Time, Inc., Apple at odds over App Store subscriptions

Here at Urban Airship, we have been following this closely - currently we're in production mode with several large media companies who are developing iPad apps. The subscription piece is tricky but we think we've developed a compelling solution. Some of our insights on why this is so important and how we are approaching it on our blog: blog.urbanairship.com
Would love feedback. Thanks.

Someone mentioned that Apple hosts the content; they don't. In-app purchase content is hosted by the provider. I know, because I wrote, and manage, a server to do this very thing for our in app purchases.

Ah, so it all boils down to Time Inc. wanting to keep all the profits from iPad subscriptions while only sharing revenue with Apple for the original app purchase. Just as I suspected, greedy, clueless publisher holding back technology out of greed.

Hm. So how does Der Spiegel (German newsweek-equivalent) do it then? If you have a subscription of the eEdition (or somesuch horrible name), which you can buy at their website, you get new issues automatically in the iPad app.

Or, come to think of it, how does the kindle app work? You can buy content for the kindle app w/o Apple getting a cut. So why doesn't Time Inc follow these models?

I hope Apple and publishers can figure it out. I got an iPad, in part, so I could read magazines on it. I've gradually let my print subs slip and have been getting new subscriptions on Zinio, when they are available. I'd stop getting print altogether, if I could, and subscribe via my iPad; but I will NOT pay a premium to do so.

Could SI possibly do what MLB does? Every year I buy the At-Bat app. It's not an upgrade, it's a new app. I have MLB' 09 and now I have MLB '10. Then on top of that I have to pay for my MLB.tv subscription every year to watch games. I just want to know if this is possible. Could SI have a yearly app & subscription model?

SI just wants a special deal. What they're trying to do is expressly forbidden in the developer agreement.

If they just developed a reader app with downloadable subscription content purchased using the in app purchase options, they'd have not problem.

This sounds like SI behaving badly, not Apple.

That's what the others do, like Pixelmags. The comics publishers, however, do not. I would prefer consolidating my purchases under Apple but I can understand Time's concern about Apple's 30% cut.

It seems more like an issue of Apple's exerting more will over SI's subscription practices than SI would like. Doesn't this eliminate SI's ability to have a single subscription to their website that also include access to the print magazine and digital app content.

Apple wants to be the middle man collecting money on other people's hard work of journalism and content creation. It's a very financially scalable move for Apple, but SI wants to sell access (or provide it for free) on the iPad, a plattform that offers some benefits that they want to take advantage of. It's something they could easily do through their website.

Does Apple deserve a licensing fee for each issue? It seems like Apple is trying to fashion itself as a Digital Magazine Printer that takes a fee for each copy printed, but A, they don't make the software (SI does), and B, The content people are accessing could be made accessible for free without them if the platform supported technology like Air.

Asking developers to use a web browser and HTML5, a Draft Spec, seems like a way to get around the fact that with no real file system access, there is little room for offline content separate from an app. (I don't own an iPad. Is there?)

Content creators would otherwise be able to distribute application-like content without Apple taking a cut for each issue. When Apple takes a chunk of the revenue for each issue, consider that $5 an issue might make sense.

Why don't they just make the subscription an in-app purchase? Apple gets their cut and keeps things coherent. Time gets to sell subscriptions. Since Apple is trying to get into the digital publishing business, I can't see why they would allow a way for content providers to side step that with an app that allows direct purchases.