Awesome.
Now thats what I like to hear. Their may be hope for us citizens after all.
Viva Lé Revolucion! The people should have the power, not the corporations. Fight now because your loosing.
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
Awesome.
Now thats what I like to hear. Their may be hope for us citizens after all.
Viva Lé Revolucion! The people should have the power, not the corporations. Fight now because your loosing.
And that's the point FT has a problem with.
They want that data so they can sell it to marketers and artificially inflate their profits.
Also this made me laugh:
They're bringing in 40% of their revenue through digital sales because people already abandoned their paper distribution in droves, just like every other publication. People just go to Google News and get access to thousands of different articles on the same topic that are all free.
FT needs that user data to sell to advertisers because without it they hemorrhage money due to their poor business model.
Okay let's look at this clearly shall we? The Financial Times (and they're far from the only one) are complaining NOT because of the subscription fee split but because they loose "the direct relationship with subscribers". To put that into simple English they currently sell their customers information to marketing firms or use the demographic data to sell ads in the FT or related materials.
Now Apple aren't actually stopping that, they're just insisting that customers opt-in to the scheme rather than opt-out (or have no choice at all).
No matter how you look at it Apple is on the side of the consumer here. They're not denying that information to the FT, just trying to make sure consumers can choose whether or not they want that information shared with a third party and, more importantly, that the default is NO. That's a great, positive step forward, frankly ALL such marketing and data selling should be opt-in and very clearly marked and I wish Apple all the best.
Because if you opt out on the iPad app they don't get your information at all.
They will need this information to offer you a better deal once they come out with the HTML5 version of their app. At that point they will bypass the Apple store and its 30% cut altogether. You will pay less for the content and FT will make more money then they do now.
It's a win-win for both you and FT. Apple, well, not so much.
Apple's new subscription model is preventing publishers from selling our / your private information to advertisers / spammers.
If publishers want to make money and thrive they should do it by earning it and producing quality content, not by selling our private information to third parties.
I'm not saying the FT isn't a quality publisher, just saying this applies to all publishers in general.
You mean they can't just put out an update to the app which includes a notice about the new HTML5 web-site? They *have* to be able to email it to you, call you, and send it to your home address in paper form?
stop with the fud already. Businesses operating in the eu cannot do this. Just because corporations in the usa can, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same...
lol
Stella said:
Response...
That is NOT a reason to assume they do sell information. Probably marketing reasons.
Apple wants people to give personal information ( address, phone number etc ) to sign up for the various *free* developer programs ( i.e., Safari Developer ).. that isn't an indication that Apple are going to sell your information... However, according to your response.. Apple will sell this information... ( which of course, they will not ).
Last edited:
Stop with the FUD already. Businesses operating in the EU cannot do this. Just because corporations in the USA can, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same...
So..Seriously why do you care then. Not one single publisher cares at all about the 30% that is a pretty standard affiliate cut in for news publishers and exactly what WSJ pays on it's lowest tier, it goes up from there for high volume affiliates.
Other then the guy saying it hurts their business model not to have all my personal info no.
How hard is it to uncheck these two boxes?
And other publications, like The Economist, already come with the equivalent boxes unchecked by default.
The Economist is ok with selling in subscriptions..
Maybe you should tell publishers you are ok with them not requiring your personal information..
Of course not. Since that app would not be allowed because the HTML5 version would offer cheaper prices - which is against the app store rules ;-)
Wow, you my friend are bought and sold!
The less a corporation knows about me the better. I am not in favor of giving my personal information away. But you believe apple should succumb to a no choice collection of this data simply because a corporation demands it? Your easy.
Bankers and Corporations run this world and they dont have a "flower power, I love your grandma and children" attitude. Just look at what the banks did. Look at how the government responded. Now you want to give corps even more control by taking away choice?
You say you'll go to Android, which i think is a bit poetic. The definition of Android means "Robot with a Human Appearance", and the government/bankers/corporations just love that mindset
matter of fact, im sure thats how they see all of us. I know this sounds like a personal attack but it isnt. Its a rant on the relationship between the people, their government and the bankers/corporations. If apple wants to provide choice as to whether i give out my personal info, im cool with that. Grateful actually.
Last edited:
Of course. Say you are a subscriber and then decide to cancel for some reason - maybe it's too expensive.
When a cheaper version becomes available, FT would like to be able to contact you to let you know about the new deal.
Or maybe they would like to offer you a welcome back deal.
Or maybe...
The point is, there are a lot of reasons a company would want this information that does not involve selling your information to someone else.
The Financial Times didnt have this new revenue stream before Apple offered it to them. Why wouldnt apple share profits? To me its more about keeping companies away from data collecting on their prey...i mean peons... i mean customers.
I don't want THEM having the information. If I sever my relationship with a business (for example, by canceling a subscription) I don't WANT them to pester me to re-sign. I don't want phone calls, mailings, and email. If their computer burps and decides I haven't paid them properly, I don't WANT them pestering me or having debt collectors pester me.
And this is why HTML5 versions of these types of apps are coming. At which point it will become more clear that Apple did not really offer anything.
That would be you. I for example, did not mind when XM radio offered me a 50% off deal for "coming back".
Just let FT know you don't want to be bothered and let the rest of us get the 50% off deals.
If you don't know that you can negotiate a better deal when leaving or after you have left, and you rely on giving up your personal info in order to obtain such "benefits," you deserve what you get.
And to borrow your line of argument, let those of us who value our privacy stick with Apple, and you go enjoy Android and let FT and everyone else know everything about you.
The simple fact that the Financial Times is a UK company and therefore their privacy policy actually means something kind of takes the wind out of your sails somewhat.
Just read their privacy policy and it is clear that they only send you junk email if you explicitly allow it. Plus as an ex-FT subscriber I can state I haven't received any junk mail of any kind.
If they do not offer this option, they might be breaking the law (and if not I would badger my politicians to make such a law) or you simply do not any business with them.
Legally, if you make any kind of contract, you have to identify yourself. When you do a business in person (eg, buying a hotdog) being there physically is enough, for non-personal contracts you need to identify yourself (which can be done via a creditcard, as the creditcard itself has an address to it) via an address.
Demanding an e-mail or a phone number is there to facilitate things for the business partner, they have business operations in place which might rely on sending out invoices via e-mail. But legally, you probably could make a fuss and claiming you do not have an e-mail address or even a telephone.
Because the Financial Times wants it that way. The company offers its content to subscribers under certain conditions, and it is free do so. If the company should not be allowed to do that for the sake of consumer protection, then there should be laws to prohibit such practice. If you personally do not agree with the conditions of the subscription, then you are always free to decide not to subscribe. If it turns out that their decision keeps customers from subscribing, then they might choose to reconsider.
With regard to subscriptions on iOS, I think that Apple simply goes too far and should leave content providers the freedom to offer their content in their way, based on their subscription models. As the Financial Times has stated, under the current terms of the App Store, subscriptions via iOS do not meet their expectations because they cannot provide the content in the way they would like to.
On a side note, I wonder whether Apple violates competition rules. When I remember correctly, the iPad had a considerable market share on the tablet market. One could argue that Apple abuses its market position to impose their own (unfair) conditions on publishers.
Since the Euro is higher than the dollar, I would say they prefer the EU. More profit per sold iDevice
.Personally I support this, it is not because I support this. I want to read a paper not being spammed with offers.
Last edited: