Comments

• Why not have content providers offer incentives to get subscribers to share their information?
• I have an idea. How about we use this thread to discuss the relative merits of the three subscription models described, instead of spending a lot of time railing against Apple Insider and its hideous bias and horrible standards of journalism etc etc.
  If there's something in the article that you fell is factually incorrect, go ahead and put your correction out there with a link to back it up. No need for lengthy tirades and sarcasm. Just cite your objection and move on.
  To me the significant point of differentiation is that Apple is actually making it better for their customers while risking alienating publishers. They appear to banking on the entrenched market for iOS to force the publishers hand.
  Google, OTOH, true to character, is happy to oblige their corporate partners by handing over user data.
  I think it's undeniably true that a simple one click subscribe unsubscribe system using my iTunes account, and which doesn't send along my info to various entities for use in targeted marketing, is a better experience for me than what Google is offering. Naturally, Apple will be pilloried for being control freaks, but I'm not sure why I should be siding with content providers over my interests.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by addabox
  To me the significant point of differentiation is that Apple is actually making it better for their customers while risking alienating publishers. They appear to banking on the entrenched market for iOS to force the publishers hand.
  .., but I'm not sure why I should be siding with content providers over my interests.
  

  
  

  
  I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
  Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
  If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
  Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
• Apple has chosen to put the user first.
  Google has chosen to put publishing dinosaurs first, with ads thrown in and your privacy as a commodity.
  The choice is clear.
• I think the privacy horse has bolted. Now I'm not saying that people should play open misere with their personal data, but how much more are you really giving up by supplying email, zip codes, etc.
  I suspect the answer is not much. As Eric Schmidt has said - and to paraphrase - the web knows more about you than probably you do.
• Has anyone figured out how one manages their subscriptions through iTunes? I was unable to find that admin section in my account.
• Once again inadequate research for a 'feature' article.
  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/..to-manage.html
  

  Quote:
  

  
  German publishers Axel Springer AG, Focus Online (Tomorrow Focus) and Stern.de joined Eric at Humboldt University today as some of our first Google One Pass partners. Other publishers already signed up include Media General, NouvelObs, Bonnier?s Popular Science, Prisa and Rust Communications.
  

  
  

  
  
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
  I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
  Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
  If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
  Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
  

  
  

  
  I see what you are trying to say, but that is not an accurate analogy. iTunes and the App Store are the platform - not iOS itself.
  For example - you want to access Pop. Sci. online, you have two choices. You can use your iOS browser (Safari) and navigate to the website and purchase access directly there. Or, you can go to iTunes/The App Store and download the Pop. Sci. app and pay for a subscription through the app, which you gained access to through iTunes/App Store. iOS isn't the marketplace, iTunes/App Store is the marketplace.
  Apple wants a cut of the business it generates through its marketplace (And rightly so). iTunes/App Store IS a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple. I think you are trying to say that by extension, every iOS device is also dragged under the iTunes/App Store umbrella and essentially becomes a POS owned by Apple. While practically speaking this often becomes the case (as the user experience is just better), it is technically not so.
  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by MyopicPaideia
  I see what you are trying to say, but that is not an accurate analogy. iTunes and the App Store are the platform - not iOS itself.
  For example - you want to access Pop. Sci. online, you have two choices. You can use your iOS browser (Safari) and navigate to the website and purchase access directly there. Or, you can go to iTunes/The App Store and download the Pop. Sci. app and pay for a subscription through the app, which you gained access to through iTunes/App Store. iOS isn't the marketplace, iTunes/App Store is the marketplace.
  Apple wants a cut of the business it generates through its marketplace (And rightly so). iTunes/App Store IS a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple. I think you are trying to say that by extension, every iOS device is also dragged under the iTunes/App Store umbrella and essentially becomes a POS owned by Apple. While practically speaking this often becomes the case (as the user experience is just better), it is technically not so.
  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  

  
  

  
  If Apple allows sideloading apps then you're right. But right now Apple doesn't allow you to install apps except from Apple's app store, which basically bundles the iOS platform with the app store.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
  I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
  Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
  If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
  Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
  

  
  

  
  iOS devices are not general purpose computing platforms. They work more like video game consoles, where users similarly can only get software from on source (licensed titles) and can not run homebrew content. (Actually you can run your own apps on iOS, and they have an open web browser, but other apps are tied to the platform and its rules.)
  Apple doesn't have iTunes on the PSP or Wii or Xbox, but if it wanted to, it would legitimately have to pay the vendor to do that. And I doubt Microsoft would welcome iTunes' encroachment on their Xbox, for obvious reasons.
  If Apple didn't also have an open platform, and if other vendors didn't also operate closed platforms, this might be a more difficult concept to understand.
  But with that perspective, there's no difficult thing to understand about why Apple wants to get a piece of commercial content being sold via its Cocoa platform.
  It's still free for publishers to set up a paywall website, and let iOS users navigate there and log in, but if publishers want to use Apple's store and platform, Apple wants a cut. And the reason you pay a cut is because somebody is offering you a valuable venue. Which is why they will once they see the money.
  It's like Apple owns a venue, and wants a cut of the alcohol sold, and also a cut of the door receipts of party promoters. It also doesn't want people selling drugs (that it doesn't get a cut from) in part because it is stuck dealing with customers on drugs causing problems.
  Hope that helps.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by sciwiz
  Once again inadequate research for a 'feature' article.
  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/..to-manage.html
  

  
  

  
  Well are they currently available titles, or just vapor talk in the same category as Microsoft's Office apps for Symbian?
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by drobforever
  If Apple allows sideloading apps then you're right. But right now Apple doesn't allow you to install apps except from Apple's app store, which basically bundles the iOS platform with the app store.
  

  
  

  
  While Apple doesn't allow sideloading Apps, they do allow sideloading content which is what the whole new marketplace policies are about. So I think your point is met from a business standpoint.
• Thanks, I really enjoyed the article. I had no idea how the Kindle operated with the 3G; quite interesting.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
  I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
  Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
  If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
  Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
  

  
  

  
  How does that affect me?
  You're making an argument for the sanctity of content provider profits as if that somehow interferes with my use of an iOS device or should trouble me. It doesn't. I don't really care what anyone gets paid, as long as the cost to me is reasonable and the process is simple. Apple is providing both.
  Honestly, why on earth should I care what Apple's cut is? Why should you? When you buy something at a brick and mortar store do you demand to know how the profits in the supply chain are allocated and become indignant if, in your judgement, the store is taking too much? That would only matter if the goods were overpriced. If subscriptions on the iTunes store cost significantly more than via other channels, then I'll care. Baring that, your histrionics strike me as bizarre.
• Amazon's delivery fees are expensive but maybe they should allow content providers to allow wifi vs 3G content versions.
  In any case..
  

  Quote:
  

  
  Google's publisher-friendly terms are also not without precedent. When Microsoft attempted to take on Apple's iPod, it initially offered labels far more restrictive Windows Media DRM that promised to restrict users' music playback to mobile devices or prevent it from being burned to a CD or expire songs after a period of time.
  

  
  

  
  What does this obsession with PlaysForSure have to do with Google when they allow access on their platform + the web? We will have to see the actual results of their content before deciding this. If you access it and it has no ads or content, what's the diff btw them and apple? Maybe publishers don't need or want their content hosted on apple for a 20% cut.
  What did apple do to make 'premium' 'differentiated, more attractive music experience'? All they did was start selling music online. Whoopdy doo.
  Well, whatever. It still is too early to tell how it pans out.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by Hiro
  While Apple doesn't allow sideloading Apps, they do allow sideloading content which is what the whole new marketplace policies are about. So I think your point is met from a business standpoint.
  

  
  

  
  Actually this new policy is about subscription of content, and there's no way to sideload 'a subscription', unless through an app environment in which you consume the content you subscribed through the app. Of course, there's webapp but that doesn't run digital content well unless Apple can improve the Safari browser to a certain point or when html5 evolves to a certain point (neither of which would happen in the next few years).
• If Microsoft had tried to charge a 30% toll booth fee for content displayed on Windows, Apple would have mocked them for being greedy. Having been an Apple fan and user for years, its sad to see Apple heading down the same greedy path.
  Apple doesn't allow apps other than those approved by them to be loaded on iOS devices meaning that I have zero choices for using an iOS device and getting the content or apps I want. My choices to protest their Draconian software and commerce policies are: don't use the well-designed hardware? This is the near opposite of the 'openness' that Apple supposedly embraces as a company.
  And for the altruistic who think that Apple are protecting their interests by not sharing marketing data with publishers.. did you ever wonder why the your iTunes app and music suggestions seem to be based on other stuff you've bought from Apple? Apple has ZERO problem using previous purchase information to get you to purchase more stuff from them.
  Has anybody done a Steve Jobs/Bill Gates mashup yet?
• Great analysis!
  I'm starting to understand why Apple's 30% take isn't an issue with periodicals. If the subscription price is only 20% of the cost of production, then Apple's charge is only 6% of their total cost, not bad when Apple is handling the billing and distribution. But I do wonder what will happen if a popular magazine charges virtually nothing for subscriptions and makes its profits on the advertising a huge circulation brings in. If it included lots of color pictures, Apple, who is now making almost nothing, could end up getting burned by all the data charges and demands on their servers. I assume in that case, Apple's going to be making money on its own ads in the magazine, but that assumes it can start to attract advertisers.
  But there is a serious problem if Apple attempts to transfer its periodical model into the world of ebooks. I know, because that's the field I'm in. Books don't have ads and there are strong indications that the public would either reject books with ads completely or make a great effort to avoid looking at those ads, resulting in little ad revenue. People browse magazines, so ads aren't that disruptive. They immerse themselves in books, so ads are a gross nuisance.
  Also, unlike magazines, book publishers depended totally on what they get at wholesale for their books. Don't forget that, because it is the critical factor in this debate. For distribution through Apple's iBookstore, that 30% charge doesn't matter. That's what Amazon is also taking for their sales, distribution and billing. That's fine. For printed books, the publisher may be keeping 25% of the retail price, so getting 70% of retail price is great. That's one reason why ebooks can sell for less.
  The trouble comes when Apple wants to grab 30% of the retail price not just when an ebook is sold through their iBookstore but when it is sold through Amazon, B&N, or Sony apps. In those cases, the ebook is still being processed by Amazon or the others, so they're still earning their 30% legitimately. But Apple is reaping a 30% income for handling a 3% credit card processing fee. That is what is grotesque.
  Given that each of the other online bookstores has substantial costs, those vendors will have to pass along all or most of that 30% charge to me. In a free market, I'd simply raise my Apple price by 30%, so my profit from books sold through Apple is the same as for books sold through Amazon. That would be fair. If Apple wants to get fat profits from doing nothing, then Apple will have to contend with low sales.
  But Apple wants to prohibit me from doing that. They want my cost for selling to Amazon's Kindle apps on iPads to be twice that of selling to Apple's iBooks apps on iPads, even though the reader experience is the same. That's where they're likely to get in deep legal trouble, since it is obviously a ploy to drive away competition.
  They also want my income from selling the same Kindle ebook to be a substantial 30% less when a customer buys it on an iPad than when they buy it on their Mac/PC but designate it to be downloaded to an iPad. In the latter case, it's the same book being installed on the same device, so why is it providing a radically different income for the publisher? It isn't just hard to come up with a rational basis for that strange corporate policy. It's impossible.
  I can offer an example. I spent over a year working on a book called Chesterton On War and Peace. It's quite long (448 pages), heavily commented, and describes someone who was warning that Hitler in power meant a European war in 1932, well before Churchill took up the alarm. Given the time and work I put into it, the $24.95 retail price is a steal. Suppose I create an ebook version and price it at $10. Here's what my income would be like for various versions and means of sale:
  * Sold on Amazon's webpage or a Kindle for Kindles and Kindle apps on any device, I get $7.00
  --Apple does nothing and gets nothing.
  * Sold on the iBookstore for iBooks on iPads and iPhones, I get $7.00
  --Apple handles all the distribution, billing and display while getting $3.00, just like Amazon above.
  *Sold on an iPad for the Kindle app on that iPad or any other device, I get $4.00
  --Apple does nothing but process the billing and yet gets $6.00
  Note just how crazy that scheme is. Apple iBookstore scheme is fair. They earn what Amazon is earning. But notice the third case, where Apple earns twice as much when it does almost nothing as when it is running its own online store. That's where Apple is likely to get in deep, deep trouble with the federal government. There's no rationale basis for that difference except as an attempt by Apple to crush its competition.
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
  I think what you are missing is that an iPad or an iPhone is a general-purpose device, a computer, that you buy and own.
  Apple wants to take a 30% cut on any purchases you make with your device, even if you make those purchases through a third-party application.
  If Microsoft or Dell did this, then Apple would need to cough up 30% of everything they sold through the version of iTunes running on Windows, which is an OS, just like iOS. iTunes is a third party app running on Windows. Windows is not curated, so Microsoft does not get a dime.
  Put another way, Apple by this move is declaring iOS is not to be a curated OS. Rather, they are saying that each iOS device is a Point of Sale that belongs to Apple.
  

  
  

  
  yeah, that's right. you buy the iOS product, you buy the whole Apple package.
  with respect, take it or leave it.
  if you don't like it, either jailbreak your Apple device, or, for heaven's sake just don't buy it at all! get something else. there are alternatives. no one is twisting your arm.
  Google is selling a package too, just a different kind, and in cahoots with the telcos to boot. same for Amazon. so will MS/Nokia, if they ever pull their sh*t together. and HP. and Samsung. this is the way business works. sorry to break the bad news ..
  there is the dream of Linux and open source software and all that. it's admirable. but it does not produce successful commercial products. efforts to produce a true open source Linux smartphone have all failed (Android is a complete fraud when attempting to pose as such).
• Quote:
  

  Originally Posted by Inkling
  .*Sold on an iPad for the Kindle app on that iPad or any other device, I get $4.00
  --Apple does nothing but process the billing and yet gets $6.00.
  

  
  

  
  don't you mean Apple gets $3 and Amazon gets $3 and you get $4?
  obviously not the best of the three options for you. but as a practical matter, most buying Kindle books will get them on the Amazon or Kindle device website anyway, even if they might read them later on an iPad via the Kindle app. and the rest of the iPad owners are going to buy your book via iBooks. so i doubt you will get hit by many of this double-billed 3rd option.
  the way you still come out way ahead is having many millions more iPad owners to sell your book to than you ever would via Kindle alone.