3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoThis is not permitted.
- adamjernst 15y agoNo. One of Apple's terms is that you must offer the same price.
- tedunangst 15y agoThat'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 agoNope. 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.