|
What I'm saying is that yes part of it is that Apple wanted to get a cut of the magazine and newspaper revenue, who doesn't want more money, but that could have been achieved just through enforcing in-app purchases.
The reason they have gone the newsstand route is to present a uniform UI to all the different magazine and newspapers who have signed up. Rather than having a dozen different apps with slightly different ways of paying, downloading and reading content, there will be one consistent one. That fits into Apple's desire to make things nice and simple, and means that ultimately they control the user experience, rather than each publisher doing so separately.
Apple is largely interested in content so that it can drive the sales of hardware, not for its own sake. They run their content operations at just over breakeven, I don't think they would tolerate running at a loss, but neither are they making huge profits from them. But the more content they can bring under a unified Apple banner, the more attractive their devices become, and that is where they make their money.
I can't see anything in the current policies that would prevent Zinio continuing (as long as they remove a way to purchase on device), and whether they can flourish will depend on whether the cheaper prices that they will presumably be able to offer by avoiding paying Apple 30% will be offset by not getting into the more visible and easier to use Apple storefront.
(Assuming that the deals Apple are signing with publisher don't restrict them from supplying magazines to other platforms.)
|