3 ms·

The Financial Times Tries An Apple End-Run

22 points by jsherry 15y ago

51Cards 15y ago
To me this is just one of the early cases of what will become an inevitable trend. Not just to avoid Apple licensing policies but also to target multiple platforms with one app. HTML5 is rapidly hitting a tipping point that allows for more complete user experiences in a web app and the further that progresses the more this will become the norm. For a content delivery site/app like this it's really a no brainer... that's what HTML was meant to do from day one.
tedunangst 15y ago
"Even more problematic for print publishers like Pearson’s FT is Apple’s insistence on keeping subscriber data like credit card information to itself." That's a very interesting point. Personally, as a consumer, Apple doing the bill is a great benefit to me. Similarly, my magazine subscriptions are through Amazon because they are so easy to manage. The magazine may be losing whatever Amazon's cut is, but if I had to deal with each one individually, several of them would be getting zero money.
- jsherry 15y ago
  Agreed on the convenience point. FT's strategy is definitely dependent upon the consumer's loyalty to their brand/product. Enough that they'd rather see Apple's cut stay with the publisher at the inconvenience cost of dealing with separate bills.
  - rojoca 15y ago
    I'm not sure about the terms of Apple's in-app purchasing (perhaps someone could elaborate), but can a publisher add a surcharge to the native app, to cover apple's cut, then offer the original (now discounted) price to users who pay through the web app or via a webpage?
    - jforman 15y ago
      This is not permitted.
    - adamjernst 15y ago
      No. One of Apple's terms is that you must offer the same price.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      That's not allowed, but you can charge more for the native app version and give it more features. Charge $6 for the native app, but add offline reading. Charge $4 for the web version.
    - pakafka 15y ago
      Nope. Apple's terms are explicit that iTunes price has to be lowest possible option (though others can be equally low). They've offered publishers like Conde Nast a tiny bit of wiggle room, by allowing them to sell print + digital bundles on their own sites; those bundles are more expensive than the all-digital subscription offered on itunes, but you could argue that they effectively discount the digital portion.
msy 15y ago
Compared to native apps it's a poor experience. Awkward, clunky and unresponsive. If anything I think this strengthens Apple's hand rather than weakening it.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Nah, those are browser issues. As tablet javascript performance comes closer to that of the desktop, these issues will go away. And frankly, those same complains can be said about The Daily.
mapgrep 15y ago
I just tried to use this web app. It took about 5 minutes to load! I think they are actually loading the entire paper when you hit the app home page, instead of just an index page. Either that or a truly mammoth tangle of (cross compiled?) javascript. There is even a dedicated "loading" splash screen and progress bar. "If you are not on wifi this may take a while." Ugh. FT, you're doing it wrong.
- revorad 15y ago
  The funny thing is that there's no obvious way to use this "web app" from anything but a mobile device. Why can't I use a web app from my laptop or desktop?
Adaptive 15y ago
I've read the FT for years in print. Still one of the only publications I would subscribe to (cf the economist, nyt). They were also a client of mine about 10 years ago and at that point I remember complaining specifically and at length in meetings with them about the poor state of their website. Amazingly, the design of the actual content pages has remained unchanged since then. The plastered on content homepages are like wallpaper over crumbling drywall. Doing an end run around a popular platform can absolutely be done, but get your house in order first. Right now this just smells like a company that couldn't figure out the web for a decade, wants in on mobile, but hasn't figured out that you have to execute on the table-stakes of the web first. Otherwise you are the daily. I still like the sloppy, porous, crazy paywall of the NYT and the mobile/web stuff they are doing. Best in show so far.
SoftwarePatent 15y ago
The FT is an outlier... their fans (including me) are stark, raving fans who will put up with an ugly interface to get at the content.

22 points by jsherry 15y ago

To me this is just one of the early cases of what will become an inevitable trend. Not just to avoid Apple licensing policies but also to target multiple platforms with one app. HTML5 is rapidly hitting a tipping point that allows for more complete user experiences in a web app and the further that progresses the more this will become the norm. For a content delivery site/app like this it's really a no brainer... that's what HTML was meant to do from day one.

tedunangst 15y ago

"Even more problematic for print publishers like Pearson’s FT is Apple’s insistence on keeping subscriber data like credit card information to itself." That's a very interesting point. Personally, as a consumer, Apple doing the bill is a great benefit to me. Similarly, my magazine subscriptions are through Amazon because they are so easy to manage. The magazine may be losing whatever Amazon's cut is, but if I had to deal with each one individually, several of them would be getting zero money.

jsherry 15y ago
Agreed on the convenience point. FT's strategy is definitely dependent upon the consumer's loyalty to their brand/product. Enough that they'd rather see Apple's cut stay with the publisher at the inconvenience cost of dealing with separate bills.
- rojoca 15y ago
  I'm not sure about the terms of Apple's in-app purchasing (perhaps someone could elaborate), but can a publisher add a surcharge to the native app, to cover apple's cut, then offer the original (now discounted) price to users who pay through the web app or via a webpage?
  - jforman 15y ago
    This is not permitted.
  - adamjernst 15y ago
    No. One of Apple's terms is that you must offer the same price.
  - tedunangst 15y ago
    That's not allowed, but you can charge more for the native app version and give it more features. Charge $6 for the native app, but add offline reading. Charge $4 for the web version.
  - pakafka 15y ago
    Nope. Apple's terms are explicit that iTunes price has to be lowest possible option (though others can be equally low). They've offered publishers like Conde Nast a tiny bit of wiggle room, by allowing them to sell print + digital bundles on their own sites; those bundles are more expensive than the all-digital subscription offered on itunes, but you could argue that they effectively discount the digital portion.

msy 15y ago

Compared to native apps it's a poor experience. Awkward, clunky and unresponsive. If anything I think this strengthens Apple's hand rather than weakening it.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Nah, those are browser issues. As tablet javascript performance comes closer to that of the desktop, these issues will go away. And frankly, those same complains can be said about The Daily.

mapgrep 15y ago

I just tried to use this web app. It took about 5 minutes to load! I think they are actually loading the entire paper when you hit the app home page, instead of just an index page. Either that or a truly mammoth tangle of (cross compiled?) javascript. There is even a dedicated "loading" splash screen and progress bar. "If you are not on wifi this may take a while." Ugh. FT, you're doing it wrong.

revorad 15y ago
The funny thing is that there's no obvious way to use this "web app" from anything but a mobile device. Why can't I use a web app from my laptop or desktop?

Adaptive 15y ago

I've read the FT for years in print. Still one of the only publications I would subscribe to (cf the economist, nyt). They were also a client of mine about 10 years ago and at that point I remember complaining specifically and at length in meetings with them about the poor state of their website. Amazingly, the design of the actual content pages has remained unchanged since then. The plastered on content homepages are like wallpaper over crumbling drywall. Doing an end run around a popular platform can absolutely be done, but get your house in order first. Right now this just smells like a company that couldn't figure out the web for a decade, wants in on mobile, but hasn't figured out that you have to execute on the table-stakes of the web first. Otherwise you are the daily. I still like the sloppy, porous, crazy paywall of the NYT and the mobile/web stuff they are doing. Best in show so far.

SoftwarePatent 15y ago

The FT is an outlier... their fans (including me) are stark, raving fans who will put up with an ugly interface to get at the content.