Apple stops free Ipad newspaper subscriptions

[Toxaris]

What's next? That websites needs to pay Apple because they deliver RSS feeds that can be read with a free app?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by petermillard

No more parasitic than any retailer or distributor, surely? I think the idea is that the publisher is supposed to pay a commission to Apple because they're using Apple's sales and distribution channel (App store) without currently paying for it; not unreasonably (IMO) Apple want their slice when money's changed hands - or did you think that all those 'free' newspapers and magazines that are given out around our bus and train stations were delivered there for free, that the folks handing them out weren't being paid?

As other's have said, if it serves to push content towards a more usable web experience, then so much the better.

That would be a valid argument if you had the choice to simply download the app directly from the publisher's website instead of getting it from Apple's app store only. Apple prevents any installation of apps that haven't been sold by the app store to generate revenue without offering any added value.

[darknessangel]

Well, the comercial model of Apple is very clear... it's the "toll" method. Everyone can pass, but for a copper piece. And I think they want to impose this model especially to the big guns, after all they are earning money from the distribution from the ipad/itunes store so why shouldn't apple get a cut of it?

In the end it is inevitable that they will kind of cut a deal for paying for issues downloaded. Like under 1000, free (for small publishers) and then different pricing models to distribute free content to readers. Remember... nothing in life is free

... except money =P

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And I sort of sympathize with Apple on this, since publishers are essentially avoiding paying Apple by charging for the app outside of the app store.

It's not that. Apple wants the be the middle man. You won't get the free online version next to your paid-for paper version, no, you'll have to pay for your free online version next to your paid-for paper version (because otherwise Apple won't get its share)


Also, you're forgetting that Apple demands the customer details as well....

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by bbusybookworm

Having said that what happens when Apple decides that other services like Dropbox, Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, etc which are subscription based but offer access to their service through dedicated apps should pay as well. While some of them could probably be resonably useful through the web, others may not be so.

This would only be an issue if the dropbox, etc. app were free to subscribers, but not free to non-subscribers. Since the dropbox app (the only one with which I'm really familiar) is free to everyone, this policy isn't implicated.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

And why exactly should Apple receive any payments from the publishers? It's not as if Apple had sold the Ipad at a discounted price. The app is only required to compensate for the limited capabilities of the Ipad, after all.

They are entitled to receive pay from publishers because they are offering a service that the publishers want. Publishers are free to not have an ipad app, to have a free ipad app, or to have a paid iPad app. The only thing they can't do is have an app that is free for users with outside subscriptions but not for other users.

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

But you still don't pay for the app. It is a *FREE* add-on.

Only if you think that "buy one, get one free" offers are really free. The app is not "free" because you can't get it without paying something. Subscribers don't have to pay anything *extra* for the app, but they can't get the app unless they pay something. Non-subscribers either can't get the app, or can't get it for free.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

What a parasitic business model. I've subscribed to my newspaper for more than 20 years but I or the publisher are supposed to pay a hefty regular commission to Apple just because they put an app into their store? On top of it all I get a castrated product because Apple's prudishness doesn't tolerate any naked female flesh? No, thanks.

I don't think you understand what parasitic means in this context. Publishers are using Apple's store, but are not paying Apple for the privilege of using their store. Which Apple would even allow if the publishers made the app free for everyone. But if the publishers are getting paid, even indirectly, for the app, Apple reasonably feels that they should get their cut. That's how their business model works, for music and apps.

Originally Posted by Toxaris

What's next? That websites needs to pay Apple because they deliver RSS feeds that can be read with a free app?

No. Read the article.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

That would be a valid argument if you had the choice to simply download the app directly from the publisher's website instead of getting it from Apple's app store only. Apple prevents any installation of apps that haven't been sold by the app store to generate revenue without offering any added value.

In what universe isn't offering the app added value? If there is no value in using the app store, publishers should stop using it. What value does B&N offer when it sells you a paperbook at some markup over wholesale?

Again, publishers don't have to have iPad apps in the first place; they can put everything they want on the web. Or they could have an app that's free to everyone.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

It's not that. Apple wants the be the middle man. You won't get the free online version next to your paid-for paper version, no, you'll have to pay for your free online version next to your paid-for paper version (because otherwise Apple won't get its share)

Apple *is* the middle man. They have a store in which they sell apps for their products. In exchange for offering this service, they get paid. That is not really a radical idea.

But publishers can avoid all of this by simply making the app free for everyone, or charging everyone for it.


Also, you're forgetting that Apple demands the customer details as well....[/QUOTE]
This is true, but that doesn't seem to be at issue. Possibly because Apple already has a lot of data on its users.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Only if you think that "buy one, get one free" offers are really free. The app is not "free" because you can't get it without paying something. Subscribers don't have to pay anything *extra* for the app, but they can't get the app unless they pay something. Non-subscribers either can't get the app, or can't get it for free.

While arguing that free is not free may make for an interesting philosophical debate, when it comes to matters of economics it just doesn't hold water (or money for that matter).

The reason this is coming up is that it clashes with the Apple culture. The publishers are trying to promote iPad editions by offering them for free to their print subscribers. If it works, they will convince customers to start buying the electronic editions.

However, Apple likes to get people to over pay for goods. They are highly allergic to sales or these promotions. I wonder if Apple is doing some other things to keep the subscription fees high.

[leebase]

Walmart is paid to sell newspapers and magazines in it's store. You don't get to waltz up to the counter and say, I'm taking this magazine for free because I have a subscription for it.

Apple has the open Internet. Folks can deliver HTML 5 content all they want. Porn, anything. Apple's store is a curated environment and not a free open market for anyone to use as they see fit.

Lee

[bbusybookworm]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Right...but not just free apps from the publisher, but free apps from the publisher that are only free to people who have a paid print subscription.

In other words, the NY Times app will remain free because it's free to everyone. Only apps which are free to print subscribers, but not available to others, or not free to others, are going to be banned.

And I sort of sympathize with Apple on this, since publishers are essentially avoiding paying Apple by charging for the app outside of the app store.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This would only be an issue if the dropbox, etc. app were free to subscribers, but not free to non-subscribers. Since the dropbox app (the only one with which I'm really familiar) is free to everyone, this policy isn't implicated.


They are entitled to receive pay from publishers because they are offering a service that the publishers want. Publishers are free to not have an ipad app, to have a free ipad app, or to have a paid iPad app. The only thing they can't do is have an app that is free for users with outside subscriptions but not for other users.


Only if you think that "buy one, get one free" offers are really free. The app is not "free" because you can't get it without paying something. Subscribers don't have to pay anything *extra* for the app, but they can't get the app unless they pay something. Non-subscribers either can't get the app, or can't get it for free.

I think you are confusing the issue.

The issue is not that there is one App in the app store that Subscribers have access to for free and others have to pay for it.

It is either the same price to everyone paid or free. Apple does not allow you to give away free access to a paid app (Except for testing and review and that is a very limited number and not the topic of discussion here)

What newspapers and many sites do is that they allow subscribers to have access to additional online content, and they can use that login info in the app (Usually free) to access that content. That's it. Some offer some content free to non subscriber other offers none. The app is the same price for all. The subscription just give you access to additional features. Also in most cases to subscribe, you need to sign up directly with the publisher.

What I understand from the original story is that Apple is saying that Publishers can no longer offer their existing subscribers access to content through an app, free or otherwise. Any access to premium content has to be paid for through Apple. The publisher can not bundle online / app access to their content with their print edition, or have a subscription system outside the app store if they want to offer content inside an app.

As such the anology I made to Dropbox, etc still holds, as while the dropbox app is free, paid subscribes get access to some additional features (Mainly additional storage) in their dropbox account which are accessible through the app.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I don't think you understand what parasitic means in this context. Publishers are using Apple's store, but are not paying Apple for the privilege of using their store. Which Apple would even allow if the publishers made the app free for everyone. But if the publishers are getting paid, even indirectly, for the app, Apple reasonably feels that they should get their cut. That's how their business model works, for music and apps.

Load of nonsense. Apple isn't "offering" a service, they are forcing everyone who want to provide an app to use their "service" and to hand over a substantial part of their profits. It is one of the most blatant examples of abuse of a strong market position you can find. It is not difficult to imagine the outrage if Microsoft had required all vendors of software to sell their software through Microsoft's own shop only. Yet with Apple such an extortionate business practice has a substantial number of apologists. Unlike Amazon they don't even offer a cheaply priced device and the 3G connection to deliver the content. Apple made a substantial profit by selling the hardware, they may get an additional kickback from the provider of the 3G service and finally they want to have a substantial share of the profits associated with apps, even if their "service" doesn't amount to more than granting an arbitrary access to their "store" and to offer a very small download service.

[darknessangel]

Welcome to the real world and capitalism! So, how's life in your universe? Stuff's still free?

They have a patented service, they can put prices as they want. After all, it's not an open source platform and they make the terms of use! We may not like it but it's that way. I just never get why people get so inflamed as if someone spat on their faces!... if you don't like it, don't use it, jailbreak the thing or make your own.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Load of nonsense. Apple isn't "offering" a service, they are forcing everyone who want to provide an app to use their "service" and to hand over a substantial part of their profits. It is one of the most blatant examples of abuse of a strong market position you can find. It is not difficult to imagine the outrage if Microsoft had required all vendors of software to sell their software through Microsoft's own shop only. Yet with Apple such an extortionate business practice has a substantial number of apologists. Unlike Amazon they don't even offer a cheaply priced device and the 3G connection to deliver the content. Apple made a substantial profit by selling the hardware, they may get an additional kickback from the provider of the 3G service and finally they want to have a substantial share of the profits associated with apps, even if their "service" doesn't amount to more than granting an arbitrary access to their "store" and to offer a very small download service.

[goodereader]

Well, I think Apple is alienating some publications right now, but it is trying to develop an entirely new ecosystem with its "Daily Newsstand" model. Right now, digital publishing is very weak, newspapers and magazines are wracking their brains on how to penetrate the digital realm and actually make money, only a handful of newspapers have managed to make any kind of money online, i think the NY Times and WSJ are the only ones.

Apple knows it has a ton of iPads out there, and with the App store on iphones and now Mac computers, it has a very strong reach in being able to deliver online content to all things Mac.

I think we can all agree that digital publishing online in the form of Magazines/Newspapers etc is weak, and mostly overprices. In the original article cited they said a hard copy version of wired delivered to your door is 10.00 a year, the ipad version is around 50.00 dollars, which is insane.

There needs to be a happy medium of one stop shop to subscribe to online publications and Apple is trying very hard to develop it. Also, don't discount Google, they are also developing an Android Alternative to the Daily, which will give all android users a place to get dedicated apps and pay subscriptions, and they are taking WAY less then the 30% cut that apple is demanding, so there are alternatives, the sad thing is, none have launched yet. But it looks like soon they will.

Right now if you want newspapers and magazines, you can download the standalone app, but finding them on the app store or itunes is a trial and tribulation to find new things you might not know about, but if you do know what you are looking for, its a bit easier.

Basically Conde Nast, News Corp and the other big players need to all get behind something in order to develop an online strategy for successful media delivery. Apple has News Corp wrapped up and Google is courting Conde Nast. So we'll see.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by darknessangel

Welcome to the real world and capitalism! So, how's life in your universe? Stuff's still free?

This has nothing to do with capitalism, which refers to an economic system. This discussion has to do with greed and monopoly.

Greed being not at all related to capitalism.

Here is a simple way to remember the distinctions. Business is the process of finding a mutually agreeable deal between several parties over goods, services and/or money. Charity is making a better deal for someone else at the expense of yourself. Greed is making a better deal for yourself at the expense of someone else. This often involves lieing, cheating and/or trapping that someone else.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

This has nothing to do with capitalism, which refers to an economic system. This discussion has to do with greed and monopoly.

Greed being not at all related to capitalism.

Here is a simple way to remember the distinctions. Business is the process of finding a mutually agreeable deal between several parties over goods, services and/or money. Charity is making a better deal for someone else at the expense of yourself. Greed is making a better deal for yourself at the expense of someone else. This often involves lieing, cheating and/or trapping that someone else.

In what way is Apple wanting to get paid for selling apps through its app store "greed?" Answer: it isn't. They want a mutually agreeable deal over goods and services. That's business.

The fact that newspapers: (1) want to charge their customers for their products; but (2) don't want to pay Apple for its services; does look a lot like greed, but not on the part of Apple.

Is your worldview seriously one in which Apple is required to offer publishers free apps on its platform, even when those publishers are essentially "cheating" Apple by collecting money for the app outside the app store?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

In what way is Apple wanting to get paid for selling apps through its app store "greed?" Answer: it isn't. They want a mutually agreeable deal over goods and services. That's business.

The fact that newspapers: (1) want to charge their customers for their products; but (2) don't want to pay Apple for its services; does look a lot like greed, but not on the part of Apple.

Is your worldview seriously one in which Apple is required to offer publishers free apps on its platform, even when those publishers are essentially "cheating" Apple by collecting money for the app outside the app store?

Ah, that's Apple's reality distortion field in action. Let's see: people have a newspaper subscription, may have done so for years. They pay for content and delivery of a paper copy to their doors in the morning. As an added bonus the publisher has created an app that gives its subscribers access to the newspaper content via the Ipad. Usually the publisher could simply offer the program for download on his own own home page, the subscriber could simply download it to his device and install it. Where is Apple's contribution? After all, Apple made a legitimate profit by selling the Ipad itself. Yet Apple doesn't allow apps from other sources to be installed on the Ipad and forces the publisher to distribute the apps via Apple's app store. For this minuscule and unnecessary service Apple suddenly feels entitled to receive a substantial share of the newspaper subscription price. Oh, I almost forgot, as an added bonus for the customer the content has to comply with Apple's puritan and prudish content guidelines. That's added value we can believe in.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

That would be a valid argument if you had the choice to simply download the app directly from the publisher's website instead of getting it from Apple's app store only. Apple prevents any installation of apps that haven't been sold by the app store to generate revenue without offering any added value.

You hit the nail on the head! Their whole model revolves around greed.

This is why I love my netbook. I don't need MSI's permission to download a program and I don't have to pay Microsoft a fee for every program I use on Windows.