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 Squashing iPad Magazine Subscription Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The devil is in the details and I'm sure we're note hearing the whole story here. Apple seems to be very strict on it's policies, and some are very odd for sure, but letting people run ramped isn't good either... otherwise everything gets out of control and unmanageable.
Everyone has to remember... digital distribution is no different than store-front distribution. Barnes and Noble makes money for every magazine and book they sell through their doors. iTunes is their store and I'm sure they are just protecting their piece of the pie.
What I'm saying is... we don't know what SI wants on their end and maybe what they want... the part they have not disclosed... is not fair. So Apple has said "No".
Apple's reason...
I think Apple's reason is justified. Why should Apple provide the infructure for all the downloads of the content and get nothing back to cover the costs to support it? Apple should refuse to provide free download services to mag companies.
I think Apple's reason is justified. Why should Apple provide the infructure for all the downloads of the content and get nothing back to cover the costs to support it? Apple should refuse to provide free download services to mag companies.
Maybe Amazon can make magazine subscriptions attractively available through the Kindle App -- just as they offer a superior selection of books than iBooks.
I use kindle on my ipad for most of my reading. Apple is a little too greedy. The mags will get around it because as we saw in the gov ruling on jail breaking. You cant sell people things and say now you only can buy content from us at bumped pricing. The cost of digital distribution is pennies so 30 percent is a bit much.
WTF! That has to be the most retarded thing I've ever heard. You don't think apple cares about 30% of millions / billions of dollars?
"Just to cover costs"
- All I can say is you're one hard core fan-boy. Steve Jobs will be proud of you.
There is an easy solution
This is all about control. Apple wants control and the magazine publishers want control. But there is an alternative: publish your magazine through Zinio! Zinio is available for iPad, iPhone and any web browser. There you can have both single issues and subscriptions. I already subscribe to BusinessWeek, The Economist, and MacWorld through Zinio. Magazines don't have to have their own app. Zinio also has National Geographic, Motor Trend and many others!
This is all about control. Apple wants control and the magazine publishers want control. But there is an alternative: publish your magazine through Zinio! Zinio is available for iPad, iPhone and any web browser. There you can have both single issues and subscriptions. I already subscribe to BusinessWeek, The Economist, and MacWorld through Zinio. Magazines don't have to have their own app. Zinio also has National Geographic, Motor Trend and many others!
THIS SUCKS... this is exactly whai i think the ipad would be perfect for! i would love to get all my magazine subscriptions via an ipad. could you imagine how cool digital versions could be with embedded video and web links and such? ughhhh wake up apple! not everybody who bought an ipad reads novels!
No one worries about season passes for TV series in the iTunes store. I presume that's how it will soon work for magazines subscriptions. We're probably just in a transition as they get it set up.
Does Zinio allow the use of all touch features and the much richer content and interactivity that magazines on the iPad can have?
I think that is the distinction that Apple currently makes:
If the content can be distributed through web browsers anyway then Apple allows subscriptions.
If the content is so rich that unique features of the iPad are necessary Apple has the possibility to block the content and thus can force the publishers to go through the iTunes system.
I f the publishers weren't so incompetent they could have had a distribution platform already and Apple would be forced to go along with it.
If Apple wants to act as a publisher they can pay an advance. I doubt they will.
Phazer
Reading the article (what a great thing to do, eh?) and reading this thread, it seems quite clear that Time is unwilling to use in-app purchases as a way to sell subscriptions. Why Zinio is allowed to let consumers get stuff separately (probably because it's a reader app and not a single magazine) via purchases made externally (Mobile Safari), I'm not sure.
Commoditize does not mean "give away" or "not take your share". Apple knows that everyone needs to make money on the content for the system to work. Otherwise someone gets left behind holding the empty bag.
Apple makes a ton of money from iTunes purchases and it's true... the more content the more valuable iTunes and Apple products are. This is why it's been so hard for other to compete with them on a whole... Apple offers the best selection, but it's taken a long time and setting some hard standards to get there.
Publishers are scared right now too.... their industry is changing and they are testing the waters as to how to make it work.
Zinio takes a cut. If it was truly about getting a subscription approved for the consumer's benefit then they'd just use in app purchases, or they'd offer their magazine on Zinio.
They don't want the middlemen.
Apple is not hosting each issue of the magazine unlike what was described for this one. Sports Illistrated wants Apple to host each issue of the content and provide the download services but not pay Apple for the services. Apple should say no to SI.
I'd have to agree with you. If iTunes or the app store are the delivery method, I don't think there's much wrong with Apple wanting some control or compensation.
Who says this is the case? How do we know that SI doesn't want to offer the app for free (which they are allowed to do) and handle billing/downloading outside of the App Store?
Apps can't download from non-Apple servers?
I did read it and I agree with your confusion too.... seems contradictory. But, again, my main point is what don't we know about this deal that is causing Apple to say "No". Maybe Apple wanted the option for the in-app purchase so they could run it through iTunes and get a small piece of the pie and SI said "no" to that option, so Apple said "No" to their option.
I think they are trying to make sure they don't set a precedence that will hurt them in the long run... from a business perspective this is a good thing as it's worked well for Apple over the years.
No. Digital distribution is very different: you can avoid the middle man. Just like software - i.e., shareware.
Use iTunes to distribute the app and use your own pay system for subscriptions and thus by passing the middleman , i.e., Apple.
Trouble is, Apple wants to handle everything.
That's a little much on SI's part. They want to cut costs by not printing hard copies and still charge the same price for a digital copy that costs NOTHING to duplicate. Call me old-fashioned but I'd much rather have a hard copy of my swimsuit editions (pun intended) or at least have a subscription code that lets you access both mediums with a paid subscription.
The article said as much. Sure they can offer the app for free and provide subscription downloads from their own web infrastructure and that would probably be allowed. Using the app to download weekly issues from Apples infrastructure without any fees to Apple is abbusing the system. You are welcome to provide the infrastructure if you think it should be hosted for free.