Apple Squashing iPad Magazine Subscription Plans

[motulist]

or allow people to subscribe via their web browser in their ipad. ...

Apple needs to start opening up their products like ipad, iphone, ipod and Apple TV to allow third party software that is great. and stop protecting their turn in a monopolistic manner!!!

But (unless I'm missing something) you've pretty much pointed out exactly why this isn't a monopoly at all. A magazine publisher could just as easily make an ipad-specialized web version of their magazine that requires a paid subscription, and then people on their ipads could pay for it and see it on their ipads by using safari and it would basically be exactly the same as if they bought the magazine's ipad app. Or as other people suggested they can put their magazine's free app in the apple store and then handle paid subscription content on their own just as easily.

 

[daddywags214]

Yeah, but Apple doesn't actually make the iPad edition, they just distribute it.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens when Apple is forced to lift some of its restrictions on 3rd party apps.

That's my point; the publisher takes a product (Sports Illustrated) provides a means of distribution.

 

[hitekalex]

If Time Inc. had submitted the same kind of app as the WSJ and the FT, and would have received a rejection for it, you would have a point. But wouldn't then anybody mention this? Wouldn't the Time Inc. people not use these examples in their complaints? Nowhere in the complaints does it say that Time Inc. feels it is getting something rejected other publications received approval for.

I don't know the exact reasons why Time Inc's app got rejected, and neither do you. The point is - it shouldn't have been rejected, period. Unless of course the app did something malicious or illegal, which I am pretty sure wasn't the case. It doesn't matter one bit if Time's app was "the same" or "different" from FT/WSJ, The fact that a company like Apple can single-handedly shut out a major publisher from reaching tens of millions of customers is a major problem. It shouldn't be happening.

But that's still only one store. Your premise of this being some sort of monopoly is incorrect. They could sell via other magazine apps like Zinio, direct from their website, Amazon, whatever. And most/all of these could easily go to users of the iPad/phone, too.

Note I didn't use a word "monopoly" - I just said Apple's level of control and leverage is extremely harmful to consumers, developers and content publishers at large. If Time's subscription model is centered around a rich-experience iOS app - Apple just effectively put them out of business. All the "alternative" methods you mentioned don't allow Time Inc deliver their content to their customer base via custom-tailored iOS app. That's unacceptable.

 

[Bregalad]

Publishers could produce a free app that requires authentication to download content. The subscription would be set up via the web (either from a link in the app or independently from a computer) and the content delivered to the mobile app.

Rather than burden customers with an ID/password sign-in on their mobile devices they could be given the option of registering their UUIDs.

Any publisher who likes the idea should send me a message. I work for a major app development company with a long list of well known corporations as clients.

 

[Ciclismo]

Publishers could produce a free app that requires authentication to download content. The subscription would be set up via the web (either from a link in the app or independently from a computer) and the content delivered to the mobile app.

Rather than burden customers with an ID/password sign-in on their mobile devices they could be given the option of registering their UUIDs.

Any publisher who likes the idea should send me a message. I work for a major app development company with a long list of well known corporations as clients.

Der Spiegel already does that - their App gives you free access to limited content, but you can buy a subscription in App for full access.

 

[wizard]

Apple has a point here.

I think the issue is pretty simple Apple doesn't want to be serving up paid content that they get no revenue from. The reason should be pretty clear, those downloads cost Apple money. Right now it looks like SI is looking for a free ride.

As to apps of this nature what is the problem with having "issues" anyways? Think about it magazines have had issues forever so why not app issues? It would make buying back issues a snap. In a nut shell it looks like SI is run by a bunch of old men set in their ways not able to grasp the potential of new technology. Greedy old men to as the price on the electronic version of SI is awfully high.

Apple really needs to look into its own publishing wing. That is a division set up to buy out theses poorly managed companies and put them on the path that is conducive to business in this century.

As a footnote I don't think this has anything to do with subscriptions. Sure it would help some but this looks like a move based on pure greed on SI part.


Dave

 

[hitekalex]

I think the issue is pretty simple Apple doesn't want to be serving up paid content that they get no revenue from. The reason should be pretty clear, those downloads cost Apple money.

Outside of hosting the app - Apple is not "serving" any content. The content is hosted by the publishers and downloaded by the subscribers via the Internet.

Apple really needs to look into its own publishing wing. That is a division set up to buy out theses poorly managed companies and put them on the path that is conducive to business in this century.

LOL

As a footnote I don't think this has anything to do with subscriptions. Sure it would help some but this looks like a move based on pure greed on SI part.

So you don't know what the issue is, but you already concluded whatever it is - it's due to "greed on SI part".. as opposed to say Apple trying to find more ways to milk the ecosystem and stuff its coffers? Got it.

 

[firewater101]

How about this: make the apps free and make your revenue with advertising (not iAds), and then apple gets nothing. If you are charging for an app, then Apple gets 30%, those are the rules everyone plays by. Good luck trying to get Apple to give that cash cow up.

 

[manu chao]

I don't know the exact reasons why Time Inc's app got rejected, and neither do you. The point is - it shouldn't have been rejected, period. Unless of course the app did something malicious or illegal, which I am pretty sure wasn't the case. It doesn't matter one bit if Time's app was "the same" or "different" from FT/WSJ, The fact that a company like Apple can single-handedly shut out a major publisher from reaching tens of millions of customers is a major problem.

If you want to play this game, I can add that we do not even know that the app was rejected.

And if you run a nation-wide network of newstands, you would have the right to refuse to sell any given newspaper, if this newspaper is not coming to a commercial agreement with you (particularly if you offer it the same agreement as to all other newspapers).

Should Amazon be forced to sell any book at conditions set by the publisher?

 

[manu chao]

How about this: make the apps free and make your revenue with advertising (not iAds), and then apple gets nothing. If you are charging for an app, then Apple gets 30%, those are the rules everyone plays by. Good luck trying to get Apple to give that cash cow up.

Which is what the NYT is doing right now.

 

[wizard]

Total BS!

I don't know the exact reasons why Time Inc's app got rejected, and neither do you. The point is - it shouldn't have been rejected, period. Unless of course the app did something malicious or illegal, which I am pretty sure wasn't the case. It doesn't matter one bit if Time's app was "the same" or "different" from FT/WSJ, The fact that a company like Apple can single-handedly shut out a major publisher from reaching tens of millions of customers is a major problem. It shouldn't be happening.

Stores do this all the time and Apple is running a store. The reasons are highly varied too but your local drug store or grocery will only allow a small subset of the published works into their stores.

In any event i've never understood this mindset that says Apple must sell everything thrown at them in their stores. No other business is ever expected to do so.

Note I didn't use a word "monopoly" - I just said Apple's level of control and leverage is extremely harmful to consumers, developers and content publishers at large.

More BS, it is Apples very level of control that is bringing consummers to the entire product line. In part it is the regonition that QA, that is Quality Assurance, is important to delivering a good product. It is the idea that you can go to the app store and buy stuff with some confidence it will work properly.

If Time's subscription model is centered around a rich-experience iOS app - Apple just effectively put them out of business.

Nope not at all; SI put themselves out of business trying to circumvent Apples app store policies. This shouldnt be difficult to understand.

All the "alternative" methods you mentioned don't allow Time Inc deliver their content to their customer base via custom-tailored iOS app. That's unacceptable.

You really don't grasp what has happened here do you. Apple IS NOT doing anything wrong here. SI got greedy hoping for a free ride on Apples pipes and Apple rightfully rejected the app. Do you really expect Apple to flip the bill for all those downloads for a money making app.

Apple is very generous with free apps which make up a good part of app store but it can't be that difficult to see app store wouldnt be around long if they had to subsidize paid app downloads. Server farms, pipes and staff simply aren't free. In the end you seem to forget that Apple is a business not a non profit library.



Dave

 

[firewater101]

Publishers could produce a free app that requires authentication to download content. The subscription would be set up via the web (either from a link in the app or independently from a computer) and the content delivered to the mobile app.

Rather than burden customers with an ID/password sign-in on their mobile devices they could be given the option of registering their UUIDs.

Any publisher who likes the idea should send me a message. I work for a major app development company with a long list of well known corporations as clients.

This is actually a good idea and seems like it would solve their issue. Though, its a few more steps than simply handling it through the app store, which is probably why they don't want to go that way. People are much more likely to impulse buy a subscription if it's simply a click (touch?) away. I remember being annoyed that the Pandora app sent you to the web site to register (does it still do that?), rather than having it "in-app", and that was free.

 

[hitekalex]

If you want to play this game, I can add that we do not even know that the app was rejected.

Yes we do, it was in the original All Things Digital report: "...But Apple rejected the app at the last minute".

Should Amazon be forced to sell any book at conditions set by the publisher?

No, but the difference is that if a publisher can't sell on Amazon - they can sell on Borders or Barnes-n-Noble. Unless Apple is willing to open up alternative means for publishers/developers to deliver their apps/content to their customers - they should get out of the business of "rejecting" apps and acting as a sole gatekeeper for content.

 

[mdatwood]

And if you run a nation-wide network of newstands, you would have the right to refuse to sell any given newspaper, if this newspaper is not coming to a commercial agreement with you (particularly if you offer it the same agreement as to all other newspapers).

Should Amazon be forced to sell any book at conditions set by the publisher?

I think the issue is pretty simple Apple doesn't want to be serving up paid content that they get no revenue from. The reason should be pretty clear, those downloads cost Apple money. Right now it looks like SI is looking for a free ride.

By making themselves the only provider of iPhone apps Apple has put themselves in this situation. If Apple doesn't want to serve up the content then let me install the app from somewhere else. If Apple doesn't want to sell the app, then let me install it from somewhere else. I'm not sure how long Apple can maintain that they should get a cut of the the revenue for everything sold for the iOS. I don't see them getting a cut of the revenue from software I buy for my mac or Dell getting a cut when people buy stuff for their Dells. Eventually this issue will come to a head and probably not end well for Apple if they keep pushing.

Like I said earlier, Mondays ruling opens the door for a legit competing app store even if it's not officially supported. Apple needs to be reminded that without content their iPad is just a shiny paper weight.

 

[hitekalex]

In any event i've never understood this mindset that says Apple must sell everything thrown at them in their stores. No other business is ever expected to do so.

Of course you don't understand it. As I said in the previous post, in the absence of alternative non-Apple "app stores" - Apple cannot be a sole gatekeeper between the content producers and consumers. If they insist on rejecting individual publishers from participating in their App Store (for whatever reasons) - they must allow publishers to get their content to their consumers in other ways.. which they don't.

More BS, it is Apples very level of control that is bringing consummers to the entire product line. In part it is the regonition that QA, that is Quality Assurance, is important to delivering a good product. It is the idea that you can go to the app store and buy stuff with some confidence it will work properly.

No one is saying Apple shouldn't enforce a level of QA and clearly-defined set rules to the apps/content available in their App Store. QA is not the issue here. This is most likely a commercial dispute, where Apple has an unjustified upper hand and means to completely block the publishers from reaching their audience.

Nope not at all; SI put themselves out of business trying to circumvent Apples app store policies.

What specific policies have SI tried to circumvent? Clearly you have no idea of what you're talking about. Step away from your "Apple is always right, everyone else is always wrong" mentality for a second.

 

[wizard]

You really don't understand do you?

Outside of hosting the app - Apple is not "serving" any content. The content is hosted by the publishers and downloaded by the subscribers via the Internet.

Apps are downloaded from where? The apps by definition contain the content or portions of it.

LOL

Clearly you don't understand the economic state of newspaper and magazine publishing houses in the age of the internet. If you did you wouldn't be laughing. Many are on the verge of going under due to their in ability to adapt.

So you don't know what the issue is, but you already concluded whatever it is - it's due to "greed on SI part".. as opposed to say Apple trying to find more ways to milk the ecosystem and stuff its coffers? Got it.

So you think SI should be able to use Apples facilities for free? In a nut shell this is what the problem boils down to.

Change your perspective here and put yourself in a position of running an online store. You have a customer that wants to publish a new app every month but not pay you anything for all that bandwidth. Given that this is a substantial money maker for the publisher could you tolerate this? I think not.

As to my position, there are only tgree things Apple really concerns itself with respect to app store. One is no porn which seems to be something that recieves additional i
Oversight at Apple. Two is making sure developers conform to the SDK. And the third is making money off for profit apps. It isn't difficult to understand.


Dave

 

[pooryou]

If they were sincere they could just sell their mags thru Zinio (I would not buy them anyway).

This 'rich content' BS is just an excuse. I've tried the other magazine apps such as Wired, Time, etc and sorry but inline videos and that other crap is just annoying and adds little to no value. The only interesting feature is the Wired app having layouts for both orientations, but that is not really necessary.

The truth is these complaining companies are just being greedy and disingenuous.

 

[JAT]

Of course you don't understand it. As I said in the previous post, in the absence of alternative non-Apple "app stores" - Apple cannot be a sole gatekeeper between the content producers and consumers. If they insist on rejecting individual publishers from participating in their App Store (for whatever reasons) - they must allow publishers to get their content to their consumers in other ways.. which they don't.



No one is saying Apple shouldn't enforce a level of QA and clearly-defined set rules to the apps/content available in their App Store. QA is not the issue here. This is most likely a commercial dispute, where Apple has an unjustified upper hand and means to completely block the publishers from reaching their audience.



What specific policies have SI tried to circumvent? Clearly you have no idea of what you're talking about. Step away from your "Apple is always right, everyone else is always wrong" mentality for a second.

Why do you even care? Is your sig correct? You don't even have an iDevice?

You've repeatedly ignored the fact that other apps exist in the AppStore that do exactly what you want. Time & SI have not chosen to partner with them, instead are working it out directly with Apple. No doubt they eventually will. Maybe you should just give them both some leeway. Play with your Evo.

 

[ImageWrangler]

I'm usually one to speak up a bit for Apple when the usual peecee fanboi Mac-bashing contingent seems to make up the majority of these threads, typical haters jump all over the stories here, painting the positive ones with negative piss-and-moan mudslinging and usual incoherent still-living-in-your-mothers-basement jibberish, and of course same ones just eat up the negative stories spinning them every which way beyond the fact most the bashers on here don't even own a Mac or maybe they were weened away from their mother's teat too early or are repressed from never kissing a girl, acne, whatever.

THAT SAID...

In this instance... WTF APPLE?!? Seriously?! 30% cut on everything or you're taking your ball and going home? Just like that? The supposed savior of publications wants to bend over everyone for a giant cut? Hell, even paperboys and mail carriers don't get that cut. Congrats Apple, you've basically painted the publishers into a corner where they can take their content elsewhere, take it on the web and hope people click ads (hope), or basically give them the bird.

Seriously Jobs/Apple... WTF?!?

 

[pooryou]

I don't know the exact reasons why Time Inc's app got rejected, and neither do you. The point is - it shouldn't have been rejected, period.

That is some stunning logic there.

 

[hitekalex]

So you think SI should be able to use Apples facilities for free? In a nut shell this is what the problem boils down to.

[rest deleted]

Dude, you're clearly lacking reading comprehension.. or just choose to ignore everything that was said above by me and others. I am done responding to you, just a waste of my time.

 

[hitekalex]

Why do you even care? Is your sig correct? You don't even have an iDevice?

You've repeatedly ignored the fact that other apps exist in the AppStore that do exactly what you want. Time & SI have not chosen to partner with them, instead are working it out directly with Apple. No doubt they eventually will. Maybe you should just give them both some leeway. Play with your Evo.

And why do you care that I don't have an iDevice? Focus on the topic, not on what devices I may or may not have.

This thread is about Apple's rejection of Time Inc/SI app, not other apps. So that's what we are discussing. So why do YOU think Time Inc app was rejected? And what would you consider a legitimate reason for its rejection?

 

[wizard]

Apple isn't the only solutiom here, the idea of no consummer choice is bogus.

By making themselves the only provider of iPhone apps Apple has put themselves in this situation. If Apple doesn't want to serve up the content then let me install the app from somewhere else. If Apple doesn't want to sell the app, then let me install it from somewhere else. I'm not sure how long Apple can maintain that they should get a cut of the the revenue for everything sold for the iOS. I don't see them getting a cut of the revenue from software I buy for my mac or Dell getting a cut when people buy stuff for their Dells. Eventually this issue will come to a head and probably not end well for Apple if they keep pushing.

It may or may not end well for Apple but they have the right to pursue their business model.

One very important point that you mis though is that Apples approach to app store is directly responsible for the number of Apps on app store and the successes of the independent software developers. Like it or not competeing products haven't had the same success.

Like I said earlier, Mondays ruling opens the door for a legit competing app store even if it's not officially supported. Apple needs to be reminded that without content their iPad is just a shiny paper weight.

I think people here need to be reminded just how dast the software library for iPhone and iPad have grown. In part that is due to developers making money by following the rules. As to alternative app stires i don't see a problem with ligitimate developers, the problem lies with thieves. Even now developers are being riped off but Apples current policies put some of that in check. Turn the platform into a free for all and developer interest will fad and ligitimate app prices inflate to cover all the theft. Personally i take the opposite view, if jailbreaking and the resulting wide spread IP theft becomes very bad it will not be a good thing.

I just don't think people realize that the very things that have made iOS devices a success in the face of notable failures are the very things people are complaining about. It is clear that the vast majority of Apples customers love Apples approach and have rejected the alternatives.

In any event why do people try to twist this into Apple being the evil one. SI is the only one out of line here and should be taking the majority of the anger.



Dave

 

[davekarn]

Most of the Golf GPS apps require a annual subscrition through their own respective websites...sooooo, what's the difference there?

 

[wizard]

It hurts when you are hit with the truth doesn't it?

Dude, you're clearly lacking reading comprehension.. or just choose to ignore everything that was said above by me and others. I am done responding to you, just a waste of my time.

It is because your mind is full of crap that i respond in the way I have. SI got rejected for not following Apples guidelines as laid out in the SDK agreement. Apple is not being evil here. It really is that simple.

The fact remains SI tried to pull a fast one. Instead if being ethical and rejecting the SDK agreement and going ekse where they decide to put Apple on the spot and force a rejection. That my friend is evil and SI is where your anger should be directed.

You see it isn't a question of Apples policies being good or bad. They are Apples policies and they can judge them themselves. The problem is wanting to play in Apples garden without respecting those policies.

I say garden because this can be likened to going to a public park where the consumption of alcohol is prohibited and then getting drunk. The discussion of the policies being right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that you violated the law. The execs at SI can be likened to the drunk here in that they actively flaunt the policies in place on app store and then make a rambling stink about it when caught. It really idnt a pretty picture.


Dave