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
i don't think people are gonna want 50 issues of a magizine taking up there home screen on there ipads so they better make an agreement.
1 app with in app purchase is perfect. And yes of course apple wants a 30% cut they are distributing there content it's called a distributor fee.
1 app with in app purchase is perfect. And yes of course apple wants a 30% cut they are distributing there content it's called a distributor fee.
Wish they would figure something out. Being able to get my regular monthly magazine subscription on an iPad instead (so long as it's an enhanced and not just a pdf) is huge for me. imo, coming to an agreement that benefits Apple, the consumer and the publisher would really help sell iPads to those on the fence.
Why do you keep talking out of your arse, kid? Where did you get the idea that the app got rejected due to some SDK violation? The fact is that no one knows the true Apple's reasons (maybe not even Time Inc), as they don't even have to explain them (according to the their own developer agreement).
But I will bet dollars to donuts it has nothing to do with "Apple's SDK guidelines", or "user experience" or any of the other usual Apple excuses. But it most likely has to everything to do with Apple's desire for complete control of the distribution model and imposing the "Apple tax" on the publishers for every piece of content sold.
So you are one of those people who come here with an axe to grind against Apple and don't really pay any attention to what is actually being discussed.
Perfect use for the 'Ignore User' feature of this forum.
I am just in awe on couple people's responses here, particularly Wizard's. Not going to go into detail on that, but man, you need to take a breather, and try new things, Apple isn't the center of the universe.
That being said, Apple is digging itself a hole here if this is the case, otherwise disregard the following. They have a great opportunity to help these print media companies transition into digital for the masses. All these tools being developed, it has a bright future. Apple is definitely being greedy, and they shouldn't have the right to tax someone else's content. The apps are fine, they can take a cut of that, whatever, with full rights, but the content? This is terrible on so many levels.
This is as bad as us downloading Mac OS X applications to view content, and Apple taking a cut of the content that's being created by third parties. Just doesn't make any sense. They're becoming too greedy for their own good, and they're putting a strain on the future of industries who flourish on subscription models.
Let me ask you this, is Apple taking a cut on Hulu's $9.99 subscription? I think not, at least I hope not.
That being said, Apple is digging itself a hole here if this is the case, otherwise disregard the following. They have a great opportunity to help these print media companies transition into digital for the masses. All these tools being developed, it has a bright future. Apple is definitely being greedy, and they shouldn't have the right to tax someone else's content. The apps are fine, they can take a cut of that, whatever, with full rights, but the content? This is terrible on so many levels.
This is as bad as us downloading Mac OS X applications to view content, and Apple taking a cut of the content that's being created by third parties. Just doesn't make any sense. They're becoming too greedy for their own good, and they're putting a strain on the future of industries who flourish on subscription models.
Let me ask you this, is Apple taking a cut on Hulu's $9.99 subscription? I think not, at least I hope not.
This is such a new issue I'm content to sit it out and see what develops. If Apple's approach is too harsh it will drive publishers towards Android. If there is not enough of a cut for Apple it might hamper future development.
Just a guess but I think Apple is looking several years down the road. Five or ten years from now you'll be able to build a basic iPad for next to nothing, but content will still be valuable. Apple needs to figure out how to get a sufficient piece of the pie that they can keep going strong.
It's an interesting thought. Suppose you could print an OLED screen and a battery on a plastic substrate, glue on a processor and encapsulate that for $25? It won't be top of the line but might be better than what we have now.
I'm sure it is more nuanced than that but I suspect those are the rough outlines.
Just a guess but I think Apple is looking several years down the road. Five or ten years from now you'll be able to build a basic iPad for next to nothing, but content will still be valuable. Apple needs to figure out how to get a sufficient piece of the pie that they can keep going strong.
It's an interesting thought. Suppose you could print an OLED screen and a battery on a plastic substrate, glue on a processor and encapsulate that for $25? It won't be top of the line but might be better than what we have now.
I'm sure it is more nuanced than that but I suspect those are the rough outlines.
Something Apple was essentially forced into because people were writing software for the phone anyway.
Hmm...so developer interest has faded in the PC and Mac market? That's what you're saying here, without an app store developers will stop developing. I'm not arguing for getting rid of the app store. It works fine for what it does. What Apple needs to do is let me install any app on my phone that I want to though. A great example is that the video camera software on the iPhone blows. You can't pick and lock exposure or WB so it's hard to make any decent video with. I thought here is another app opportunity, but those APIs are not public so that automatically will DQ the app from the app store. This is all because Apple doesn't feel like giving public access to those APIs for whatever reason. And don't give me the old "those APIs may change so they prevent access" excuse, because they changed a public API in iOS 4 that broke my current app and then made me wait over a week to approve my couple line code change.
Possibly, but it could be that the app store was a success despite Apple's policies and instead because they have a cool phone and great marketing. I don't think there is any Android HW yet to compete with the i4 and they started later, but are still growing quickly.
Again, Apple can reject anyone they like as long as I can surf on over to that companies website and install the app from there.
Apple is not responsible for hosting and delivering the content for Hulu.
Zinio proves that even for magazine subscriptions, if you host and deliver the content yourself Apple is fine with it.
This. a thousand times. Apple doesn't 'want in' on the action. Time wants Apple in without paying a cut for services rendered. Time doesn't want to pay for hosting, basically.
More for advertising than anything else....
I know that in the past I have seen "local" ads in the likes of Time magazine. As the true publisher of the magazine, Time and others wants to probably capitalize on the credit card zip code to target that advertising. And why shouldn't they? Magazines don't make much off subscriptions, but the advertising that subsidize those subscriptions.
Taking SI as an example, why shouldn't they be able to localize ad content? Say "Joe's Sport Bar and Grill" in Reston Va saying they have college games on a big screen?
I know that in the past I have seen "local" ads in the likes of Time magazine. As the true publisher of the magazine, Time and others wants to probably capitalize on the credit card zip code to target that advertising. And why shouldn't they? Magazines don't make much off subscriptions, but the advertising that subsidize those subscriptions.
Taking SI as an example, why shouldn't they be able to localize ad content? Say "Joe's Sport Bar and Grill" in Reston Va saying they have college games on a big screen?
Is there any reason why SI can't just make a cloud-based program that works just the same? It could be accessed through a web address. Sorry if someone else has already said this, but Apple can not control what websites you go to on the iPad, right? So all SI has to do is set up an address which will mimic the experience of having the app. Tell me why this wouldn't work please.
Both sides are loosing out here
Wonder what the print world distributers get? I know that unless things have changed - when I worked in a store that sold magazines that we had to tear off the covers and send them back to the distributers - who probably had to eat the loss of the sale.
With e-publishing there is less loss of revenue.
Wonder what the print world distributers get? I know that unless things have changed - when I worked in a store that sold magazines that we had to tear off the covers and send them back to the distributers - who probably had to eat the loss of the sale.
With e-publishing there is less loss of revenue.
Take kindle app as an example of subscriptions
If these magazine companies would use the kindle as an example. A user buys a book and can download the book to the kindle reader and read it. These magazine companies can get around this by just offering the magazine for sale on their website. The magazine can be read from their website or from the "reader app" that they provide through the iPad/iPhone. Simple. To simple.
If these magazine companies would use the kindle as an example. A user buys a book and can download the book to the kindle reader and read it. These magazine companies can get around this by just offering the magazine for sale on their website. The magazine can be read from their website or from the "reader app" that they provide through the iPad/iPhone. Simple. To simple.
Modest proposal to magazine publishers....
As I understand it... The SDK leaves it up to developers to set the prices of their apps. Now I have not purchased Time or SI off of iTunes, but they appear to be sperate apps - but under a unified structure. To that end i see no reason a weekly magazine like Time or SI to offer each issue at $1 or $1.50 for the richer content - only if the richer content conveys long term to the original buyer.
Some of us might not buy every week. But would buy more often - at least in my case. As to monthlies, $2 a month for a media rich magazine would get me buying.
In the end the magazines and Apple would win with more purchasers. There is a price that will make folks buy. Reminds me of the Plymouth Reliant - a dog of car in many ways, especially with the initial price tag. But remember seeing a story that Plymouth had so many unsold vehicles, that a dealer made a deal to sell everyone on them if he could sell it at x $. They bit and the dealer did....
As I understand it... The SDK leaves it up to developers to set the prices of their apps. Now I have not purchased Time or SI off of iTunes, but they appear to be sperate apps - but under a unified structure. To that end i see no reason a weekly magazine like Time or SI to offer each issue at $1 or $1.50 for the richer content - only if the richer content conveys long term to the original buyer.
Some of us might not buy every week. But would buy more often - at least in my case. As to monthlies, $2 a month for a media rich magazine would get me buying.
In the end the magazines and Apple would win with more purchasers. There is a price that will make folks buy. Reminds me of the Plymouth Reliant - a dog of car in many ways, especially with the initial price tag. But remember seeing a story that Plymouth had so many unsold vehicles, that a dealer made a deal to sell everyone on them if he could sell it at x $. They bit and the dealer did....
This is why our country has antitrust laws ... because when a company does not have any competitors, it dominates the market and then forces customers and other business partners to do whatever it demands.
I can barely wait until Google comes out with an Android table. We all know they are working on one. When the Android tablets come out, Sports Illustrated will be able to have subscriptions. Apple will be forced to be fair or just not have any magazine publishers wanting to put magazines on the iPad.
Competition is always good for the consumer.
I can barely wait until Google comes out with an Android table. We all know they are working on one. When the Android tablets come out, Sports Illustrated will be able to have subscriptions. Apple will be forced to be fair or just not have any magazine publishers wanting to put magazines on the iPad.
Competition is always good for the consumer.
So if I understand correctly, TIME wants to use Apple's iTunes/App Store (as well as their servers) as a means of distribution, but wants to retain all of the profit for themselves......meaning they use Apple's iTunes/App Store as a free distribution method? Yeah, no. Of course Apple is going to reject it.
Apple is clear. They get a 30% cut for owning the servers, distributing the content, maintaining security for the personal information, maintaining the App/iTunes store, etc. etc. The other 70% is kept by the developer. I'm sure that if the developer had to pay for server royalties, bandwidth, setting up secure sites, etc. I'm sure it would come out to a little more out of pocket than 30%.
And can't they just do in-app purchasing for the different issues? Or even create an app that costs the same as the subscription, and they just update it when a new issue is released? I mean, there has to be other ways that "just" offering a subscription. But I don't think trying to use Apple as a free distributor is the answer.
Apple is clear. They get a 30% cut for owning the servers, distributing the content, maintaining security for the personal information, maintaining the App/iTunes store, etc. etc. The other 70% is kept by the developer. I'm sure that if the developer had to pay for server royalties, bandwidth, setting up secure sites, etc. I'm sure it would come out to a little more out of pocket than 30%.
And can't they just do in-app purchasing for the different issues? Or even create an app that costs the same as the subscription, and they just update it when a new issue is released? I mean, there has to be other ways that "just" offering a subscription. But I don't think trying to use Apple as a free distributor is the answer.
Woah there this a thousand times buddy. I didn't catch that part, but anyway, I guess they can do whatever the f. they want then.
You're complaining about an app that isn't available in its current form in Apple's appstore, but you can't even buy it anyway. How can you complain about such a thing?
I would bet it is rejected because of some dumb-ass method of setting up the subscription that Apple didn't like. Or security issues with user accounts. (that's right, a serious issue) I don't see how an assumption that Time's programmers are perfect is warranted. How many other apps do they have on any such store?
Since other apps already exist THAT DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, I'd say Apple is not simply rejecting your needs out of hand.
I downloaded the "Esquire" magazine app, demoed the first complimentary issue, and then through the app purchased a subscription for the year, at a great price per issue. Every time a new issue is available I get a notification that a new issue is ready for download. No muss, no fuss. All issues i have are available through the app, which eliminates a homepage being cluttered with individual issue badges. (although with the folders feature of iOS 4, I can see this no longer, wait for it...being an issue)
I looked at the SI app, but rejected it totally out of hand when I saw that they want $5 an issue. For $5 an issue, I'm going to expect one of the swim suit models come over to my house, and turn the page for me. That is a crazy price point. Notice the comments regarding this point by users in the comments portion of the App store most people agree.
I don't have a subscription to the SI's magazine. With the exorbitant price they are asking me to pay for their iPad version, especially when compared to the price point of other magazines out there (GQ, Esquire, Vanity Fair) all that is occurring is SI denying themselves a new source of revenue.
If SI had a better
I looked at the SI app, but rejected it totally out of hand when I saw that they want $5 an issue. For $5 an issue, I'm going to expect one of the swim suit models come over to my house, and turn the page for me. That is a crazy price point. Notice the comments regarding this point by users in the comments portion of the App store most people agree.
I don't have a subscription to the SI's magazine. With the exorbitant price they are asking me to pay for their iPad version, especially when compared to the price point of other magazines out there (GQ, Esquire, Vanity Fair) all that is occurring is SI denying themselves a new source of revenue.
If SI had a better
Finally clearly said
This is exactly it. Finally someone wrote it out clearly. SI wants to deliver via iTunes, but not pay Apple. Of course apple can charge.
I use tons of subscription services on the iphone/iPad and it's not a problem if the developer handles the downloads.
This is exactly it. Finally someone wrote it out clearly. SI wants to deliver via iTunes, but not pay Apple. Of course apple can charge.
I use tons of subscription services on the iphone/iPad and it's not a problem if the developer handles the downloads.
SI et. al. are the greedy ones. Have a yearly subscription available at the same price as magazine subscription, and people will buy. (And SI will likely make more than their paper version still).
Exactly. People think distributing content has no cost?
Over $1 billion paid out so far.
Exactly. People think distributing content has no cost?
Over $1 billion paid out so far.
OK! And the problem with this? Apple should do all the distribution and hosting etc for Time to take the whole profit with no distribution costs? Good model....for Time!
And why is everyone so upset about Apple being the distributor? Who came up with the idea? Who implemented it? Who sucks up the costs?
While Apple keep catching the flack for greed, no-one seems to be looking at the publishers here, whom seem to want their cake, eat it, and then eat someone else's also.
The one thing I want them to sort out is the pricing. I have not bought one of these as yet as the price per item is simply ridiculous. They want traditional media prices, without the same cost base. Hopefully, whatever the two parties sort out, it will have a reasonable price structure. Otherwise, people like me will continue to sit and watch them wither in their own greed!
Again, you don't know what Time wants and what the issues are surrounding the rejection. You're just making an assumption, which most likely does not reflect the reality.
I suspect the issue is nothing like what you think it is. Time/SI is perfectly capable of hosting this content and serving it to their customers. They are part of Time Warner - multi-billion media conglomerate for chrissakes. They don't need Apple hosting services, that's not the issue.
The dispute is more likely around the user billing model, as the original leak already alludes to. Apple has been long planning their own iTunes-based subscription offering. Perhaps Apple doesn't want Time managing the subscriptions in-app, they want to be the sole party controlling all in-app payments.
I believe this has everything to do with Apple wanting "in" on the action, and not willing to let a major competitor like Time Warner bypass their "Apple tax" gate.
There is also a strong chance no one (that includes Time Inc) really knows what Apple's true motives for this rejection. They have a history of rejecting apps and services that they view as strategically competitive - look at Google Voice rejection or the more recent WiFi Sync app rejection as the examples.
Again, that is the fundamental problem with the current App Store/iOS model - Apple has way too much power, and they exercise their power to harm the competitors and ultimately limit the user's choice and access to other vendors they view as strategic competitors. This is not about "Time Inc trying to get Apple to host their mags for free".
The issue here is totally obvious
It's amazing how many people are capable of missing the nose in front of their faces.
SI wants to do ship an app with the following characteristics:
1) Free application
2) Premium paid content for the app, but
3) Billed direct to the user, not through Apple.
Which is to say, in effect, that they don't think they should have to pay their publisher/distributor for its services.
Ten seconds' thought would tell you that if this were allowed by Apple, some company would spring up that would only charge 10% for such purchases, and would handle the billing for you. The vast majority of app developers would immediately switch to that who doesn't want one third as much overhead? and Apple would be left hosting an enormous ecosystem of 'free' apps on their dime. (Okay, it wouldn't be immediate... you'd have to wait until you had a critical mass of users on the competing billing company, but that should be doable. And in the mean time, you could actually take both... iTMS in-app purchases for those who aren't on the new billing system, but give some bonus to those who are on it, to encourage people to sign up for it.)
And yes, it really is that simple.
If SI is really dead set on doing this, of course, there's a <i>really easy 100% available way for them to do it</i>. Just create a paid area on their web site that has all of the iPad content in it, and only allow people to log in who have a subscription. Its not quite as sexy as what you can do with an app, of course. Which makes it infeasible: it's not like SI is about anything but sexy, these days.
-fred
It's amazing how many people are capable of missing the nose in front of their faces.
SI wants to do ship an app with the following characteristics:
1) Free application
2) Premium paid content for the app, but
3) Billed direct to the user, not through Apple.
Which is to say, in effect, that they don't think they should have to pay their publisher/distributor for its services.
Ten seconds' thought would tell you that if this were allowed by Apple, some company would spring up that would only charge 10% for such purchases, and would handle the billing for you. The vast majority of app developers would immediately switch to that who doesn't want one third as much overhead? and Apple would be left hosting an enormous ecosystem of 'free' apps on their dime. (Okay, it wouldn't be immediate... you'd have to wait until you had a critical mass of users on the competing billing company, but that should be doable. And in the mean time, you could actually take both... iTMS in-app purchases for those who aren't on the new billing system, but give some bonus to those who are on it, to encourage people to sign up for it.)
And yes, it really is that simple.
If SI is really dead set on doing this, of course, there's a <i>really easy 100% available way for them to do it</i>. Just create a paid area on their web site that has all of the iPad content in it, and only allow people to log in who have a subscription. Its not quite as sexy as what you can do with an app, of course. Which makes it infeasible: it's not like SI is about anything but sexy, these days.
-fred