Apple stops free Ipad newspaper subscriptions

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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.

I presume the publishers already pay Apple for hosting their app. And that's not a problem. The problem is that Apple is saying the publisher can't sell an online subscription, but only tell Apple to sell that online subscription.

And from what I read, publishers can't offer the app themselves, outside the appstore. At least, not if they want their customers to keep their warranty on their iphone, ipad or other iapple device that can run apps. So, their only choice is to drop the app and make their site iapple device friendly.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I presume the publishers already pay Apple for hosting their app.

No, they do not. Which is kind of a key point. If you make a free app available, you don't have to pay Apple and they will make it available for free in their app store. FREE.

If you sell the app (which does go through the app store), Apple gets 30%.

Publishers are charging for the app outside the app store by only making it (or parts of it) available to people who pay the publishers. They are thus taking away Apple's fee for hosting/selling/etc. the app.

They could still make the app available for free, or charge for the app in the app store.

And that's not a problem. The problem is that Apple is saying the publisher can't sell an online subscription, but only tell Apple to sell that online subscription.

They can sell an online subscription to a website, even an iPad optimized website, with no interference from Apple. They just can't charge for an app that they are selling through Apple's app store without paying for the privilege.

And from what I read, publishers can't offer the app themselves, outside the appstore. At least, not if they want their customers to keep their warranty on their iphone, ipad or other iapple device that can run apps. So, their only choice is to drop the app and make their site iapple device friendly.

That's basically correct, if they want to charge for the app. I simply see no reason why Apple shouldn't be paid for selling things through its store.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Publishers are charging for the app outside the app store by only making it (or parts of it) available to people who pay the publishers. They are thus taking away Apple's fee for hosting/selling/etc. the app.

No sympathy, since Apple forces all apps to come from their store.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by bbusybookworm

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.

How does this differ from the Kindle app?
The app is free, and there are some free books on Amazon that you can read, but the real usefulness of the app is to give you access to books you have already purchased from Amazon.
Where does the logic applied to publishers break down when applied to Amazon?

[bbusybookworm]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How does this differ from the Kindle app?
The app is free, and there are some free books on Amazon that you can read, but the real usefulness of the app is to give you access to books you have already purchased from Amazon.
Where does the logic applied to publishers break down when applied to Amazon?

Fundamentally it doesn't, that's why I refereed it as a slippery slope in my first post on the thread, though I did not immediately think of the Kindle app as an example.

In the Kindle case there is even more of an incentive as Apple has their own iBooks store, and there is the pesky term in their Developer agreement that apps cannot replicate core functionality.

[elcreative]

One fundamental difference... the app is free to all users and doesn't allow premium services to some users and not others... Apple is primarily saying make it a level playing ground... the free app on the store should give an identical service to the "free" app included with paper subscription...

Originally Posted by murraypaul

How does this differ from the Kindle app?
The app is free, and there are some free books on Amazon that you can read, but the real usefulness of the app is to give you access to books you have already purchased from Amazon.
Where does the logic applied to publishers break down when applied to Amazon?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

That's basically correct, if they want to charge for the app. I simply see no reason why Apple shouldn't be paid for selling things through its store.

From what I understand, if you download an app, and install it, from anywhere than the appstore, you void your warranty, free or no.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by elcreative

One fundamental difference... the app is free to all users and doesn't allow premium services to some users and not others... Apple is primarily saying make it a level playing ground... the free app on the store should give an identical service to the "free" app included with paper subscription...

Both are free apps. The only way to install apps is from the app store, there is no separate app available from the newspaper.
If I have paid for a newspaper subscription and enter my account details I get access to that extra content as well as the free content.
If I have paid for Kindle books and enter my account details I get access to that extra content as well as the free content.

[Crowl]

What will probably happen with this stuff in the short term is that the apps will remain free and the compromise will be that the larger publishers will pay apple for hosting, but in the long term you have to assume that they will be going for online version behind a pay wall to avoid those costs.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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.

And the news papers and magazines have yet to find a way to make money selling information to people who use windows. Nor Apple, if they deliver their paper via the web.

But Apple has created a content purchasing platform and built a base of customers that actually pay for content. So much so, that even though the number of iOS users is pitifully small when compared to windows users, publishers are EAGER to get into this "folks actually pay for content" platform.

They don't want to pay Apple's toll. I think both sides have room for compromise. Clearly the publishers are MOST in need of collecting subscriber information and I remain unclear on why Apple opposses this. But it's an area that, without compromise, will keep iOS out of the running.

Apple, on the other hand, deserves to be paid it's share of those wanting in on the iOS gravy train. The notion that a company can put a free app in the app store, and charge people for the app outside of the app store, thus cutting out Apple's cut....that's simply not going to fly.

What I find interesting are the example of Amazon and Borders. You get their app for free, and buy the books online. I'm not sure how that's different from what the newspapers are desiring.

Lee

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by leebase

Apple, on the other hand, deserves to be paid it's share of those wanting in on the iOS gravy train. The notion that a company can put a free app in the app store, and charge people for the app outside of the app store, thus cutting out Apple's cut....that's simply not going to fly.

True; but then again, they have no choice but to go through the app store. Where's the option that allows companies to sell their own apps on their own websites? That's right, it doesn't exist. Apple won't allow it.

Now imagine all software on a Windows machine being sold ONLY through the Windows Store, with Microsoft taking a 30% cut.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

True; but then again, they have no choice but to go through the app store. Where's the option that allows companies to sell their own apps on their own websites? That's right, it doesn't exist. Apple won't allow it.

Yep. Apple does not run it's iOS devices like the PC market. There is only one point of sale for apps. Anyone can make a web app to run in safari with no interference from Apple. But if you want to make an iOS app, you can only sell it via the App store...which is a change in paradigm from the personal computer.

Apple had to make one heck of a device to get consumers and content creators to go along with this. And it completely leaves the door open for competitors like Android.

Whether Apple can succeed with this long term is yet to be determined. In the "here and now" they seem to be doing fantastically well.

Lee

[elcreative]

Yes... imagine a Windows machine... but there is no such thing as a "Windows" machine , just hundreds of assorted PC manufacturers making a very wide range of hardware that can have Windows installed on it... your choice which bit of hardware, software and usual incompatibilities you buy into.

Also your choice... buy an iPad with uniform standards laid down for hardware through to the software... odd glitches usually fixed quickly... your choice also...

If you like Windows and the wide range of PC hardware, fine but equally if you like the Uniform Apple approach to something like the iPad, well that's equally fine... it's a free choice. If you don't like the Apple approach then go Android or whatever other system you choose... that's also your choice.

Just stop bitching about Apple, Microsoft or what ever... you aren't forced to use any of these things any more... there are choices... tell us what you like and why not moan about what you don't... Microsoft users couldn't care less about the Evil Empire moaning, iPad users are generally happy campers judging by the millions sold... Personally I don't have an iPad because it doesn't meet my needs but neither do most of the Android pads, even the visibly available ones... when they do then I'll purchase whichever meet my needs...

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

True; but then again, they have no choice but to go through the app store. Where's the option that allows companies to sell their own apps on their own websites? That's right, it doesn't exist. Apple won't allow it.

Now imagine all software on a Windows machine being sold ONLY through the Windows Store, with Microsoft taking a 30% cut.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Just stop bitching about Apple, Microsoft or what ever... you aren't forced to use any of these things any more... there are choices... tell us what you like and why not moan about what you don't... Microsoft users couldn't care less about the Evil Empire moaning, iPad users are generally happy campers judging by the millions sold... Personally I don't have an iPad because it doesn't meet my needs but neither do most of the Android pads, even the visibly available ones... when they do then I'll purchase whichever meet my needs...

True, to an extend. But what if I have this free app I want to give to my customers? I'm not allowed to by Apple. Because these customers are paying customers, to me. Where is my freedom then? I'm not allowed to use my own servers to serve the app.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

True, to an extend. But what if I have this free app I want to give to my customers? I'm not allowed to by Apple. Because these customers are paying customers, to me. Where is my freedom then? I'm not allowed to use my own servers to serve the app.

Correct. You could create an html 5 web app and control your own destiny. But you can no more just go and put your app on Apple's store shelf than you could waltz into a Wal-Mart and set up a booth to sell your product.

For LOTS of folks, that will be a deal breaker. They hope like hades that Android will take off and they can work without Apple's restriction.

On the other hand, Apple has 130 million credit card backed accounts and a customer base that actually pays for content at a rate that is VERY attractive. Just look at what happened when Apple put out it's App Store for the Mac. Pixelmator garnered HUGE sales of it's product...even priced a lot lower than it had been before.

There is a reason folks want to be sold by Wal-Mart, even though Wal-Mart drives the hardest bargains. They also have the most customers.

Apple has to continually put out a better product, a better experience, and market it better to create the "Apple Market" that is so attractive for businesses to want to be a part of. Should Apple falter or the competition surpass it - then Apple's system will fail.

Until then, you have to give Apple it's cut if you want to sell product in it's store.

Lee