4 ms·

By "being there" you mean, having the data that enables one click payments from a mobile phone - that in itself, is a huge deal. I think 30% isn't ridiculous f

by pclark 16y ago

By "being there" you mean, having the data that enables one click payments from a mobile phone - that in itself, is a huge deal. I think 30% isn't ridiculous for handling payments on a mobile device. I remember asking an FT guy if he felt it was a good deal, and he said 30% was good compared to some carriers in the olden days...

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
It is no longer the "olden days" Desktop manufacturers don't skim subscription content - we would all revolt if they tried. It is NOT 30% for handling payments. It is skimming 30% for the life of the subscription for fielding a single click.
donohoe 16y ago
Comparing a bad deal to a worse deal doesn't make it good. I don't speak for the NYT but I've been following that chatter from news organizations for awhile. The thinking (right or wrong) goes like this: * Publishers don't want to use Apples payment system as it locks them into Apple * Publishers don't want to use iTunes for managing subscriptions * Publishers don't want to have to pay 30% of the costs to pay for a service they don't want to use There is a great and strong argument that its good for users and I agree with that. Users don't have to enter billing info etc across multiple apps. Thats a win, and a big one too. However the reality is that when people grumble about paying for news content in the first place, and newspapers turn to the internet as publishing market shrinks, and the whole business model of news is in flux, along comes Apple and says we're going to take 30% for adding a service that you (the publisher) don't want and we're going to great a barrier between you and your customer so you're dependent on us. This could be a huge debate, and I honestly can't go into one. Too tired. Too much to do today. So let me just say that you should always do what the consumer wants and in this case Apple is providing that. But by a 30% cut they're going to make it difficult for news organizations to budget and pay for in-depth news coverage as they become increasingly dependent on online revenue sources.
- pclark 16y ago
  I imagine the reason publishers dislike the Apple payment stuff is not the 30% but the fact that Apple owns the customer, not them.

by pclark 16y ago

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

It is no longer the "olden days" Desktop manufacturers don't skim subscription content - we would all revolt if they tried. It is NOT 30% for handling payments. It is skimming 30% for the life of the subscription for fielding a single click.

donohoe 16y ago

Comparing a bad deal to a worse deal doesn't make it good. I don't speak for the NYT but I've been following that chatter from news organizations for awhile. The thinking (right or wrong) goes like this: * Publishers don't want to use Apples payment system as it locks them into Apple * Publishers don't want to use iTunes for managing subscriptions * Publishers don't want to have to pay 30% of the costs to pay for a service they don't want to use There is a great and strong argument that its good for users and I agree with that. Users don't have to enter billing info etc across multiple apps. Thats a win, and a big one too. However the reality is that when people grumble about paying for news content in the first place, and newspapers turn to the internet as publishing market shrinks, and the whole business model of news is in flux, along comes Apple and says we're going to take 30% for adding a service that you (the publisher) don't want and we're going to great a barrier between you and your customer so you're dependent on us. This could be a huge debate, and I honestly can't go into one. Too tired. Too much to do today. So let me just say that you should always do what the consumer wants and in this case Apple is providing that. But by a 30% cut they're going to make it difficult for news organizations to budget and pay for in-depth news coverage as they become increasingly dependent on online revenue sources.

pclark 16y ago
I imagine the reason publishers dislike the Apple payment stuff is not the 30% but the fact that Apple owns the customer, not them.