Popular Science has sold 10,000 iPad magazine subscriptions

I'm OK with Apple passing on some basic demographic characteristics -- age, gender, zip code, etc.

I don't really consider a computer aggregating generic demographic characteristics about me to be a violation of my privacy. And if it means I get to see demographically relevant ads instead of Lipitor and Depends, then so much the better.

One way to get demographic info would be to give away magazines. Fill out a survey, get a code for next months magazine free.

10k users at $15 a year equals $150,000 a year income. That is by no means enough to justify all the extra effort they have to put into the iPad release (as long as you only look at the bottomline, not at the promotional value of it), let alone to be able to sustain the magazine in an all-digital form (which would be downright impossible with these numbers).

This article sounds like they have a big success, but that is only the case compared to other companies who are not even getting 10,000 users.
Calling it a business success in itself is idiotic, at these numbers and prices PopSci is losing money with their iPad version, I am convinced.

I'm forever confused by the app store model of publishing magazines versus the Zinio route. I get it from an Apple perspective. However, several magazines - including Popular Science publish in both forms. I subscribe via Zinio. Why would I want to subscribe via App Store? The content appears to be the same. All confusing and as they come from different publishing groups, it is difficult to get a clear answer.

I like PopScience but I do not understand why the digital form is more expensive that the print model. With all the distribution and cost of printing I would think that it is more expensive that way. I can get PS home subscription for about half what I would pay for a digital one.
I think that all of these companies are see who would be silly enough to pay more money for something that is readily available cheaper. Just to have this on an iPad is plain silly.

I wonder how many subscribers Murdoch's rag has?

If you do not "Twitter" can you still get those extras?

Considering that, according to this article, they already have 1.2 mil subscribers in print, 10k electronic subscriptions is just the start. How many of the analog subscribers will go with this when the paper sub runs out?

Good for Pop Sci for realizing that you cannot charge a premium for pixels over paper.

Keiser

Looks like a step in the right direction. You can still get the print subscription cheaper from their website (and even cheaper elsewhere), so IMO they have some work to do before the pricing feels right to the average consumer, but I'm liking it so far.

Beats the heck out of the ridiculous $5/issue they started selling last year.

They seem to understand what digital content is about and how to price it appropriately unlike some of the newspapers who appear to be in cloud cuckoo land with regard to pricing such as the NYT and the Times (UK). I'd love to read the NYT on my iPad but not for $5 per week. I just don't understand these companies they must surely know they have a global audience but don;t seem to want to cater for it.