'Financial Times' Holding Out From iPad Subscriptions

[manu chao]

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.

Apple does offer something for smaller companies for which a 30% for payment handling might actually be a good deal.

It has been suggested in a number of places that Apple simply underestimated the cost of free apps (to them) and is now trying to claw back revenue where it can (first by allowing in-app purchasing for free apps, something Jobs said would never happen: 'Free apps stay free', then via iAds, then via this subscription service) while at the same time providing a service to its customers (who do not have to enter their creditcard for every in-app purchase or subscription anymore).
The contention only started when Apple made in-App purchases and subscriptions exclusive to their method.

 

[Vegasman]

Apple does offer something for smaller companies for which a 30% for payment handling might actually be a good deal.

True.

 

[manu chao]

The less a corporation knows about me the better.

And Apple having your address, phone number, e-mail address, creditcard is fine with you? And if yes, why is ok for Apple to have this information but not for the FT?

 

[Jonasgold]

And Apple having your address, phone number, e-mail address, creditcard is fine with you? And if yes, why is ok for Apple to have this information but not for the FT?

The difference is not whether or not they have it, the difference is whether or not they can sell it to "Companies which offer something they think I might be interested in".

 

[Vegasman]

The difference is not whether or not they have it, the difference is whether or not they can sell it to "Companies which offer something they think I might be interested in".

For which FT allows you to opt out.

 

[manu chao]

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.

They can only sell it if you opt in (or don't opt out, depending on whether that checkbox is checked by default or not). And what harm is happening to you if they use their anonymous demographic data to sell adds? Don't you think Apple is using their demographic data when they sell iAds?

 

[Jonasgold]

For which FT allows you to opt out.

I prefer to opt-in instead of opt-out.

 

[manu chao]

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.

You are saying, that the FT is getting a serious revenue stream from online because people just go Google News and get access to thousands of different articles on the same topic that are all free?

Or did I not follow your logic correctly?

 

[Vegasman]

I prefer to opt-in instead of opt-out.

Sure. If that's what it takes, let's uncheck the box by default and let Apple provide the info to the publishers.

 

[Jonasgold]

They can only sell it if you opt in (or don't opt out, depending on whether that checkbox is checked by default or not). And what harm is happening to you if they use their anonymous demographic data to sell adds? Don't you think Apple is using their demographic data when they sell iAds?

It goes further than anonymous demographic data(and the anonymity part is very slim with online services).
It' s about being spammed, phoned, mailed with stuff they think I might like just because I'm subscribed with them.

 

[cmaier]

Legally, if you make any kind of contract, you have to identify yourself.

No you don't.

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.

True. They can refuse to sell their news to anyone who wants to be anonymous. They can also refuse to sell their news to anyone who refuses to give them blood, name their firstborn Nancy, or any other legal condition they wish to impose.

That doesn't mean Apple is wrong for trying to prevent the use of their platform to facilitate the operation of such objectionable conditions precedent, and it doesn't mean that the FT business model, operating this way, is sustainable in the long term.

 

[Jonasgold]

Sure. If that's what it takes, let's uncheck the box by default and let Apple provide the info to the publishers.

Apple does allow opt-in, just not opt-out. So the problem lies with the FT.

 

[manu chao]

If this is from their website, what is their issue with letting users opt-out in their iPad app?

If you have doubts that this from their website why don't you check (two clicks away from ft.com)?
It is about two things:
(a) Knowing their demographics
(b) Being able to communicate directly with their customers, even if is only about new features or special offers (there are two checkboxes, people might agree to first one but not the second one, Apple with its great simplicity won't allow such differentiated options)

 

[manu chao]

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.?

Why does Apple need my phone number? I just want to buy and use their products? (For an Apple ID, ie, if you want to use any apps, even free ones, Apple requires you to give them your personal data, in Apple's stores, they even ask for your ZIP code when your purchase anything, well at least in those stores I have been.)

 

[manu chao]

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)

Again, every newspaper subscription form I have seen has these boxes but that might depend on whether legislation requires it and whether companies (try to) break the law.

 

[HiRez]

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.

 

[hayesk]

And Apple having your address, phone number, e-mail address, creditcard is fine with you? And if yes, why is ok for Apple to have this information but not for the FT?

Email address is required to send me shipping notifications, and iTunes receipts. A Physical address and phone number is required to ship me their hardware I buy and verify which country's App Store I can shop in.

FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.

 

[cmaier]

Why does Apple need my phone number? I just want to buy and use their products? (For an Apple ID, ie, if you want to use any apps, even free ones, Apple requires you to give them your personal data, in Apple's stores, they even ask for your ZIP code when your purchase anything, well at least in those stores I have been.)

You're right. Ideally they wouldn't need my info. In the grand scheme of things, I personally trust Apple more than I trust most other companies. I also expect to have a continuing long-term relationship with them, that includes person-to-person services in addition to sale of products. I also prefer to have a single point-of-contact I can use to sever any relationships I don't want to continue.

So for me it comes down to "who do you trust?" Apple has, historically, been very good about not subscribing me to mailings I don't want. They also never have sold my info (I know this because I use a different email address in a domain I own for every on-line business I do business with. From this I know who, exactly, sells my info. I just look at who my spam is addressed to).

 

[Vegasman]

Apple does allow opt-in, just not opt-out. So the problem lies with the FT.

Not really.

The terms with FT are that if you want to use their service you must provide them with the information. Then you can choose what you allow them to do with this information.

If Apple does not want to allow FT to work that way they are effectively saying they don't want to do business with FT. And this is why FT is "holding out."

Apple doesn't like the T&C's of FT.
FT does not like the T&C's of Apple.

So they are choosing not to do business with each other. Happens all the time.

Apple users are the only ones that lose here.

 

[Vegasman]

Email address is required to send me shipping notifications, and iTunes receipts. A Physical address and phone number is required to ship me their hardware I buy and verify which country's App Store I can shop in.

FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.

With that line of thinking...

Apple needs my information for what, now? I bought my Apple hardware at Best Buy. I only use free apps.

 

[Stella]

Email address is required to send me shipping notifications, and iTunes receipts. A Physical address and phone number is required to ship me their hardware I buy and verify which country's App Store I can shop in.

FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.

Why do Apple need an address and phone number to register for free memberships, such as the free developer programmes? An email address and name is good enough. They certainly don't need a phone number - if Apple want to contact they can email. At least, make the address and phone number optional...

 

[psimac]

They Have No Relationship...

They have no relationship with me, because their subscription costs for the iPad app are so out of line. Maybe they should get with the program. And if you subscribe to the paper version, there's no incentive to get the iOS version.

These companies should be trying to get their content out to as many people as possible and sell advertising, so that they can survive. What if Netflix just sold thru their own system and charged high fees? They'd be Blockbusted now.

Wall Street Journal seems to be the only one that gets it.

 

[jettredmont]

Thank you, Apple, for weeding out the companies whose business model depends on selling my information to junk-mailers.

This is the kind of 'crazy-Steve-Jobs-control' I can live with.

I agree wholeheartedly. Despite the fact that I work for the same company that owns the FT, I am disgusted by this reasoning. I definitely won't be subscribing to the pink paper any time soon.

 

[jettredmont]

You are obviously missing the point. Apple's new subscription model is preventing choice from coming to it's customers. How is that not a bad thing?

How up-front is the FT with its subscribers that it values the ability to sell their mailing address and contact information more than anything else?

I know that Pearson in general is heavily invested in getting iPad and other electronic readership up across their product lines. This is public information. The fact that FT sees subscriber information as valuable enough to stake its future on and to buck the overall corporate direction is very telling.

Until the FT reverses route, the ONLY rational response is to either not buy the FT at all (there are competitors out there) or buy it at a news stand.

 

[Starflyer]

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.

No, they don't.