

Steve Jobs Doesn’t Want to Kill Publishers, But Apple’s Subscription Strat Will - cwan
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/19/apple-kill-publishers/

======
zdw
End run around the apple subscription debacle:

Publishers already offer multiple rates for different subscription lengths.
Often the cost of a year subscription to a magazine is 1/3 to 1/4 of the
newsstand cover price. Newspapers are similar. As far as I know, there's no
requirement to offer every pricing variation available via in-app purchase.

Solution: Just offer the cover price, or some shorter, higher cost/issue via
in-app purchase. Offer other deals, including physical/digital combos,
externally via your own store.

~~~
rewind
It would be nice to do that, but if Apple has shown us anything, it's that you
either play entirely by their rules, or you don't play at all. ANY attempt to
circumvent this will just mean your app gets bounced, then you're fucked. Once
you're in the game, you'll have customers who depend on that app being
available on the iPad. You can't risk pissing Apple off, so these types of
workarounds aren't going to work. Anything that just involves physical goods
is fair game, but if you're offering anything that's accessible through the
app, you're digging your own grave by messing around.

~~~
zdw
Imagine a "digital + physical" bundle that costs less than the digital alone,
or a once yearly "archive" CD of the entire year's issues.

Apple's policy is here:

<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html>

The pertinent section: "However, Apple does require that if a publisher
chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that
same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to
customers who wish to subscribe from within the app."

So, throw in a single letter once a year and you have physical + digital, and
there is no issue with different pricing vs. App Store.

~~~
raganwald
You seem to have missed the part of their policy that says " _We reserve the
right to change our policy if you try to do an end run around our policies_."

That's exactly how the current policy came to be: People like Amazon decided
to give razors away (what's 30% of free?) and sell the blades on their own
stores without giving Apple a cut.

~~~
zdw
Could you link to where you've seen Apple say that? It's not in the article I
linked.

~~~
raganwald
The developer license agreement states this very clearly. Apple does not
publish this agreement, but you can get yourself a copy easily.

Versions of it have been published on the web from time to time, e.g. By the
EFF:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-
progr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-program-
license-agreement-all)

The text in question is: _Apple may change the Program Requirements or the
terms of this Agreement at any time. New or modified Program Requirements will
not retroactively apply to Applications already in distribution. In order to
continue using the Apple Software or any services, You must accept and agree
to the new Program Requirements and/or new terms of this Agreement. If You do
not agree to new Program Requirements or new terms, Your use of the Apple
Software and any services will be suspended or terminated by Apple. You agree
that Your acceptance of such new Agreement terms or Program Requirements may
be signified electronically, including without limitation, by Your checking a
box or clicking on an "agree" or similar button. Nothing in this Section shall
affect Apple's rights under Section 8 below._

~~~
zdw
How is that different from any other EULA for any other service?

That seems to me like a generic boilerplate catchall, which doesn't speak to
this specific issue.

------
Terretta
I'll believe the gloom and doom about 30% on subscriptions when publishers
stop sending me postcards offering 90% off the subscription price if I renew
for another year.

~~~
Bud
I'd really like to say that's a zinger, since I am mostly on Apple's side
about all this. But the fact of course is that they're offering you X percent
off the cover price, not X percent off the actual subscription price. The
other fact is that whatever discounted rate happens to be the REAL price of a
subscription will end up being the rate that the publisher in question has to
offer in-app in iOS as well.

That said, I completely agree with you about the gloom and doom, because that
normal subscription price includes the costs of actually printing a paper
magazine and shipping it to the customer. I'm pretty sure that in the vast
majority of cases, the costs for providing an online edition will be much
less. So there's still a profit margin here, and a sizable one.

------
brudgers
For now, newspapers are unprofitable and Apple is not really interested in
attracting a large number of independently minded companies - their deal with
Murdoch is much more in keeping with the their objective of exclusive content.

Instead Apple's subscription terms are aimed at streaming music apps which
will compete with any iTunes streaming service and Amazon which already
competes in the eBook marketplace.

------
michaelpinto
Is Apple also taking a cut of the advertising? That's where the real money is
with publishers.

------
foobarbazetc
Do you people realize Amazon takes a 70% cut on Kindle subscriptions?

------
juiceandjuice
I was picturing an apple guitar when I first read the headline.

