whether it is listed in the App Store or not, it only cares whether people can install their app on their iPads. All they need is a link on their website that says: 'Click here to install/download our app'. That the app is hosted by Apple has next to no benefits for the FT (the bandwidth for the daily content costs much more than the bandwidth for the actual app).

And I don't get why navigation in the App Store really matters, 95% of all apps are bought on recommendation by third parties (at least in my case), not because they were 'found' in the App Store. I never heard people being bothered by the telephone directory being flooded with so many numbers. It is a directory for Christopher's sake, you type your search and you get a list of results, if the results are 50 John Does then you just have figure out by other means which is the John Doe you are looking for.

 

[Winni]

because Apple don't provide the Devices on which the Financial Times gains new subscribers, the tools to build the app, the App Store to advertise the App to potential customers, the Servers to store the App.

The FN paid someone to make them an App, but now refuse to pay Apple to Sell their App to customers? next they'll refuse to allow Stores to sell their Papers for a profit, and you'll blame the Store for not selling them?

Sure. Everybody should pay Microsoft for allowing them to write software for Windows. And while we're at it, the Open Source community should wire a monthly donation to Linus Torvalds for creating the Linux kernel. Also, I think that Deutsche Telekom should get a 30% cut on all deals that telemarketers make while calling their customers. And Ford is entitled to a 30% charge from all gas stations on the planet whenever a Ford car is refueled.

I wonder why people are still coming up with that chain of nonsense arguments.

Try selling those fancy iGadgets to somebody when there are no apps for it. The apps sell the hardware, it's not the other way around.

Also, in case you haven't noticed it, the customers BOUGHT the iPads from Apple and Apple CHARGES for accepting an app to their store. In other words: Apples was already paid TWICE. If the developer subscription fees do not wash enough money into Apple's pocket, then they can increase that fee - and risk that developers run away. If they don't want to ship free apps in their store, then they can change that rule as well - and again risk that their developers run away.

But when Financial Times or anybody else delivers content from THEIR servers to the iPad - guess what - then Apple does NOTHING for that. The content is delivered over the Internet, and both Financial Times and their customer pay their respective ISPs for that service. Where is Apple in that picture and their magical right to ask for a 30% fee for something they did NOTHING for? Right. Nowhere. It's ridiculous to think that Apple deserves any payment for simply existing but that is exactly what Apple is doing.

But you probably also hate Amazon for having found the perfect answer to Apple's ridiculous demands.

----------

As one well-versed in HTML 5 technologies they will never touch native application performance, scalability, and scale of complexity options.

Maybe. Personally, I found nothing to be wrong with Amazon's online version of the Kindle reader and I think it is a perfect proof of concept that you don't need a native app just to provide reading functionality on a mobile device.

After all, that is what HTML and its siblings were made for.

 

[jonnysods]

Good for them. 30% saved, and a bit more freedom to do what they like.

HTML5 finally gets used against Apple!

 

[BC2009]

Good for them. 30% saved, and a bit more freedom to do what they like.

HTML5 finally gets used against Apple!

They could care less about the 30% given the margins on digital subscriptions -- they want the customer data. Apple gives them the customer info providing the customer opt-in. Apple just wants the right to give its customer's the option so they are not violating their privacy policy which is a contract with the customer. How horrible of them, huh?

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)

As noted this has nothing to do with the 30%. it has everything to do with collecting subscriber data. If apple gave them that they would give up 50% of the subscription.

I think you are right. If Apple were to modify their privacy terms and just fork over our personal data to publishers then the publishers would gladly give up 50% of the subscription fee -- think about, today their margin on printed copy has to be incredibly low, with digital delivery they have tons of wiggle room on the price.

 

[Dr McKay]

How long before Apple will come out and state HTML5 is a "bag of hurt" and gimp the performance on Safari on iOS?

Or perhaps will Apples new CEO, they'll have a slightly different outlook.

 

[fifthworld]

because Apple don't provide the Devices on which the Financial Times gains new subscribers, the tools to build the app, the App Store to advertise the App to potential customers, the Servers to store the App.

The FN paid someone to make them an App, but now refuse to pay Apple to Sell their App to customers? next they'll refuse to allow Stores to sell their Papers for a profit, and you'll blame the Store for not selling them?

No, costumers provide the devices. Apple just built and sold them (for a good profit).

 

[manu chao]

they want the customer data. Apple gives them the customer info providing the customer opt-in. Apple just wants the right to give its customer's the option so they are not violating their privacy policy which is a contract with the customer.

You know, countries had privacy polices before iOS and media companies had them as well. It is not as if Apple had invented them.

Imagine your national post office would sell newspaper subscriptions and not give the publishers the names and addresses of the subscribers unless the subscribers agreed to that. Then the national post office would use the subscribers' data for their own purposes to sell ads.

Why is it ok for Apple to have the demographic information but not ok for publishers to have them? Where is the opt-in for the iAd devision of Apple to know my name, address, and purchasing history?

 

[Nothlit]

because Apple don't provide the Devices on which the Financial Times gains new subscribers, the tools to build the app, the App Store to advertise the App to potential customers, the Servers to store the App.

The FN paid someone to make them an App, but now refuse to pay Apple to Sell their App to customers? next they'll refuse to allow Stores to sell their Papers for a profit, and you'll blame the Store for not selling them?

Yes, Apple hosts the app, lists the app, maybe even promotes the app, so it's reasonable to pay Apple 30% of the purchase price of the app. No one is arguing about that. But Apple does not host in-app purchase content and does not otherwise promote or advertise in-app purchase content, so why on earth should they get any cut of that revenue (above perhaps a small 1-3% payment processing fee like a credit card company would).

 

[Cha]

Where is the opt-in for the iAd devision of Apple to know my name, address, and purchasing history?

You can opt-out http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228

 

[nebo1ss]

Good for Apple. The FT is a fine newspaper but it is greedy. When I was a print subscriber (at a hefty annual sum) they still wanted another $350/yr to be able to access their content on my iPad - and more if I wanted to access it from a computer as well. They also had a creepy renewal policy. If you chose to cancel, you had to do so before the renewal anniversary date (and there was no reminder notice) and then you lost all access from that point on. Otherwise, you were considered to have agreed to an automatic extension at that inflated price and could not cancel or complain to a credit card company. I found this set of policies to be egregious, officious and just plain greedy so I dropped all of my FT subs and carried on with The Economist which offers FREE iPhone and iPad access to print subscribers. Getting an honest fee for good content is fine, but the FT is greedy and that auto renewal thing (the way they implement it) is unethical. Kudos to Apple for slamming the seat down on them!

Contracts that automatically renew are part of the culture in the US. The way to deal with these is to cancel the day after you sign the contract. I do that every year with my alarm monitoring contract and believe me they will get to you looking for a renewal when the time is up.

 

[manu chao]

You can opt-out http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228

Sure, I know about that but for subscriptions you get a dialogue box shoved in front of you, for iAds you really have to go looking for it (and must be pretty well informed to even start looking for it).
Surely if Apple cared only about the privacy of their customers' data both would get equal prominence.

 

[chown33]

Sure, I know about that but for subscriptions you get a dialogue box shoved in front of you, for iAds you really have to go looking for it (and must be pretty well informed to even start looking for it).

I typed iad opt out into Bing and Google, and the top hit in both was the HT4228 article.

If that qualifies as "pretty well informed", I fear for the future of technology.

 

[manu chao]

I typed iad opt out into Bing and Google, and the top hit in both was the HT4228 article.

If that qualifies as "pretty well informed", I fear for the future of technology.

I think the vast majority of consumers, maybe iOS consumers even more than Mac consumers, will not even start to think about these privacy issues. That is why Apple takes such pride into showing that dialogue box for subscriptions. If Apple thought a solution which requires active behaviour by the user to opt out (and not something a slightly interested user might stumble upon while browsing the settings for an app) is good enough, why does it not employ the same solution to subscriptions. I am sure publishers would see things much differently then.

Really, I don't think anybody can honestly say that these two cases are treated equally by Apple.

 

[SouthernCross]

Has anyone tried the FT webapp? It is hideous.. it makes the original FT app look good.

If they continue in this direction, I predict that any paid digital subscriber base they have will evaporate.

 

[BC2009]

You know, countries had privacy polices before iOS and media companies had them as well. It is not as if Apple had invented them.

Imagine your national post office would sell newspaper subscriptions and not give the publishers the names and addresses of the subscribers unless the subscribers agreed to that. Then the national post office would use the subscribers' data for their own purposes to sell ads.

Why is it ok for Apple to have the demographic information but not ok for publishers to have them? Where is the opt-in for the iAd devision of Apple to know my name, address, and purchasing history?

Check out that little agreement to terms you make when you launch iTunes. I welcome the ability to reduce the number of marketers that have my information. So far Apple has not abused my customer information while with some websites one purchse means spam from five new sources because they sell my info. But I can see I am going to have a hard time arguing with somebody who would prefer that Apple give away the user's information.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Check out that little agreement to terms you make when you launch iTunes. I welcome the ability to reduce the number of marketers that have my information. So far Apple has not abused my customer information while with some websites one purchse means spam from five new sources because they sell my info. But I can see I am going to have a hard time arguing with somebody who would prefer that Apple give away the user's information.

Apple could just ask people if they want to opt-in to iAd? If they really, really cared about your information, wouldn't that be the best way? To let you opt-in to any information sharing, any ads?

 

[BC2009]

Apple could just ask people if they want to opt-in to iAd? If they really, really cared about your information, wouldn't that be the best way? To let you opt-in to any information sharing, any ads?

Sure that would be great, but you are missing the fact that you are not differentiating between opt-in for advertisements versus opt-in for sharing my information. Apple does not advertise to its users unless the user purchases an app that has ads. In this case, Apple is using the information that they already have to try to target the best ads at me.

1) They already have the information
2) I have to install an app that is monetized with iAds to see iAds
3) The app developer that monetized with iAd does not get my personal information (I remain anonymous)

The fact of the matter is that my contract for privacy is with Apple when I agree to iTunes terms and conditions. I'm glad that contract does not allow them to fork my information over to others (Facebook had this problem a while back, not sure if they have tightened up their privacy policy since then -- I'm not a member of Facebook).

I for one am glad my information is not being handed out without my opt-in consent.

I don't really see how opting out of "iAd" makes sense since it would still mean I got ads in those apps that are monetized with advertising, but it would just mean those ads are less targeted.

(Not that Apple has a plethora of iAd choices to show me unless they do something to kick start ads).

 

[ratboy90]

what? i loved the FT app. No synching my iPad then.