Apple Preparing to Launch Newspaper Subscription Plans for iPad?

[undaunted]

I'm already using PressReader who are the Zinio of the newspaper world.

They deliver newspapers formatted just like the print edition. On my iPad this is an awesome app and allows me to subscribe to my favourite dailys with an in-app purchase. What I like about it is: the readability (click on the headline and the entire article comes open in a column formatted window - no having to page skip); ability to search the newspaper - wow!; Also, I like getting my news in a newspaper layout.

I am wondering what sort of a deal they have with the multitude of newspapers available through their reader. I'm sure it isn't 30%...

I am not affiliated to this app - just a loyal fan!

 

[paradox00]

I heard the mob was jealous of Stve jobs and his ability to charge 30% cut of subscription revenue and up to 40% of advertising revenue for allowing access to a device. How apples behavior at this point is not criminal is beyond me.

They allow access through things like pdf's and web apps. They provide access through the app store, and can demand to be paid for it.

I don't necessarily agree with what they want from subscriptions, but I recognize that they are free to demand those terms if they want.

 

[atomicbatteries]

what subscription based service for the The New York Times?

 

[vini-vidi-vici]

Something tells me that Apple picks their "cut" percentage based on analyzing the cost-difference between physical and digital distribution. I doubt that the newspaper ends up saving much, if any, money by offering digital subscriptions. They just write their delivery budget checks to a different company.

I say this because it might be very unreasonable to expect a digital subscription for free with a print subscription. You think the internet is free/cheap, but it isn't. The newspaper wouldn't be able to afford their current printing fee with Apple's 30% fee and other bandwidth/webmaster fees on top just to give you both mediums for the same subscription price.

I would be perfectly content with a digital-only subscription priced similarly to a print subscription. And in the interest of green, I would be against any bargain-priced combo-package that might encourage subscribers to get print+digital when all they really needed was digital.

I agree that Apple's 30% will "break the model"... I would guess that "going digital" would save somewhere between 5-10% on production costs. not a lot... but it's a token amount that should be passed along as a sign of good faith - that'll help get subscribers "on board with the program". If the paper costs $1, the digital-only version should cost like 90-95 cents. If apple is charging 30% though, that model blows up.

 

[TXCraig]

They need to let go and allow the market to flourish

If I get the digital subscription "only", it should be at a slight discount from paper (to account for reduced overhead costs)

Slight? This is the problem with the subscription model they have today. If I can pay 20 bucks a month and get the NYT delivered to my door step, then the electronic delivery of the SAME content should be about 5 buck a month. It is a MAJOR cost of the newspaper to print and deliver it's product.

What they will find is, if they lower the cost of a subscription via the iPad is a HUGE increase in subscibers. That will become a new and powerful revenue stream for their business.

Charging 4.95 for a single copy of a magazine on the iPad will NEVER work... Stop being so GREEDY. Their greed is going to put them right out of business!

 

[callme]

I'm a long time Mac user (Mac SE, PMac 7100, PB G3, G4, etc.) and I really hope Apple gets some serious competition for its products.

The company is now greed incarnate. Why the hell should Apple get money because someone wants to buy a subscription to a newspaper?

At what point will Apple face serious FTC investigations?

Why should Apple get paid?

- They host the App and the digital versions of the paper;
- They provide the means of selling the app and the subscriptions via the service that Apple have to spend money on to run;
- They provide the bandwidth for the data being downloaded by users when they get their digital editions of the papers;
- They deal with all the payment processing and the associated credit cards fees ;
- They provide the support for the App Store and its customers;
- They develop and support the infrastructure to keep all the content providers in business, with NO effort required from the content providers.

Not a bad deal really - 30%

 

[jsbaugh]

The way Apple handles magazines and newspapers is a total disaster. They need their own section in the store instead of being grouped in with all the other apps.

Since there are no subscriptions, I gave up and downloaded Zinio to handle my digital subscriptions.

Well 0S4.2 should take care of the mess with the addition of folders. Something the ipad should already have. Im sick of seeing 8 pages worth of little icons.

 

[alent1234]

but what about all the paper coupons? That's one of the best parts of the Sunday paper. I guess you could print them out when the iPad gets iOS4, but then that kinda defeats the purpose of electronic editions. Most stores still require you to bring in a paper coupon to get a discount or freebie.

Sadly, I don't think a lot of people recognize the difference between stupid blogs and cheaply produced news that they can get for free -- and publications like the New York times which has quality writers and intelligent commentary. Most think a raving Tea Partyer writing about how much he hates Obama is "news".

coupons.com has an iphone app with printing support

 

[NebulaClash]

The company is now greed incarnate. Why the hell should Apple get money because someone wants to buy a subscription to a newspaper?

At what point will Apple face serious FTC investigations?

As soon as they start doing something illegal, not merely something successful.

Why should Apple get a cut? Are you kidding? Who built the platform from scratch and runs the servers that keep the information flowing? Who are the newspapers going to partner with to get their papers to the subscribers?

How on earth can you possibly view this as greed when the rest of the world sees this as doing business?

 

[spazzcat]

Been waiting for this for awhile now and to the newspaper industry, you are dying. If I was you, I would take what ever bone Apple gives you and be happy....

 

[Cameront9]

but what about all the paper coupons? That's one of the best parts of the Sunday paper. I guess you could print them out when the iPad gets iOS4, but then that kinda defeats the purpose of electronic editions. Most stores still require you to bring in a paper coupon to get a discount or freebie.

What coupons? Even in the Sunday edition here, there are ads, but rarely coupons, except in those "coupon shopper" things.

 

[leroypants]

How on earth can you possibly view this as greed when the rest of the world sees this as doing business?

Because we aren't drinking apple kool-aid and wearing apple blinders.

 

[spazzcat]

Well 0S4.2 should take care of the mess with the addition of folders. Something the ipad should already have. Im sick of seeing 8 pages worth of little icons.

Every day I hope to get an email from Apple saying the first beta of 4.2 can be downloaded...

 

[Westside guy]

Which paper are you subscribing to? I'm also in the soggy NW, but haven't heard of this option anywhere locally.

Also, does this paper have a website? and how does the content there differ from the digital delivery? In general, it sounds like they 'got the model right'. I hope they fix the formatting thing.

The (Tacoma) News Tribune.

Their website itself has a lot of the content as well, but it doesn't seem like some of the stories and some of the national syndicated stuff is readily available except through the e-edition. I would prefer they just stick with that regular web page format and call that the "e-edition". Put some parts behind a paywall, and have a nice index that lets you easily see and access all the content - that'd be great from my point of view.

You know, a thought just occurred to me. Given the arcane and archaic rules we've all seen regarding content (music, movies, print) - I'm wondering if licensing is the reason certain content, such as nationally syndicated columns and comics, aren't part of the normal website. Maybe they can't include it in a web page, but can if it's just a facsimile of the printed page.

 

[sfh]

Some are saying that is too big of a cut...

If you had a product that was about to go under, you have two options continue as normal (papers close down and they get no money at all) or you can re invent your business.

Apple is stepping up and saying we can sell your product for you. Apple deserves part of the cut if they are doing the work and creating a media to sell the product.

 

[vini-vidi-vici]

Slight? This is the problem with the subscription model they have today. If I can pay 20 bucks a month and get the NYT delivered to my door step, then the electronic delivery of the SAME content should be about 5 buck a month. It is a MAJOR cost of the newspaper to print and deliver it's product.

What they will find is, if they lower the cost of a subscription via the iPad is a HUGE increase in subscibers. That will become a new and powerful revenue stream for their business.

Charging 4.95 for a single copy of a magazine on the iPad will NEVER work... Stop being so GREEDY. Their greed is going to put them right out of business!

Paper & printing & mailing/delivery isn't anywhere close to 75% of the cost for a periodical. More like 5-10%. There are some added costs for digital delivery as well (software, layout, servers). But whatever the net delta is, they should just say it, and reduce the digital cost appropriately.

I agree that 4.95 for a single issue is nuts... when a single issue costs like 50 cents (prorated for a subscription). Like most businesses though, they're starting out with a high price and will lower the price point over time. That's just how these things work.

 

[alent1234]

the $20 per month for print covers the printing costs and delivery. there is advertising in the newspaper to pay the rest.

The $20 or whatever they will charge for the digital version will cover all the costs since the advertising revenues will be much lower in the digital version

 

[hismikeness]

Both paper & digital deliveries should have the same ads - keep it simple. Advertisers buy ads to target readers, and it doesn't matter if the readers are looking at a digital or print copy.

I think the advertisers paying for ad space might disagree. There is a difference between the target audience of someone who would read a traditional paper and be succumbed to ads and one who owns a high end digital reader to read the news in digital form on the go and be succumbed to those ads. So it's true they buy ads to target readers, but I think there are differences in those readers in this case.

 

[NebulaClash]

Because we aren't drinking apple kool-aid and wearing apple blinders.

Or familiar with how the business world works, evidently.

 

[liquid stereo]

Fellow Zinio user

I'm a Zinio user as well. Its nice.

The way Apple handles magazines and newspapers is a total disaster. They need their own section in the store instead of being grouped in with all the other apps.

Since there are no subscriptions, I gave up and downloaded Zinio to handle my digital subscriptions.

 

[liquid stereo]

The App store is mandatory, no?

Everything you say makes sense if there were alternate "App stores."
There's one. Only one.

Why should Apple get paid?

- They host the App and the digital versions of the paper;
- They provide the means of selling the app and the subscriptions via the service that Apple have to spend money on to run;
- They provide the bandwidth for the data being downloaded by users when they get their digital editions of the papers;
- They deal with all the payment processing and the associated credit cards fees ;
- They provide the support for the App Store and its customers;
- They develop and support the infrastructure to keep all the content providers in business, with NO effort required from the content providers.

Not a bad deal really - 30%

 

[blackpond]

I love the constant outcry from such a high percentage of posters against the big greedy Apple, Inc. It's no wonder that a similar percentage of new businesses fail beyond the first two years...

 

[leroypants]

I love the constant defense from such a high percentage of posters in favor of the big greedy Apple, Inc. It's no wonder that a similar percentage of new businesses fail beyond the first two years...

 

[blackpond]

I love the constant defense from such a high percentage of posters in favor of the big greedy Apple, Inc. It's no wonder that a similar percentage of new businesses fail beyond the first two years...

And you would charge producers what for distribution to millions of potential buyers? At what point is this deal no longer greedy? When it's free?

 

[Eriden]

This is hardly corporate greed. Originally writers wouldn't get a dime for all the hits their articles would acquire on the internet. Now they will be properly compensated. True, Apple may be taking advantage of the medium, but many companies provide a medium to view content and take a sizable cut thereafter.

While Apple may have every right to play hardball with the publishers for a 30% cut of content on iDevices, you must be pretty damn naive to think that anything in this equation is going to improve things for individual journos or writers. All it means is higher profit margins for AAPL investors (Which as a stockholder, I fully endorse).