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
The main source of revenue for newspaper is advertising. The reason why newspapers want customer information is because it's easier to sell advertising if you know the demographics of your readership.
It's not some evil, secret plan, it's just how the publishing industry works.
dubnde, I think I may have figured it out. Deleted the web app. Logged out online. Went to Safari settings and deleted all cache and cookies. Went back to app.ft.com in Safari and went through the suggested login/install process again. After starting over, the web app now works offline. Pictures and everything else download.
FT Reading List
I think using the FT website will be efficient when using the new Safari feature Reading List. Just put the articles you want to read in train/bus/plane in the reading list and off you go. Should work.
I think using the FT website will be efficient when using the new Safari feature Reading List. Just put the articles you want to read in train/bus/plane in the reading list and off you go. Should work.
You're obviously correct, that's why people are willing to pay for "the Daily".
Last time I checked their subscription numbers were falling like a rock...
Six months ago, there were reports about app magazines sales dropping. Has that changed?
The FT has information about how many are subscribing, and they are basing their decision on that information. While neither of us have that information, one thing is certain, they aren't going to lose 90% of their app customers...
And the "app customer" isn't 70% pure profit for FT, those customers, like all others need to pay for lots of other things too.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
That is not the case for ANY content creators. Only middlemen who compete directly with the same content creators they resell. Selling content is a cumulative business if you create it so you can't sell it at a loss. If you are a reseller that is different but that is the burden of choosing that business model.
Rodimus Prime said:
That is not the case for ANY content creators. Only middlemen who compete directly with the same content creators they resell. Selling content is a cumulative business if you create it so you can't sell it at a loss. If you are a reseller that is different but that is the burden of choosing that business model.
So Apple does all the work of customer service, IT, HW servers, monthly data transfer, point of sale, and offer a hugh market of affluent consumers and they get only 10%? The magazine industry gives more than that to brick and mortar outlets and they have to make a print copy, where as iTunes' distribution is published quick and cheaper digitally.
Maybe you should rethink your logic! It's flawed
I liked the FT app a lot and was really upset too, until I checked out the web-based one tonight. It does have offline access capability, and works great. Class act. Popped it onto my home screen with bookmark, gave it room to store stuff, ditched the app. Happy camper here.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
A mall is not required to lease space to any tenant that does not agree to it's terms. A retail store is not obligated to sell any product if they don't want to do it. The idea that there is some kind of anti trust or actionable issue here is absurd.
Rodimus Prime said:
A mall is not required to lease space to any tenant that does not agree to it's terms. A retail store is not obligated to sell any product if they don't want to do it. The idea that there is some kind of anti trust or actionable issue here is absurd.
I totally disagree. 30% seems like a pretty good deal considering the amount of support you get through Apple. I'm sure a magazine kiosk in an airport gets more than 30% and that requires the company to print a magazine.
If it were such a bad deal, I don't think other companies would do it. FT is missing the boat and missing out on a lot of potential customers.
Let the customer decide
Apple should simply allow the user to decide if they want to use the in-app purchase process (and pay a premium) or get the books, mag copies, etc in whatever way the vendor designs it. Apple simply should also demand fairness -- that the customers price will be no more than the lowest in-app purchase price on any other device.
Apple's requirement that the in-app process be present and functioning properly should be all that Apple requires.
The current language simply will not fly and loss of companies like Amazon/Kindle, Barnes and Noble/Nook will essentially kill the iPad, and with it Apple. If Apple does not become reasonable in their contract terms, you will see Apple stock drop like a rock and bankruptcy soon to follow.
Apple should simply allow the user to decide if they want to use the in-app purchase process (and pay a premium) or get the books, mag copies, etc in whatever way the vendor designs it. Apple simply should also demand fairness -- that the customers price will be no more than the lowest in-app purchase price on any other device.
Apple's requirement that the in-app process be present and functioning properly should be all that Apple requires.
The current language simply will not fly and loss of companies like Amazon/Kindle, Barnes and Noble/Nook will essentially kill the iPad, and with it Apple. If Apple does not become reasonable in their contract terms, you will see Apple stock drop like a rock and bankruptcy soon to follow.
Heres a better question if I am already paying a subscription fee should I really have to give up my private information and see advertising on top of my subscription?
I could understand if the newspaper were free.
One thing I've always disliked about IOS Apps is having to use an App for content that is normally available from a webpage. Sometimes the App is a better fit for smaller screens or whatnot but I just don't like the concept of needing an App to access Web based content.
Besides according to Apple's own anti-flash dogma HTML5 is the future of Web content....
Besides according to Apple's own anti-flash dogma HTML5 is the future of Web content....
It's the old model... a print subscription was mailed or delivered to you, so they knew your demographics, and it came with ads. Some companies still won't sell you an online sub unless you take the print one. And then the digital one often has ads anyway. They want that ad revenue!! It's annoying, not just because of the ads but who needs the tree-killing clutter of the print one if the digital version is your preference.
Exactly its their loss. Either way I don't think these very specific newspapers with limited readership care as much. I do know about the newspaper but have never really cared about getting it. WSJ is more of my taste but again limited client el.
NY Times is a complete different animal and who does not read it?
Apple has made it so easy to get the electronic version that I wonder if I would even waste my time moving over to web experience or hard cover after using their apps. I am talking about Popular Science, Popular Mechanics which are great apps even if they could use a little more capacity still well done. On the other hand Consumer Report is useless not sure why they even have an app since its just not there. I could see them going HTML5 not like they have put effort behind it.
I can see how some would say that Apple need to lower the price and I am for that 30% is a bit high, but its not like we are seen any real competition so its hard for me to reason why Apple would lower their price at this time.
(Disclaimer: I don't own an iPad, just an iPod Touch, smartphone is Android, boo me off the stage, etc.)
Apple's policies are onerous, plain and simple.
The magazine on a newstand being more than 30% comparison doesn't really work. Magazine subscriptions (most magazines, anyway) are typically under $2 an issue if you go for a year. Newstand copies are sold at $5-$8. Let's suppose the newstand makes 50% on a $5 copy (you get $2.50) and Apple makes 30% on your $1.80 digital edition (you get $1.20). The 50% retail margin is overboard, considering the Magazine Publishers of America say it's 33.6% average adjusted gross margin for shopkeepers. Given that it's a bunch of magazine companies trying to convince stores to sell more magazines, I think that figure may be a tad high
Even so, we'll round to 50% on some other charges (getting the magazines printed + to stores).
On the digital front, you have development costs for a native application, bandwidth charges/digital content production charges (customers of digital versions expect more interactivity). You do get some money back on ads.
Apple has a couple other terms that are really not equitable in the view of the magazine industry.
I suspect Apple may back down on this, just like how Apple resisted $1.29 song pricing (on popular songs) for a while before eventually caving. The magazine/paper/book industry does not want to submit to Apple; people will get their content in ways outside of Apple's app store. It's essentially a game of chicken at this point.
I'll have to toy with my user agent and try the HTML5 app out...
Your logic seems flawed from the perspective that subscriptions are typically $2 or less an issue, while in-store copies are at least $5 (that's for weekly magazines like TIME from what I've seen; most of the monthly magazines I'm interested in are at least $8/issue at the newsstands now).
Apple's policies are onerous, plain and simple.
The magazine on a newstand being more than 30% comparison doesn't really work. Magazine subscriptions (most magazines, anyway) are typically under $2 an issue if you go for a year. Newstand copies are sold at $5-$8. Let's suppose the newstand makes 50% on a $5 copy (you get $2.50) and Apple makes 30% on your $1.80 digital edition (you get $1.20). The 50% retail margin is overboard, considering the Magazine Publishers of America say it's 33.6% average adjusted gross margin for shopkeepers. Given that it's a bunch of magazine companies trying to convince stores to sell more magazines, I think that figure may be a tad high
Even so, we'll round to 50% on some other charges (getting the magazines printed + to stores).On the digital front, you have development costs for a native application, bandwidth charges/digital content production charges (customers of digital versions expect more interactivity). You do get some money back on ads.
Apple has a couple other terms that are really not equitable in the view of the magazine industry.
- The limitations on the use of data are really untenable from the view of a magazine publisher. In an ideal world, we'd live in a world where magazine subscriptions were cheap, the content was great, there were no ads, and companies didn't sell our data.
Unfortunately, people want cheap magazines with great content. Advertisers want to know they're advertising to their target market. This means you need to know the demographics of who is buying your magazine - else you'll end up with low budget scattershot advertising. Even without the advertising money, the plain and simple fact is that the fact that you read such and such magazine is worth money!
I'm not too bothered that some companies know I read Wired & PC Mag. I opted out with the Direct Mail Association a while back and get almost no junk. From any other standpoints I don't see where that information is valuable...
- The lowest price through in app purchase/forced use of in app purchase is really crappy. For most people, an Apple ID is made through iTunes, which asks for iTunes immediately (at least, when I made mine through iTunes, I was forced to add a credit card to proceed - I wasn't even making a purchase at that time). Most people will have credit cards associated. In app purchases or lowest price would be fine, but the combination of the two means magazine publishers must charge everyone unfairly (e.g. bloat all minimum subscription charges to account for Apple's margins), or they have to stop using an app on iOS.
I suspect Apple may back down on this, just like how Apple resisted $1.29 song pricing (on popular songs) for a while before eventually caving. The magazine/paper/book industry does not want to submit to Apple; people will get their content in ways outside of Apple's app store. It's essentially a game of chicken at this point.
I'll have to toy with my user agent and try the HTML5 app out...
Your logic seems flawed from the perspective that subscriptions are typically $2 or less an issue, while in-store copies are at least $5 (that's for weekly magazines like TIME from what I've seen; most of the monthly magazines I'm interested in are at least $8/issue at the newsstands now).
Last edited:
That's a big misunderstanding. Apple support does not replace any work that FT has to do anyways. FT can not abandon all non-Apple customers (a huge majority), so they still have to maintain all their existing infrastructure (payments etc.). Besides those who claim that Apple serve the content are totally wrong. The content for the application comes from FT servers.
As far as airport kiosks go, there is a huge difference. Air travelers have no choice (there is only one news kiosk in the airport) that's why the fee goes up. iPad owner has many ways to get FT (HTML 5 being one example). Apple simply miscalculated.