Financial Times hopes to avoid iTunes subscription rules
Despite a few objections after Apple announced its subscription setup for iOS apps, the service is underway -- developers and publishers can sell content subscriptions through the App Store, and of course Apple gets a 30 percent cut. One publisher is still holding out: the UK's Financial Times still hopes to sell its own subscriptions on the iPad, without giving Apple its due. The publisher already has 590k subscribers on its website, and is reportedly in negotiations with Apple right now to keep all of those for itself rather than sharing any part of them with Apple.
We'll have to wish FT good luck with that as it seems unlikely that Apple would allow separate solutions into the App Store for different publications, not to mention any solutions that don't include Apple getting its cut. Plus, the more publications that do agree to Apple's terms just creates a stronger "negotiating" position for sites like Financial Times to contend with. FT may come up with some sort of deal on its own, but as far as I can tell, Apple has no reason to back down from its subscription plans.
[via electronista]
Share
Despite a few objections after Apple announced its subscription setup for iOS apps, the service is underway -- developers and...
Add a Comment
FT will just offer the subscription through the app store, and offer a subscription on their website for the same price where customer get access on several iOS devices (instead of just one), Android devices, webbased, monthly magazine at home, etc. Perfectly in line with the app store rules. Let see what consumers will choose...
April 05 2011 at 3:12 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThis is a good point. For almost every publisher of content, the iOS device(s) are not the only "window" through which the customer will expect to be able to get the content. Since if you buy in-app, you can't "log into" that account from, say, your computer, your Blu-Ray player, or your friend's Android smartphone. For this reason alone customers would be better off not using in-app purchase for any of these kinds of transactions. In fact, I think this is a completely wrong use case for in-app purchasing.
In-app purchasing is best suited for upgrading apps to add premium features (adding voice or additional maps to GPS, adding levels to games, unlocking features in productivity apps, buying virtual currency in games).
For media of all sorts, a far better model is the "free" App Store app tethered to a proprietary subscription that lets you access the content elsewhere. (The Netflix app is a great example of this). The purpose of apps for content, to me, is simply to provide a nicer, more customized experience viewing that content than you could get from a website. But I don't want to give up the freedom that a website gives you to access the content that I pay for *anywhere* from *any* device.
That's what they should do. Banking on their established subscribers who won't be bothered to change over to the In App system to cover the loss of the 30% and provide more than enough demo info for the advertisers.
But FT is saying no they don't want that. they think it is bogus to have to offer the in app at all whatever the reason so they are trying to play chicken thinking Apple will back down. But they won't. Because if they pay favs with one group, that just means everyone else will demand the same.
I think the Apple strategy of taking 30% cut from these publications is counterproductive and will eventually harm adoption of the platform or force the publications to charge 30% more for iOS customers creating a 30% apple tax for consumers. I love Apple and their products, but this policy wreaks of uncontrollable greed. And for you fanboys out there, the loser is not FT. The loser is us.
April 04 2011 at 4:58 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyFT's issue is not the 30%.
Rather it is that they do not have access to personal info on their subscribers unless the subscribers opt in to allow FT the info. FT then sells the info for big bucks.
We iOS users should scream "THANK YOU APPLE" for standing firm against these publishers not gaining our permission to sell our data to third parties.
I wonder what the conversation's like....
ft: we are not going to give you a cut.
apple: Of course, if you brought in your own subscribers.
ft: we are not going to give you a cut.
apple: you must implement the in-app subscription service.
ft: we are not going to give you a cut.
apple: ....!?
ft: we are not going to give you a cut.
apple: conversations' over....
ft: we are not going to give you a cut.
That is probably how it's going too. Apple has a good chance of screwing this up unless they come up with a better deal for the printed media companies as a whole. if they only took 10% then the media companies could charge less than $7 a month. Probably wishful thinking as I miss my NY Times already.
April 04 2011 at 4:25 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThat's too complex. There will be no prior convo. Financial Times won't do the update and the day of the deadline Apple will yank the app for failure to follow the terms and conditions. FT will fuss, Aplle will tell them to follow the rules or they won't be allowed back.
Done
Deals of the Day
more deals- Skullcandy Riot Earbud Headphones for $10 + free shipping
- Apple Wireless Bluetooth Keyboard for $40 + $8 s&h
- Refurb Mac Pro Xeon Quad-Core 2.8GHz Workstation for $1,150 + $38 s&h, more
- Used Apple iPad 32GB Wi-Fi Tablet for $200 + free shipping
- Apple iPod nano Multi-Touch 8GB MP3 Player for $100 + $8 s&h
- Cases for New iPad at HandHeldItems: Extra 20% off, $2 credit, from $3 + $3 s&h
Software Updates
more updatesFeatured Stories
more stories
Popular Stories
TUAW (or The Unofficial Apple Weblog) is a website devoted to tips, reviews, news, analysis and opinion on everything Apple.
13 Comments