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
They don't compete with publishers, and the "tablet market" is not probably too narrow a definition of a "market" (more likely, anti-trust authorities would be interested in the overall "pc" market or the "mobile" market.)
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...
And I'm sure that the FT has no subscribers in the US, hence they don't care about subscriber information and the ability to sell it out ...
Oh, wait, they just turned down the ability to drastically increase readership and better serve their existing readers while saving in printing and distribution costs and reducing their billing processing needs, so that they could preserve the income from selling that subscriber information.
I don't think it's FUD. It's simple logic. If they are going to the mat to protect a revenue stream, it is unreasonable to assume that that revenue stream is insignificant.
...clearly you dont value your privacy as much as i do. *i* want to own my customer data. *i* want to decide who gets to use it.. i do *not* want a newspaper to own and sell my data to others.
thus, im pleased w/ iOS policies, at the expense of devious marketeers.
nope -- its GIVING users choice. why? remember, w/ iOS subscriptions, YOU get to decide who you opt-in to. you, the CUSTOMER.
clearly, marketeers dont like this. theyd prefer we have NO CHOICE, as its been for decades.
choice -- "That word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means!"
How hard is it to uncheck these two boxes?
um, you do realize theres a diff between emailing YOU, and marketing your personal data, right?
this isnt about email from the pub. its about them marketing your data to others, whether you get spam from it or not.
Last edited:
Let's compare this to normal hard-copy subscriptions
In the world of print, there are two ways to receive newspapers and magazines: single copies on the newsstand, or via subscription delivery. Subscription delivery is traditionally a lot cheaper than via the newsstand. The main reason for that is because the publisher knows demographic information about you, and they use that information to attract advertisers to the publication. They don't get that value from the anonymous newsstand purchaser, so prices are accordingly higher. Each issue of the publication is subsidized by the advertisers. (It costs a fortune to put together a world-class publication, paying writers and editors and designers and running the company.)
These publishers want to continue to encourage people to subscribe to their electronic version by offering a lower price... they can only afford to do this by continuing to collect demographic user information that they can use to attract advertisers who will subsidize the cost of the publication. They will probably offer single issues online (or maybe even subscriptions online) at higher prices than the normal subscription to people who don't share their information. Your information is worth money, they know that and their advertisers know that, and you should know that too. If you withhold your information, you are holding back money, and thus asking for something for less. (Will you get it? How nicely are you asking?)
All this talk about selling email addresses to third parties is speculation and red herrings. This is about subsidizing subscriptions and paying for content. It's the business of the subscription publishing industry, and Apple wants to change it. Change isn't inherently good or bad, but in this case change would mean either reduced content/quality or higher prices.
:d
In the world of print, there are two ways to receive newspapers and magazines: single copies on the newsstand, or via subscription delivery. Subscription delivery is traditionally a lot cheaper than via the newsstand. The main reason for that is because the publisher knows demographic information about you, and they use that information to attract advertisers to the publication. They don't get that value from the anonymous newsstand purchaser, so prices are accordingly higher. Each issue of the publication is subsidized by the advertisers. (It costs a fortune to put together a world-class publication, paying writers and editors and designers and running the company.)
These publishers want to continue to encourage people to subscribe to their electronic version by offering a lower price... they can only afford to do this by continuing to collect demographic user information that they can use to attract advertisers who will subsidize the cost of the publication. They will probably offer single issues online (or maybe even subscriptions online) at higher prices than the normal subscription to people who don't share their information. Your information is worth money, they know that and their advertisers know that, and you should know that too. If you withhold your information, you are holding back money, and thus asking for something for less. (Will you get it? How nicely are you asking?)
All this talk about selling email addresses to third parties is speculation and red herrings. This is about subsidizing subscriptions and paying for content. It's the business of the subscription publishing industry, and Apple wants to change it. Change isn't inherently good or bad, but in this case change would mean either reduced content/quality or higher prices.
:d
Last edited:
Where has been the outcry during the last 50 years during newspapers have used this for their subscribers?
So, the moment somebody offers a newspaper subscription that asks the user via a non-modal interface whether to share its data, you decide which newspaper you prefer on this basis. And if somebody had offered a newspaper which by default does not use your data (ie, requires you to check a box instead of unchecking) in the past you would have immediately switched to that newspaper?
Except that you naturally didn't do any of that (despite also naturally there being newspapers which by default do not use your data, eg, currently the The Economist).
All this grandstanding, just at the opportunity to use some strong words.
Yes, I have seen there are two checkboxes, I even mentioned it in my post. Check or uncheck either one as you like. Maybe you don't like e-mails about new features in their app, then just uncheck both. Or you are fine with receiving e-mail from FT then uncheck only the bottom one.
With Apple's simplified system, you only decide whether to hand over your data to the publisher, you cannot decide what they then do with this data.
And what is the innovation in this? You always had the option to decide (remember those checkboxes). I really don't see how Apple's solution is really different from the current situation.
And what is iOS's policy? That you get a dialogue window instead of a checkbox? I'm really glad at this momentous improvement.
Why would any country allow newspapers to sell subscriptions without the option to opt out? Check back with your politicians if that were legal in your country.
You mean as narrow ad the desktop browser market? Which got Microsoft into trouble (until politics turned business-friendly).
Because Apple's solution cuts them out from general demographics information as well (for those that opt out).
And I have not seen on option in iOS to prevent Apple from using my data for general demographics they use to sell their iAds.
People get whipped into a frenzy just because somebody tells them to.
There are quite a number of companies I trust in addition to Apple (a lot of local ones). I cannot remember to ever having received spam from Google (not that I trust them in everything but in this regard they have been good).
Not at all. FT and the like can still do their own system but not folks can choose to use the in app option and use an established pay system instead of putting their info and credit card on yet another site. Plus you can skip credit cards all together by using iTunes gift cards, which you can buy pretty much everywhere these days
The issue isn't so much subscriptions. It is that Apple made a rule about anything that is sold inside an app that if you wanted to sell it on your own site you have to also have a way for folks to buy it from inside the app through the itunes store and that for those sales Apple gets their 30% (they get nothing if it is paid for via your site or another service). But you also can't put a link or any mention that users can go somewhere else to pay inside the app.
That is what has folks up in arms
Everyone here is quite happy with how Apple manages their personal data, but I bet a million dollars that not one of you has read the iTunes or App Store terms and conditions all the way through. We may one day find out that we all signed off on donating our DNA to Apple so that it could build a clone army of customers for the next million years.