Only today's edition is cached...compare that to the native iOS app and will understand the difference, not to mention the obvious navigation limitations.
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 Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Only today's edition is cached...compare that to the native iOS app and will understand the difference, not to mention the obvious navigation limitations.
Hopefully this is the start of campanies actually reviewing what the point of apps is. Far to many have an app as it is a 'cool' thing but they do no more than a website and are complete waste of time that just clog up the app store.
Companies need to actually create apps that use the benefit of having the code on the device and not just publish web content
Companies need to actually create apps that use the benefit of having the code on the device and not just publish web content
Let me get this straight... They don't want to pay the Apple tax, so they are making a Web site you have to pay to use. Good luck with that because it's been oh, so successful for other businesses.
I don't necessarily agree with the 30% Apple tax, particularly for smaller developers, but just ask any iOS developer how many apps they sell vs. how many Web apps get downloaded. But for something like a magazine or news content, offline viewing is critical, otherwise I may as well just go to one of the countless news Web sites out there.
I don't necessarily agree with the 30% Apple tax, particularly for smaller developers, but just ask any iOS developer how many apps they sell vs. how many Web apps get downloaded. But for something like a magazine or news content, offline viewing is critical, otherwise I may as well just go to one of the countless news Web sites out there.
Hopefully Apple will realise that this is a stipid idea. I don't mind the 30% on apps but the content is just robbery. I hope more and more content providers move off the application model and go to web based. It also provides me a path to go to another plantform in the future. If Apple dropped the price they would also get more repeat buyers on the IOS devices as every year they wouldn't need to consider all the lost application they purchased when adding up whether to buy Android. The more that go web based means that more people have a choice to move off the IOS platform in the future....
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)
This isn't about revenue (30% is nothing), this is about control. FT wants complete control of their product, and apple is stepping in and applying restrictions.
It's interesting they announced this the day after the WWDC keynote. They are throwing away the newsstand feature in iOS 5. I don't read the FT, but if I did i would want the automatic background download feature.
This isn't about revenue (30% is nothing), this is about control. FT wants complete control of their product, and apple is stepping in and applying restrictions.
It's interesting they announced this the day after the WWDC keynote. They are throwing away the newsstand feature in iOS 5. I don't read the FT, but if I did i would want the automatic background download feature.
Thats only true of the app itself, it's NOT true of in-app purchases. In-app purchases only net you the payment processing, you still have to host everything yourself. IE it's a huge rip-off and Apple will be taken to court for it really soon.
They don't deserve a cut because THEY DIDNT DO ANYTHING! If they were giving the devices away I could see, but unless I got ripped off, last time I checked my iPad and iPhone were a far cry away from free.
30% is actually closer to 1/3 than it is to nothing. It is also closer to 1/2 than it is to nothing. You are a bright one, aren't you? LOL.
here's the catch.
its like shopping in a mall vs the outlet stores. the mall has cache (sp?) and it advertises your business to the most foot traffic and you pay for it with high rent. the appstore is the BEST application of advertisement and incidental exposure to browsing customers in the mobile arena. how much does that cost you? 30% rent. its like people have a manager and give him a cut to make them big until their own name has clout and they want to break the contract.
the Appstore does its job well as a well integrated distribution service. i wish them well tho. Maybe this will work for them like soundclick and cd baby works for people who left itunes............ *sideeye*
its like shopping in a mall vs the outlet stores. the mall has cache (sp?) and it advertises your business to the most foot traffic and you pay for it with high rent. the appstore is the BEST application of advertisement and incidental exposure to browsing customers in the mobile arena. how much does that cost you? 30% rent. its like people have a manager and give him a cut to make them big until their own name has clout and they want to break the contract.
the Appstore does its job well as a well integrated distribution service. i wish them well tho. Maybe this will work for them like soundclick and cd baby works for people who left itunes............ *sideeye*
Offline blues
I'm having the same problem...If I turn off the internet, the web app says it can't connect and offers the option to "Close" or "Retry." This is no solution at all. If I can't exit the web app at some point while I'm offline (on a plane for instance) to do other things, then have the ability to come back to the app to read, it's worthless.
I'm having the same problem...If I turn off the internet, the web app says it can't connect and offers the option to "Close" or "Retry." This is no solution at all. If I can't exit the web app at some point while I'm offline (on a plane for instance) to do other things, then have the ability to come back to the app to read, it's worthless.
see that argument might work if Apple allowed basicly side loading on iOS devices. Then they could put rules in place on if you want to be in Apples App store then you play by Apples rules but since Apple App store is the only way on iOS the rules are different and Apple is putting it in a position of being hit for Anti-trust. Also remember EU is much harder and stricture on antitrust issues than the US so while in the US it may be legal over in Europe it is a different story and Apple runs a much bigger risk.
Best result would be for Apple to allow side loading and 3rd party App stores.
I'd agree the cut is too large for subscriptions/in-app stuff, but even acting as a payment processor, you take a cut. And part of the reason for taking 30% of the in-app purchases/subscriptions is to close a loophole where I would sell free apps with in-app upgrades to bypass Apple's cut on the app sale (basically, Apple has no good trial mechanism they can force people onto, and they should).
As for taking them to court, do people really take companies to court for overcharging a service? Can I really take BestBuy to court for charging more than Amazon does for that toaster?
Their web-browser-based edition has been online for some time now; it's the primary access point for access to their publication by traditional PC users. And that web-browser-based publication has been a profitable paid subscription service since 2002. They know how to make money off a premium paid subscription website.
If they can improve it using HTML5 concepts to enhance its appeal and usability on portable devices, if they can evolve its offline support to go beyond just the current day's issue, and especially if they can figure out how to produce a single presentation framework that is equally usable on several different mobile platforms simultaneously, then I say: good for them!
I was going to seriously get into iAd with my business but when I started exploring it and looking into the details I said there is no way in Hell I am giving anyone a 30% on anything I do. Uncle Sam gets almost 50% Apple wants 30% so that means I do all of the work they get rich and I get 20% cut on my own work, c'mon with that B.S already! That is about as bad as being in debt with the Mob!
Additionally, it's not like Apple doesn't make a ton of money off the iPhone hardware. It's bragged about here when it's reported on, but in this discussion the Apple supporters act like Apple is building the things out of the goodness of their hearts. They're not going to lose money because of hosting a few free content delivery apps, especially when, as mentioned, that's the reason many of us buy iPhones. If the Netflix app goes away because of this ridiculous policy, I have no particular need for an iPhone.
I will say adamantly that I love my iPhone and its simplicity in use, which makes a huge difference and is much less cumbersome for using a computer on a such a small device. However, I do not like the practices that Apple keeps, I think that allot of them are done out of pure greed and for controlling purposes to keep you perpetually looped into spending money with them.
No wonder why The Uncle Sam Sector wants to start rolling them out, no doubt they are in on the scam as well.
Those 30% is what makes Apple giving us iCloud for free. I wouldn't complain.
Beside magazines and newspaper never made revenue from the cost of the magazine itself but from advertisement.
Good luck finding someone that makes advert for you for free.
Are you really having a business and don't know how economy works?
As others have mentioned in this thread... the 30% was not the main issue with FT. FT wanted to information of the users from Apple. This is not a unknown situation... back in April, FT was making comments about it. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/tech-us-financialtimes-apple-idUKTRE7332D720110404
I personally let my FT subscription expire and moved to WSJ and Barrons (both on the iPad). Personally, I prefer the iPad experience over the web or an actual paper now.
I personally let my FT subscription expire and moved to WSJ and Barrons (both on the iPad). Personally, I prefer the iPad experience over the web or an actual paper now.