As it stands at the moment, Netflix do all their subscriptions elsewhere. They can continue to take subscriptions on their website, tell people to download their iPad app, and continue to pay Apple nothing. All well and good.
Same goes for Time magazine. If they want to tell all their subscribers that they can download the app for free and log in with a subscriber user/password, then they're free to go right ahead and pay Apple nothing.
The time to pay Apple comes when you give away your free reader application, and put a button in there that says "subscribe to our content". That's the point where Apple is saying you need to let the user choose to subscribe with their iTunes account. From the users point of view, it's a brilliant experience. They only have to click a couple of buttons, don't have to type in anything new, don't have to give away any of their personal information to the publisher unless they want to, and get to be safe in the knowledge they can cancel it easily at any time. Users should love this, and want this.
From the publisher point of view, they get immediate access to 70 million iTunes accounts with credit cards attached, get the money deposited straight into their bank without having to deal with credit card fraud, billing support, cancellations, credit card processing, or any of the other things that have to go in to running a massive billing operation. They also get a mass of potential subscribers handed to them on a plate. For that, Apple take 30%, an industry standard cut for any such offering. The content owners should be loving it too. Rupert Murdoch and The Daily obviously thought it was worth it.
The publishers are up in arms more about the loss of subscriber data than they are about giving 30% to Apple. 30% is normal. They give that to their distribution partners whoever they are. Probably more. What they really want is your personal details, your name, your email address, your demographic. That's what they sell to advertisers. They don't like that Apple is only going to give them that if the user specifically agrees to give them it. They don't like that Apple is putting the power in the users hands and not theirs.
For all the people here complaining, you should be happy that the power is going to be in your hands over who gets to sell your data.
And to those shouting antitrust, that's such a typical American response these days. Seems like anybody who is successful therefore must be subject to some sort of lawsuit. But in this case it's quite simple, you want to play in Apple's playground, you have to abide by their rules. Just because their rules are nicely balanced to being good for consumers (don't give up your personal details, your credit card info or your immediate right to cancel at any time, woohoo!) and for themselves (obviously, they're a business), and not on the side of the big worldwide multi-conglomerate evil music, movie and publishing industries - doesn't mean they're illegal or unlawful.
If these companies don't want instant access to all those potential subscribers and the affluent pockets of those who made the iPad one of the fastest selling pieces of technology of all time, then that is their choice, and they are welcome not to put their apps on the device. They can't just run to the courts because the place they want to play doesn't suit them.
And of course, if this does drive all these companies to go elsewhere, the iPad gets no decent apps or services, and isn't worth buying, then that's fine too. You can go and buy some other device that does have the things you want on it. It'll run really well sitting next to the apps trying to steal your credit card data and the companies selling your personal details to the highest bidder. But that's customer choice for you.
