How hard is it to uncheck these two boxes?
And other publications, like The Economist, already come with the equivalent boxes unchecked by default.
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.
'Financial Times' Holding Out From iPad Subscriptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And other publications, like The Economist, already come with the equivalent boxes unchecked by default.
What are you talking about? It's enabling choice. Customers have a choice to send their personal data to FT. Before, they did not. What choice is Apple taking away from customers?
Apple says: "give choice to customers."
FT says: "no choice for customers."
And you have the nerve to call people Apple fanboys. That term should nullify your point right then and there.
Right, I was just responding to the poster who didn't think Apple allowed users to opt-in.
Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to...
How hard is it to uncheck these two boxes?
And other publications, like The Economist, already come with the equivalent boxes unchecked by default.
Stop confusing the issue with facts and evidence.
Apple, do what you are meant to do - provide great hardware and software. Let's keep my name outside of your access for transactions I do with third-parties inside third-party software.
How is that even relevant? Just because US companies can't get their ***** together with respect to privacy, the rest of the world has to deal with Apple's crappy business policies that are supposedly there for consumer protection but which seem far more geared towards boosting their own profits.
Where does he say that he does not like the Financial Time? The point is, he does not like that the Financial Times sells the address to junk mailers, and I also must agree with it. Unfortunately there is these day not too much choice since you often don't know who is putting you on those lists - I found out about some due to typos in my unusual name that they had made in my subscriptions and I got junk in the good old paper mail to the 'wrong' name. But usually you don't know who sells your name and it is good if you have an option where you don't you are not put on stupid paper wasting junk lists. - FT does not need my name and/or address.
Yeah, right. Could I see please a screenshot where I can opt in and out of such things in iOS, including Apple collecting my location information? I am sure it is somewhere, I just have a tad more trouble finding it compared to FT's example.
How hard is it to uncheck these two boxes?
And other publications, like The Economist, already come with the equivalent boxes unchecked by default.
In general: you sometimes don't get that option in a very straight forward way - and they still might sell your address (maybe not FT, but others)
So if you opt out: WHY do they still need your full name, address, email, .... etc information. If I tell them I don't want any of their advertisement or from their partners than I don't. I can see that they ask for the zip code or similar information to see in which areas they do good or not - but they should not get my full address, email or phone number.
If not subscriptions
Why not sell daily copies of the FT if they don’t want to sell subscriptions through Apple. Does Apple allow this?
That would make the App the equivalent of the news stand with the additional advantage of immediate availability of to-day’s edition to-day wherever the reader is in the world. The price could be very competitive with a news stand price and the FT would not have any info on this reader in any case.
Why not sell daily copies of the FT if they don’t want to sell subscriptions through Apple. Does Apple allow this?
That would make the App the equivalent of the news stand with the additional advantage of immediate availability of to-day’s edition to-day wherever the reader is in the world. The price could be very competitive with a news stand price and the FT would not have any info on this reader in any case.
Last edited:
Apple needs to learn to work with publishers.
I spend about a third of my daily iPad time reading the FT every morning. If the app gets pulled or no longer works (because Apple insists on getting their cut of my annual subscription), I will make the very easy decision to get an Android tablet next.
Same goes for my Economist and WSJ apps. Combined, I probably spend 75% of my time on my iPad reading these publications. Take them away, and I'm gone.
My loyalty is to the publisher and the quality of their material. It is NOT to Apple. And one less iPad owner also means one less App store and/or iTunes customer.
Apple should tread very lightly here.
I spend about a third of my daily iPad time reading the FT every morning. If the app gets pulled or no longer works (because Apple insists on getting their cut of my annual subscription), I will make the very easy decision to get an Android tablet next.
Same goes for my Economist and WSJ apps. Combined, I probably spend 75% of my time on my iPad reading these publications. Take them away, and I'm gone.
My loyalty is to the publisher and the quality of their material. It is NOT to Apple. And one less iPad owner also means one less App store and/or iTunes customer.
Apple should tread very lightly here.
Bingo - IMO, this person is a detriment to our MR community - skating just on the safer side of trolling.
Than why else do they want them? FT references their "business model" needing this "relationship". As other have said, I want their content NOT a relationship.
I just want subscriptions on my iPad and the main point is, whether you agree or disagree with Apple's opt-in policy, this is still a major sticking point with many publications. Of all the magazine/newspaper apps I use on my iPad only 2 have adopted the new subscription policy. NYT was one of those but I deleted it because those prices were insane. I just want subscription options from Wired, Popular Mechanics and Sports Illustrated. I don't care about Apple's policy, I don't care if the publisher gets my info or not... I just want subscriptions!!!!!! I have stopped and will never pay another $5 per issue for anything on the iPad. Subscriptions or nothing!
Apple + publishers - just get it worked out, I don't care how, just do it!
Apple + publishers - just get it worked out, I don't care how, just do it!
Does this quote even make sense?
Anyway, its obvious that they want to exploit personal info. Its vital to their core business, what a joke.
This is the very reason why I think that Apple's policy should be reconsidered. Why would content providers such as the Financial Times be compelled to offer their content on iOS, when Apple requires them to (additionally) use the in-app purchases by which the providers lose the advantage of using their own register and keeping the entire revenue, without having to share it with Apple. The position of the Financial Times is completely understandable, regardless of the business decisions that provider has made. I still doubt whether the true motive of Apple to enforce this measure is not consumer protection but receiving profits from the content of others.
Why should people who just want to read the news be compelled to provide the FT with personal information in order to do so? Why does the FT need to know my name, address, phone number, etc.?
How hard is it to uncheck these two boxes?
And other publications, like The Economist, already come with the equivalent boxes unchecked by default.
If this is from their website, what is their issue with letting users opt-out in their iPad app?