5 ms·

Steve Jobs Doesn’t Want to Kill Publishers, But Apple’s Subscription Strat Will

8 points by cwan 16y ago

brudgers 16y ago
For now, newspapers are unprofitable and Apple is not really interested in attracting a large number of independently minded companies - their deal with Murdoch is much more in keeping with the their objective of exclusive content. Instead Apple's subscription terms are aimed at streaming music apps which will compete with any iTunes streaming service and Amazon which already competes in the eBook marketplace.
Terretta 16y ago
I'll believe the gloom and doom about 30% on subscriptions when publishers stop sending me postcards offering 90% off the subscription price if I renew for another year.
- Bud 16y ago
  I'd really like to say that's a zinger, since I am mostly on Apple's side about all this. But the fact of course is that they're offering you X percent off the cover price, not X percent off the actual subscription price. The other fact is that whatever discounted rate happens to be the REAL price of a subscription will end up being the rate that the publisher in question has to offer in-app in iOS as well. That said, I completely agree with you about the gloom and doom, because that normal subscription price includes the costs of actually printing a paper magazine and shipping it to the customer. I'm pretty sure that in the vast majority of cases, the costs for providing an online edition will be much less. So there's still a profit margin here, and a sizable one.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  80% of a typical magazine's income is from advertisements. So 90% off isn't much of an income cut for the magazine.
zdw 16y ago
End run around the apple subscription debacle: Publishers already offer multiple rates for different subscription lengths. Often the cost of a year subscription to a magazine is 1/3 to 1/4 of the newsstand cover price. Newspapers are similar. As far as I know, there's no requirement to offer every pricing variation available via in-app purchase. Solution: Just offer the cover price, or some shorter, higher cost/issue via in-app purchase. Offer other deals, including physical/digital combos, externally via your own store.
- rewind 16y ago
  It would be nice to do that, but if Apple has shown us anything, it's that you either play entirely by their rules, or you don't play at all. ANY attempt to circumvent this will just mean your app gets bounced, then you're fucked. Once you're in the game, you'll have customers who depend on that app being available on the iPad. You can't risk pissing Apple off, so these types of workarounds aren't going to work. Anything that just involves physical goods is fair game, but if you're offering anything that's accessible through the app, you're digging your own grave by messing around.
  - zdw 16y ago
    Imagine a "digital + physical" bundle that costs less than the digital alone, or a once yearly "archive" CD of the entire year's issues. Apple's policy is here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html The pertinent section: "However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app." So, throw in a single letter once a year and you have physical + digital, and there is no issue with different pricing vs. App Store.
    - raganwald 16y ago
      You seem to have missed the part of their policy that says "We reserve the right to change our policy if you try to do an end run around our policies." That's exactly how the current policy came to be: People like Amazon decided to give razors away (what's 30% of free?) and sell the blades on their own stores without giving Apple a cut.
michaelpinto 16y ago
Is Apple also taking a cut of the advertising? That's where the real money is with publishers.
foobarbazetc 16y ago
Do you people realize Amazon takes a 70% cut on Kindle subscriptions?
juiceandjuice 16y ago
I was picturing an apple guitar when I first read the headline.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

8 points by cwan 16y ago

For now, newspapers are unprofitable and Apple is not really interested in attracting a large number of independently minded companies - their deal with Murdoch is much more in keeping with the their objective of exclusive content. Instead Apple's subscription terms are aimed at streaming music apps which will compete with any iTunes streaming service and Amazon which already competes in the eBook marketplace.

Terretta 16y ago

I'll believe the gloom and doom about 30% on subscriptions when publishers stop sending me postcards offering 90% off the subscription price if I renew for another year.

Bud 16y ago
I'd really like to say that's a zinger, since I am mostly on Apple's side about all this. But the fact of course is that they're offering you X percent off the cover price, not X percent off the actual subscription price. The other fact is that whatever discounted rate happens to be the REAL price of a subscription will end up being the rate that the publisher in question has to offer in-app in iOS as well. That said, I completely agree with you about the gloom and doom, because that normal subscription price includes the costs of actually printing a paper magazine and shipping it to the customer. I'm pretty sure that in the vast majority of cases, the costs for providing an online edition will be much less. So there's still a profit margin here, and a sizable one.
bryanlarsen 16y ago
80% of a typical magazine's income is from advertisements. So 90% off isn't much of an income cut for the magazine.

zdw 16y ago

End run around the apple subscription debacle: Publishers already offer multiple rates for different subscription lengths. Often the cost of a year subscription to a magazine is 1/3 to 1/4 of the newsstand cover price. Newspapers are similar. As far as I know, there's no requirement to offer every pricing variation available via in-app purchase. Solution: Just offer the cover price, or some shorter, higher cost/issue via in-app purchase. Offer other deals, including physical/digital combos, externally via your own store.

rewind 16y ago
It would be nice to do that, but if Apple has shown us anything, it's that you either play entirely by their rules, or you don't play at all. ANY attempt to circumvent this will just mean your app gets bounced, then you're fucked. Once you're in the game, you'll have customers who depend on that app being available on the iPad. You can't risk pissing Apple off, so these types of workarounds aren't going to work. Anything that just involves physical goods is fair game, but if you're offering anything that's accessible through the app, you're digging your own grave by messing around.
- zdw 16y ago
  Imagine a "digital + physical" bundle that costs less than the digital alone, or a once yearly "archive" CD of the entire year's issues. Apple's policy is here: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html The pertinent section: "However, Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app." So, throw in a single letter once a year and you have physical + digital, and there is no issue with different pricing vs. App Store.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    You seem to have missed the part of their policy that says "We reserve the right to change our policy if you try to do an end run around our policies." That's exactly how the current policy came to be: People like Amazon decided to give razors away (what's 30% of free?) and sell the blades on their own stores without giving Apple a cut.

michaelpinto 16y ago

Is Apple also taking a cut of the advertising? That's where the real money is with publishers.

foobarbazetc 16y ago

Do you people realize Amazon takes a 70% cut on Kindle subscriptions?

juiceandjuice 16y ago

I was picturing an apple guitar when I first read the headline.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]