iPad Getting a Subscription Infrastructure?

itwbennett writes "Peter Smith is blogging about an article in the San Jose Mercury News leaking news that Apple is 'almost ready to take the wraps off a new system to support subscriptions. The terms, if the leaks are accurate, sound less than ideal for publishers though. Apple will take 40% of advertising revenue, and 30% of subscription fees from participating publishers. In return, Apple will offer consumers the ability to opt-in to sharing their data with the publishers.' Apple isn't commenting on the speculation. 'In somewhat related news, Apple has released iOS 4.2 to developers. This is the version of iOS that will let iPads, iPhones and iPad Touches print to a WiFi-enabled or shared printer on a local network, via the new AirPrint service. It sounds like you'll be able to print articles from your digitally delivered newspaper before too long,' says Smith."

Comments

Pricing for services rendered?

[Peach Rings]

It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee in proportion with the cost of the services they're actually rendering instead of taking advantage of their control over the platform and price gouging the hell out of their customers.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[causality]

It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee in proportion with the cost of the services they're actually rendering instead of taking advantage of their control over the platform and price gouging the hell out of their customers.

They still have competition. You can get other devices that use other platforms. That's true for iPhones and it's also true for iPads, especially if the tasks for which you would use a tablet can be done on a netbook. In any case, there is a market here that they could price themselves out of. They don't wish to shoot themselves in the foot, that's all. At this point it's not evidence of some kind of benevolence, though it doesn't rule that out either. It's merely consistent with the business practices that have gotten them to where they are today.

The equation doesn't change until and unless they obtain a monopoly on such a market that is comparable to the dominance of Windows on the desktop.

Additionally I'm not sure if it would be "price gouging" when it's a luxury item and the customers knew or could easily have informed themselves that they were investing in a platform that is not open and is under the control of a single vendor. Those who really care about this possibility tend to insist on open platforms that are not subject to vendorlock.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[icebike]

40% of advertising revenue implies revenue for clicks on in-app adds will be down substantially. Apple is going to start milking the App Developers.

30% Subscription revenue says they are planning to continue to milk the subscription content sellers.

It sounds to me like apple has decided its easier to fleece the flock of developers than actually charge the end user for what their services cost.

Boy, I wonder why Google hasn't thought about that.....

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[nine-times]

Also it's worth noting that this might not be a horrible deal. I don't know the market well enough to gauge it, but if Apple is providing all of the storage, bandwidth, ad deals and ad placement, etc. then it might be that all the content owners need to bring is the content.

40% of ad revenue sounds like a lot, but does Google kick >60% of their ad revenue back to the websites that place ads? 30% of subscription fees, again, sounds like a lot, but that means you get 70% without needing to pay any of the costs associated with distribution.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[ceoyoyo]

I suspect newspapers pay more than 30-40% for printing and distribution right now. Possibly a very good deal for them.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[cryptoluddite]

It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee

Why is that marked funny? Last I checked Google is making huge profits even despite massive spending, so they're basically doing the same thing. If anything Google is taking significantly more profit percentage-wise from actual content producers than Apple is.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[BradleyUffner]

30% Subscription revenue says they are planning to continue to milk the subscription content sellers.

It sounds to me like apple has decided its easier to fleece the flock of developers than actually charge the end user for what their services cost.

Boy, I wonder why Google hasn't thought about that.....

30% is the same cut google takes on android market applications.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee in proportion with the cost of the services they're actually rendering instead of taking advantage of their control over the platform and price gouging the hell out of their customers.

It's nice to see that you think their primary customers are the newspapers, magazines, and advertisers as opposed to the people who actually own the iPads and who actually are paying for the subscriptions.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[icebike]

Swooosh!

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, just like the guy on TV said.

The smart people didn't buy Apple Computers, they bought Apple Stock.

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[colds]

office 2007 Recent office 2007 microsoft moves by office 2007 download three cheap microsoft office 2007 of the microsoft office 2007 product key six discount microsoft office 2007 major office 2007 product key studios buy microsoft office 2007 to impose microsoft office 2007 professional a month-long purchase microsoft office 2007 window office 2007 sale on new download office 2007 releases microsoft office 2007 ultimate coming office 2007 key to the dvd rental dvds market dvd set are expected dvd box set to boost one tree hill dvd DVD sales grey's anatomy dvd, with lost dvd a minimal smallville dvd impact on ghost whisperer dvd the rental bones dvd businessmarried with children dvd. Indeed 24 hours dvd box set, 24 hours dvds some observers cold case dvd box set believe cold case complete series dvd set the rental ncis dvd box set window friends dvd, which friends dvds applies the tudors dvd only the tudors dvds to Netflix monk dvd and Redbox monk dvds, will south park dvd grow south park dvds the criminal minds dvd business. dexter dvd Consumers dexter dvds who want mash dvd new mash dvds releases supernatural dvd as soon supernatural dvds as they buffy the vampire slayer dvd come

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[colds]

office 2007 Recent office 2007 microsoft moves by office 2007 download three cheap microsoft office 2007 of the microsoft office 2007 product key six discount microsoft office 2007 major office 2007 product key studios buy microsoft office 2007 to impose microsoft office 2007 professional a month-long purchase microsoft office 2007 window office 2007 sale on new download office 2007 releases microsoft office 2007 ultimate coming office 2007 key to the dvd rental dvds market dvd set are expected dvd box set to boost one tree hill dvd DVD sales grey's anatomy dvd, with lost dvd a minimal smallville dvd impact on ghost whisperer dvd the rental bones dvd businessmarried with children dvd. Indeed 24 hours dvd box set, 24 hours dvds some observers cold case dvd box set believe cold case complete series dvd set the rental ncis dvd box set window friends dvd, which friends dvds applies the tudors dvd only the tudors dvds to Netflix monk dvd and Redbox monk dvds, will south park dvd grow south park dvds the criminal minds dvd business. dexter dvd Consumers dexter dvds who want mash dvd new mash dvds releases supernatural dvd as soon supernatural dvds as they buffy the vampire slayer dvd come

Re:Pricing for services rendered?

[colds]

office 2007 Recent office 2007 microsoft moves by office 2007 download three cheap microsoft office 2007 of the microsoft office 2007 product key six discount microsoft office 2007 major office 2007 product key studios buy microsoft office 2007 to impose microsoft office 2007 professional a month-long purchase microsoft office 2007 window office 2007 sale on new download office 2007 releases microsoft office 2007 ultimate coming office 2007 key to the dvd rental dvds market dvd set are expected dvd box set to boost one tree hill dvd DVD sales grey's anatomy dvd, with lost dvd a minimal smallville dvd impact on ghost whisperer dvd the rental bones dvd businessmarried with children dvd. Indeed 24 hours dvd box set, 24 hours dvds some observers cold case dvd box set believe cold case complete series dvd set the rental ncis dvd box set window friends dvd, which friends dvds applies the tudors dvd only the tudors dvds to Netflix monk dvd and Redbox monk dvds, will south park dvd grow south park dvds the criminal minds dvd business. dexter dvd Consumers dexter dvds who want mash dvd new mash dvds releases supernatural dvd as soon supernatural dvds as they buffy the vampire slayer dvd come

Obviously talking to the experts

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

  "If you can put animation and multimedia into ads, that will greatly enhance reader views. I am certain of that."

hmm...

Re:Obviously talking to the experts

[Ethanol-fueled]

Rrrrrrrrgh.

Nothing is more annoying than sites like CNN.com (in before sheeple), in which compelling-looking links to stories direct the viewer to just a video(usually along with a mandatory ad that can do tricky stuff like pause automatically when the window loses focus).

Yeah, I know they started putting the "TV" icon next to the links. It's still infuriating that the text versions are not offered or are so hidden that you might as well just google it and go somewhere else.

Gadgets and the internet are all about instant gratification. Many of us can read much faster than we can sit through a video and an ad.

Re:Obviously talking to the experts

[Pieroxy]

If there are enough newspapers, and at least some of them realize that making blinking purple crap move around the screen while the user is trying to focus to read the content (you know, the thing the user is paying the subscription for) then I guess the market will give them credit.

If not, newspapers will die.

Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[WillAffleckUW]

Just wondering.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[aristotle-dude]

Just wondering.

Are you advocating more regulation? Wasn't the sub prime meltdown the result of too much regulation in the wrong area? Instead of regulating prudence, the government basically forced banks to support untenable inner city mortgages which should have never been approved in the first place.

Canada fared better because we had regulations that discouraged sub-prime mortgages and did not force banks to give out loans to people who were high risk.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Are you advocating more regulation?

Canada fared better because we had regulations that discouraged sub-prime mortgages

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

@WillAffleckUW #FEC is the Federal Election Commission. Maybe you meant #FTC?

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

While regulatory capture actually was a big part of the problem, those scary-sounding loans made under the low-income provisions weren't really an issue at all. It was mostly Joe Six-Pack and Jane Boxwine, stereotypical stalwarts of the middle class, trying to get into the McMansion-flipping business.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[WillAffleckUW]

FEC FTC WTF ... sorry, all those TLAs get mixed up.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Sprouticus]

those were not regulations. Those were laws passed by congress. Dont confuse people who have expertise with those trying to get elected.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[aristotle-dude]

Are you advocating more regulation?

Canada fared better because we had regulations that discouraged sub-prime mortgages

I was merely responding to what appeared to be a call for regulation because the OP did not like the idea of a particular company being successful rather than there being an immediate need for regulation.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[ColdWetDog]

The FEC? Federal Election Commission. No way that Jobs is gonna let anybody vote on this.

Maybe the FTC (Federal Trade Commission). But I certainly don't want the government meddling into how newspaper subscriptions are paid for. They've got their work cut out for themselves doing important things like not doing anything about chronic Salmonella contamination of egg farms and approving Environmental Impact Statements concerning the potential harming of walruses in the Gulf of Mexico after an oil spill.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[causality]

Just wondering.

Are you advocating more regulation? Wasn't the sub prime meltdown the result of too much regulation in the wrong area? Instead of regulating prudence, the government basically forced banks to support untenable inner city mortgages which should have never been approved in the first place.

Canada fared better because we had regulations that discouraged sub-prime mortgages and did not force banks to give out loans to people who were high risk.

It's more a question of what kind of regulation is in place.

The subprime deal was the wrong kind. It was based on some abstract idea of "fairness". That idea wasn't even self-consistent because no one is born with a poor credit history. They had the chance to be responsible with their money and to punctually repay any debts they incurred and have demonstrated a track record of overextending themselves and failing to do so. "Fair" would mean let them sleep in the bed they have made for themselves and, if they so choose, work towards a higher credit score until such time that they are credit-worthy for a mortgage. That would be objective fairness.

Regulation was used to enforce a subjective fairness based on some idealized fairy-tale notion of how things should be that had little contact with reality. It caused massive credit to be issued to people who were not credit-worthy. It led to failures that should have been predictable.

Regulation can also be used to clearly define business practices which are abusive or unsound based on objective criteria. I am not familiar with Canadian businesses but from your description it sounds like that's what happened there. It's not so much a matter of "more" or "less" regulation. It's a matter of "just enough" of the right kind.

I don't know if the insistence on dividing all of political thought into a one-dimensional line defined by "left" and "right" is solely responsible for encouraging and legitimizing this either-or type of thinking, but it tends towards myopia.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[phantomfive]

US fared worse because we had regulations that encouraged sub-prime mortgages.

I always shake my head in sadness whenever I see people getting in a fight over 'more' or 'less' regulation. It isn't the quantity of regulation that matters, it's the quality. You can't throw random regulation at a problem and expect things to get better. You can't randomly remove regulation and expect the world to be more beautiful. Finely crafted regulation can keep the economy humming, but poorly written regulations can choke it.

Whenever anyone proposes a change in regulation, don't ask, "is it more or less?" ask "what changes?" People who do that spend less of their time looking like idiots.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Moridineas]

Canada is also in the midst of a housing bubble that is in the process of popping right now.

I would say one of the other biggest differences is that in Canada you can't deduct mortgage interest. Something I wish we would change in the US...

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Mikkeles]

I would say one of the other biggest differences is that in Canada you can't deduct mortgage interest. Something I wish we would change in the US

However, profits from the sale of our principle residences do not count as capital gains.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[iluvcapra]

Instead of regulating prudence, the government basically forced banks to support untenable inner city mortgages which should have never been approved in the first place.

The assertion that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing bubble and ensuing recession is a disproven canard.

Thus:

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to expand mortgage lending in the communities in which they have branch offices, subject to maintaining overall levels of financial safety and soundness. Some have argued that this regulation forced banks to lower their credit standards and engage in riskier mortgage products in order to extend credit to lower-income individuals, who perhaps should not have received such loans. However, data provided by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reveal that loans covered by the CRA accounted for only a fraction of mortgage lending to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods. This is especially true of higher-priced, or subprime, mortgages.1 CRA assessment-area lending accounted for only nine percent of higher-priced loans to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods, while independent mortgage companies accounted for the majority. Further, the subprime share of assessment-area loans made to lower-income borrowers and lower-income neighborhoods was lower than the subprime share for all loans made between 2004 and 2006.

The vast majority of subprime home mortgage lending was made by organizations not bound by the CRA. Not to mention lending for commercial real estate development.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[cdrguru]

A significant part of the subprime problem came from the bond rating agencies, like Moody's. They rated bonds based on mortgages that were almost certain to default as AAA, or investment grade. This made is possible for pension funds and others that demand fixed-income financial instruments with virtually a guarantee of stability to invest in this sort of bond.

Other folks then took out insurance on the bonds for little or no money at all because obviously these were "investment grade" bonds. So the insurance paid off handsomely when the loans default and the investors lose everything - since they aren't the ones holding the insurance.

Once it got around that it was possible to package up a passle of these soon-to-default loans and pass them off on unsuspecting folks as being quality bonds virtually everyone wanted to get into the act. It was easy money. At that point "mortgage brokers" could get money from many different sources based on the ease of getting the mortgage-backed bonds sold. They had no liability if the mortgage went bad, because it was sold off to someone else. The brokers got a hefty commission for loan origination and there was no control on this - nor should there really be at that level.

This is what everyone seems to be missing. What new regulations are there on the bond rating agencies? None. What will prevent another round of this taking place next week? Nothing. What is going to happen when the mortgage defaults percolate up to the bonds that pension funds invested in? The funds will go bankrupt, as will states and municipalities that invested in these bonds. Nothing has been done about the bonds themselves.

We have introduced a bunch of nearly irrelevant regulations that affect banks and some large financial institutions but none of this addresses the origin of the problem. If someone is standing on a street corner passing out checks for $1000 people will take them, no matter what. This is basically what happened in 2003-2006 and while the guy has gone to lunch there is nothing to keep him from coming back. And when the money starts flowing again, we will be right back where we were before when this "crisis" started.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[causality]

A significant part of the subprime problem came from the bond rating agencies, like Moody's. They rated bonds based on mortgages that were almost certain to default as AAA, or investment grade. This made is possible for pension funds and others that demand fixed-income financial instruments with virtually a guarantee of stability to invest in this sort of bond.

Other folks then took out insurance on the bonds for little or no money at all because obviously these were "investment grade" bonds. So the insurance paid off handsomely when the loans default and the investors lose everything - since they aren't the ones holding the insurance.

Once it got around that it was possible to package up a passle of these soon-to-default loans and pass them off on unsuspecting folks as being quality bonds virtually everyone wanted to get into the act. It was easy money. At that point "mortgage brokers" could get money from many different sources based on the ease of getting the mortgage-backed bonds sold. They had no liability if the mortgage went bad, because it was sold off to someone else. The brokers got a hefty commission for loan origination and there was no control on this - nor should there really be at that level.

This is what everyone seems to be missing. What new regulations are there on the bond rating agencies? None. What will prevent another round of this taking place next week? Nothing. What is going to happen when the mortgage defaults percolate up to the bonds that pension funds invested in? The funds will go bankrupt, as will states and municipalities that invested in these bonds. Nothing has been done about the bonds themselves.

We have introduced a bunch of nearly irrelevant regulations that affect banks and some large financial institutions but none of this addresses the origin of the problem. If someone is standing on a street corner passing out checks for $1000 people will take them, no matter what. This is basically what happened in 2003-2006 and while the guy has gone to lunch there is nothing to keep him from coming back. And when the money starts flowing again, we will be right back where we were before when this "crisis" started.

It's all too rare that I get a reply that is so useful, relevant, and informative. I was aware of most of these practices (in fact I consider the crisis to be engineered in the style of the Hegelian dialectic -- one must engage in both "follow the money" and "follow the cronyism/power") but nowhere have I seen it summed up so succinctly. Thank you for that sir.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you were wrong. The "scapegoat the ghetto" theory of the mortgage crises was a shameful defensive posture of a housing industry that tried to deflect the blame for gaming the system and creating exotic securities that turned to junk. In the face of the housing bubble, subprime loans to "inner city" denizens were but a tiny blip. The fact that people continue to propagate that debunked nonsense only demonstrates how Americans rush to blame minorities for everything possible, and many things that are patently impossible.

(batablam)

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Moridineas]

US rules have changed fairly recently as well. Married couples don't have to worry about 500k of profit (single 250k) if they've lived in a house 2 out of the last 5 years. Given average house costs, maintenance costs or money spent on improvements, etc, VERY few people get 500k in profit in a sale. Most houses nationwide don't even cost near 500, though obviously in many areas they do (or did)

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[sjames]

No regulation whatsoever mandated that loan brokers should knowingly offer loans whose payments would balloon to more than the borrower's income. Certainly they were not advised to mislead financially naive borrowers into believing nothing could go wrong. No regulation called upon them to falsify the documents to give the borrowers a higher "official" income. Nothing suggested they should try talking starter home candidates into McMansions. Certainly no regulation suggested that they should then package it all up into derivatives and represent them to be AAA in spite of their own quants warning them otherwise.

The actual "regulations" you speak of were voluntary with incentives and were intended to help disadvantaged 1st time buyers get in to an appropriate starter home.

I agree that appropriate regulation in the appropriate amount is what's necessary, that too much is as bad as too little or the wrong sort. Part of the difficulty is too many lies from too many people. In this case, the causes of the economic disaster all anxiously blaming those evil regulations that won't let them do just whatever they want. They then get parroted by their pet politicians.

You might want to have the koolaid you're holding analyzed before you drink it.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[nine-times]

This is going off-topic, but you're right; people have oversimplified.

It's the same basic problem as taxes and spending. It's not just an issue of whether the government is taxing too much or too little, but an even bigger issue is, who are they taxing and for what behavior? Similarly, there's not a simple dollar amount that the government should spend, and if they spend that amount everything will be good. The question is, what are they spending that money on?

Really these are all complicated issues, but there are a lot of people who need it to be bring everything down to a yes-or-no answer.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Cyberax]

"US fared worse because we had regulations that encouraged sub-prime mortgages."

Not really. US had a bubble because a shadow banking system was allowed to appear. And even that was not a hard requirement, there was a bubble in commercial real estate as well. Paul Krugman (as usual) has a nice article with citations and sources: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/sep/30/slump-goes-why/

US also doesn't have any regulations that _require_ banks to give out subprime loans. And yes, I know about the CRA.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada *may* be in the midst of a housing bubble. It hasn't happened yet, and opinions are mixed. Personally, I think the prices are going to flatten out, but I'm no expert. Anyway, if it does happen you won't see the same kind of banking catastrophe as in the U.S. because the mortgage rules are stricter, and the banks have stricter rules regarding capital on-hand. In other words, if the housing bubble happens it won't be a big deal that will undermine the entire economy. Slow it, yes. As other people have pointed out, it isn't simply a matter of "more regulation", it's a matter of regulations that give a useful result -- in this case, stricter rules against wild financial speculation.

The reality is, the main reason a housing bubble might happen is that, unlike the U.S., there was only a slight and temporary wiggle in house prices at the time of the economic crisis, and then prices kept on rising. The rate of rise isn't sustainable long-term because housing prices are increasing faster than people's incomes, although at a lower rate than the crazy rates in the U.S. before the collapse. It's a worrisome trend that will have to change eventually.

Ironically, our benevolent Conservative government were the ones that changed to rules to allow riskier zero-money-down, 40-year mortgages (i.e. relax Canadian mortgage regulations to be more like the U.S.) when the crisis hit, and they quickly reversed the decision and hoped it wouldn't be noticed who was responsible for the risky change. Read that article. Our government almost blew it.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Lordnerdzrool]

Worth pointing out that he said regulations _encouraged_ sub-prime mortgages. He never said that sub-prime mortgages were _required_ by regulation.

Re:Where's the FEC to regulate when needed?

[Cyberax]

That's not really true as well.

CRA does not encourage subprime lending, it just requires banks to use the same criteria for (the same) loans from different neighborhoods.

Printers?

[mark72005]

Huh? Printers?

I haven't had one of those in 5+ years.

Ink always dried out from lack of use.

Re:Printers?

[guruevi]

Try a laser printer. You can get those from $50 (B&W) to $150 these days, don't come with empty cartridges and the cartridges last anywhere from 2000-6000 pages (for some this will last ~5 years). The ink doesn't dry out and can be used practically forever. I have HP LaserJet II cartridges that expired in 2004 which still work.

Re:Printers?

[dissy]

The ink doesn't dry out and can be used practically forever.

Toner wouldn't work too well if it wasn't dried out ;}

Kidding aside, my HP 4mv is still going like a champ, and it was made back in 1995.

When I first got it, it was used to print billing invoices, somewhere around 6000 sheets a month.
This ate through about 2-3 toner cartridges a year.
In it's later life as my personal printer, seeing very low page counts, a toner cartridge easily lasted 5+ years.

Most printers of this type either have built in or can have added on network support, and they spoke more protocols than you will know what to do with, for a ton of hardware. Odds are TCP and PCL is all one will use these days however.

I could never recommend an inkjet to anyone, period.

Re:Printers?

[TeamSPAM]

I also suggest checking what toner cartridge the laser printer uses. Try to buy one that uses the cartridge that staples/office depot seem to have a decent stock of. That said, most of the cartridges I've bought have been for printers that I got from someone and not bought new. Honestly, I think I've only bought toner 3 times in the last 15 years. Ink is for suckers.

Re:Printers?

[multipartmixed]

> I could never recommend an inkjet to anyone, period.

No kidding. And Brother inkjets are worse than any other inkjets due to actively abusive software.

Seriously.

My brother MFC-5440-CNZ lies in pieces on my floor, and deserves it for the behaviour it most recently exhibited: refusing to send a fax because I was out of yellow ink!

To make matters worse, if you don't use it often enough, you have to "purge" the ink, sometimes several times, to get it going again. Of course, this uses vast quantities of ink, so you have to buy a new cartridge after going through this cycle a few times.

The page counter on that brother is 138. I owned it about 3 years, and replaced all the ink in it three times, at a cost of about $60 per replacement. That makes my cost per page to be about $2.30, excluding my time waiting for it to purge many many times and the cost of the unit itself.

I finally got fed up last month when my brother "fell" off my desk, and I bought myself a printer which does what I need it to: an HP Color LaserJet CM1312nfi MFP. It was on sale for $350 CAD.

It's a colour laser with four toner cartridges, scanner, copier, fax, page-feeder, USB, ethernet, postcript, PCL-6, memory card slots, blah blah blah. An excellent desktop printer for a single SOHO user with a mixture of windows PCs and real computers on his desktop.

Hopefully it's at least half as good as the HP LaserJets of yore. I had a LaserJet IIID that lasted 15 years. It failed because the rollers flattened from disuse, and would no longer pick up paper properly.

iPad Touches?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you mean iPod Touches.

Printing wirelessly

[LoudMusic]

Printing from these things is fine and dandy, but I really need to send a fax from one. That's a technology we just can't live without.

Re:Printing wirelessly

[h4rr4r]

So set up a hylafax server and send faxes via email. Since you're an apple user, meaning you can't and have more money than brains, I will do this for you for $10,000,

Re:Printing wirelessly

[Anonymous Coward]

Printing from these things is fine and dandy, but I really need to send a fax from one. That's a technology we just can't live without.

hp laserjet 1100A

Re:Printing wirelessly

[Pieroxy]

Here in france you just have to send an email to your telephone provider (properly formatted) and the PDF attached gets sent to the fax number in the subject of your mail. Can't get any simpler than that. You then receive an ACK mail when the fax is sent out (or not).

Let's face it, fax is a horrendous way of doing things, and gateways exist to do it in a much less annoying way, mostly for free.

Re:Printing wirelessly

[Bing Tsher E]

I need a current loop serial interface. The new-fangled RS-232c thing won't do.

Three words

[ls -la]

About Fucking Time. I was printing wirelessly off my Palm Pilot 15 years ago.

Re:Three words

[Anonymous Coward]

Well guess Palmpilot concentrated on 'printing' before they got other features which would have helped them survive. As a simple exercise - try remembering how many people would print from palmpilot (yeah one whole address to one page - or.. - oh let me print out my address book while I carry this cool electronic address book)

Sounds like MSFT's stupid concentration on features few people use.

Re:Three words

[able1234au]

Palmpilot wasn't from MSFT. It was from Palm.

Re:Three words

[causality]

Palmpilot wasn't from MSFT. It was from Palm.

Thus the AC said it "sounds like" a Microsoft practice. That means this practice by Palm reminded him/her of another practice by Microsoft.

Insert sarcastic remark like "reading comprehension is your friend" here.

Re:Three words

[able1234au]

Reading comprehension? or perhaps it required writing clarity. If you want to insert sarcastic remarks, how about i insert a remark on good manners. When complaining about what Palm did, why link in MSFT? Or is it just a goal to take a free kick at MSFT whenever some other company does something he thinks is stupid.

Re:Three words

[SuperKendall]

I had a Palm Pilot too. I'd gladly give up printing for a far more powerful and flexible device, which the iPad and iPhone are.

Apple doesn't add every feature under the sun at first launch, but over time they do add them. So what if some features come a little later? I'd rather have the features delivered well thought out from an application developer perspective rather than having to support multiple iterations of an API because they had to rush it out the door to please people who complained the could print from device X, Y years ago.

Re:Three words

[initdeep]

they do however REQUIRE you to purchase a new device to utilize MANY of these new features they benevolently add......

Re:Three words

[causality]

Reading comprehension? or perhaps it required writing clarity. If you want to insert sarcastic remarks, how about i insert a remark on good manners. When complaining about what Palm did, why link in MSFT? Or is it just a goal to take a free kick at MSFT whenever some other company does something he thinks is stupid.

"Sounds like" means "reminds me of [this other thing]" or "is analogous to". The failure to understand that is indeed a matter of reading comprehension.

Now, I said that tongue-in-cheek, another thing you apparently did not comprehend. That's why I said "insert sarcastic remark here" instead of actually making a sarcastic remark. If you are that easily offended and your skin is that thin, you may want to reconsider participating in open Internet forums.

And for what it's worth, Microsoft is no angel. Microsoft has indeed done a non-zero number of stupid things. The GP post likened what he perceived as Palm's stuidity to what he perceived as Microsoft's stupidity. Either prove right now beyond a possible doubt that Microsoft has never ever done a stupid thing during its entire existence, or admit that there's nothing wrong with saying so. See my point?

Re:Printers? or Models?

[WillAffleckUW]

I can see using some of the 3D printers. I'll test them out on the ones for the models at Fashion Week in the NYT.

40% and 30% for Apple?

[I'm Not There (1956)]

Content providers somewhat have to agree on whatever pricing policy Apple forces them. Apple have been so successful for the last ten years that companies don't think they can afford losing its platform to sell their product or service. If Steve Jobs suggested something similar to music companies in 2000 for iTunes and iPod they would have kicked him out of their offices.

Re:40% and 30% for Apple?

[jo_ham]

Remember this is wild speculation from a supposed leak. It's not an Apple press release.

Apple know they have the market controlled (on their device) but they're not stupid. Consider the revenue sharing on the app store itself - it's not set up to gouge the developers. I wouldn't imagine this one will be either - but that's just my opinion. YMMV.

Re:40% and 30% for Apple?

[able1234au]

and basically Apple was the one getting screwed by the music companies as they got the bulk of the revenue from iTunes. They had a better percentage deal than they give to music retailers. If the deal was fair it would be more like this one. Working at a software company, when we sell through retailers we give up 50% of the revenue and we have to pay for manufacture, marketing, development etc. A deal like this Apple one is perfectly reasonable. Does everyone think Apple should do it for free?

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

iPod owning retards will finally be able to do yet another thing they could have done better all along had they bought a laptop in the first place.

Re:Wow

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

iPod owning retards will finally be able to do yet another thing they could have done better all along had they bought a laptop in the first place.

Did you pull your laptop out of your pocket to post that?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this is about iPads, I'm doubting you could have pulled your iPad out of your pocket to post that. Its the same size as a netbook, just a lot less functional.. but it is shiny...

Re:Wow

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Since this is about iPads...

You said iPod.

Its the same size as a netbook...

No, it's not.

...just a lot less functional...

That door swings both ways.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I'm not the OP, but I'll bite.

I did pull my laptop out of my coat pocket to browse /., and thus indirectly to post this. And your precious iPad won't fit in my coat pocket, either.

My laptop, as it happens, is a Fujitsu U820 -- 1280x800 (yeah, I can actually watch HD videos in HD, not downscaled to 1024x576 for 16:9), 5.6" touchscreen (not capacitive, the good kind where you can actually use a stylus effectively), full HW keyboard, finger-print reader, real USB port, SD slot, webcam, a/b/g/n GPS, the works. I normally use it opened flat (where it's about the size of an iPad), but if I'm willing to accept the handicap of no keyboard (like the iPad suffers all the time), I can flip the screen and fold it down to the size of a paperback -- and still fit more info on the screen than your big slate.

The only shortcoming of this device that your iPad fixes is the battery life, which is only 6-8 hours -- I hear the iPad is a little better in use, and of course all ARM devices do way better in idle. Grrrrrrr... I wish Windows would DIAF so manufacturers who aren't capable of rolling their own OS would be free to drop the stinking turd that is x86 and choose architectures based on their actual merits.

So how does this story end? Fujitsu discontinues the U820 in favor of the UH900, which goes to capacitive touch (ooh, multitouch; shiny! BUT WHERE'S MY FUCKING STYLUS!) and ditches the tablet mode, axes the volume/mute rocker, the microphone port, and the 5GHz wireless, and in the only positive change, trades the (slow, ) CF slot for a 2nd USB port. Why'd they have to ditch all those features? Because it didn't sell, had to bring it to a lower price point to get the dumb fucks to buy it.

And that's where the OP's assumption led him astray; he didn't get rule #1: People will never buy devices based on how capable they are (laptops in general, and the U820 in particular, clearly win), but based on how much they like them (which is entirely subjective). If you're a nerd with a perpetual brainboner for tech, you're likely to find device likability strongly correlated to capability, so much so that you can get by considering them one for your own purchases, but as soon as you forget they're actually two different quantities, you'll be perpetually irritated by people who bought the less capable device, because they must not know it's less capable, or must be cognitively dissonant. Of course, in reality they do know, they just like the shiny one better -- and unlike far too many nerds, they know that those quantities are different, so they don't see the presumed illogic in their position.

TL;DR: I typed all this on my laptop, not because it's more capable than the iPad (which it is), but the real reason I pulled it out of my pocket to use is because I like it better than the iPad. If you like the iPad better, that's fine, too. Find a pocket that it fits, and carry it -- this isn't a religious thing, so no need for crusades from any sides.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The OP either meant iPad, or else should have STFU, since iPad is the title of the article, and Apple has historically feature-discriminated against iPod Touches.

The U820 fanboi typed an epic wall-of-text -- I'm betting if he actually could afford that $1000 netbook, his hands would have cramped with that much typing on that dinky keyboard.

And finally, we can see you go for short ass-posts.

STFU & GTFO, all three of you.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops he used the wrong vowel that makes his point invalid.

Re:Wow

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Oops he used the wrong vowel that makes his point invalid.

Oops, he used the wrong product name and invalidated his own point.

FTFY. :)

Re:Wow

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And finally, we can see you go for short ass-posts.

I would have written more if the replies had anything to do with what I said. :D

Oh, isn't that special

[Anonymous Coward]

Some huge company that consists of way overpaid employees and owners, living in the most expensive state to live in, combined with NYC residents, the "other" ridiculously over paid and expensive area, are going to support some news subscriptions on an e-reader that will cost the same as getting the print version delivered.

How quaint.

It's amazing to me just *how much* these over paid coastal extreme humans think the rest of the planet will pay to keep them in cushy jobs and living in expensive areas.

Robbery

[YoshiDan]

I run the website for a local newspaper and the major part of our website is the subscription archive system. I got a bit excited when I first read the title because lately I've noticed that more people have been using iPads and iPhones to access the site. Then I read the article. 40% of advertising revenue and 30% of subscription fees to go to Apple? That's bloody ridiculous!

This is it, isn't it?

[Nursie]

This is how Jobs and Murdoch start to get money for previously free new info. Murdoch just needs to come up with a newspaper delivery metaphor for iPad owners and they'll walk right in, subscribe to the app and start what uncle rupert has been fantasising about - the return to paid news.

It won't matter that we on /. won't participate. It'll just be another area that the general public perceive us geeks to be weird or even cheap about, as they go around paying for shit we get fro free, at the same time taking their ad-driven revenue generation stats away from non-Steve approved media, killing it.

Yeah, that's probably paranoid.

Re:This is it, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll just be another area that the general public perceive us geeks to be weird or even cheap about, as they go around paying for shit we get fro free, at the same time taking their ad-driven revenue generation stats away from non-Steve approved media, killing it.

Doesn't help matters that we all use Ad-Block Pro (or similar), does it?

(FYI, "all" is a synecdoche derived from prevailing opinions posted on /. and other places (y'know, mainly the condescending "what ads? do people still not use ABP? It's not '96 anymore..." sort; does that make it a synecdouche?), though I myself don't use it. I don't consider it theft to block ads as some do, but if I can help support the sites I frequent by burning a little bandwidth, why the hell not?)

Re:This is it, isn't it?

[Nursie]

I feel similarly about the ads - I have adblock installed but I only use it in a manual fashion to block really annoying stuff. It's not so much of a moral thing as a "ok, you went to far, I can't even use your site now" reaction.

But no, it probably doesn't help!

Re:This is it, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Murdoch does not produce news and any former news service he owns degrades into crap like Fox News. Its bad enough that he harms the media so much and ultimately every nation his corporation touches but to CHARGE the victims for his abuse is just going too far.

Re:This is it, isn't it?

[initdeep]

yeah,
the WSJ is bar far the worst business newspaper in print.....

oh wait.

Huh...

[D4rk Fx]

So, does this mean that you'll have to replace an iPad every month or so?

Have you priced ink, toner recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I want bear the print costs. I can get a whole week's worth of news for the cost a printing a few pages myself. Stupid people with more money than sense are at it some more.

Printing?

[acoustix]

Yet another feature that I've been able to do on my BlackBerry for several years now. Thanks for catching up Apple!

The future is now!

[apparently]

I mean, holy shit, forget hoverboards and auto-drying jackets:

It sounds like you'll be able to print articles from your digitally delivered newspaper before too long,' says Smith.

Printing!?? From a digital source??!??!?!?!? HOLY FUCKING SHIT BOSS, I've had a computer since I was a tyke, and now I get to live in the new modern world in which we can print! YES!

Re:The future is now!

[Pieroxy]

So I understand you mock the iPad because it cannot print.

Well, given the success of the damn thing as of today, I guess it has several other qualities that appeal to the general public. Imagine what it will become with printing !!

Re:The future is now!

[Vectormatic]

i guess the GP is mocking the fact that some people (especially the people in TFA) think printing news articles from an ipad is usefull in any way.

I agree that printing news articles from an ipad for personal use it pretty ridiculous (pretty much like zeroxing your actual news paper, and reading the copy), but for quick sharing/duplication with people who dont actually have an i/e-gadget, it might serve some purpose.

anyway, personal opinion time, apple is completely ridiculous only adding printing NOW, and all the people screaming about it are ridiculous too, when the hell does anyone still print anything? And then there is the ridiculousness of having a newspaper subscription on a device which by its very nature is internet connected (and that same connection is needed to actually use a subscription)

and yes kids, the word of the day is 'ridiculous'

Just who do you see as customers?

[SuperKendall]

It's nice to see that Apple is charging a reasonable fee in proportion with the cost of the services they're actually rendering instead of taking advantage of their control over the platform and price gouging the hell out of their customers.

That's only funny or insightful if you think of the "customers" as the PUBLISHERS.

What about us, the users? Apple isn't charging us anything.

Who is the real customer here? I know who I prefer to think of as the customer when I am one...

30-40% is not that bad - compared to premium SMS

[fadir]

The company that I work for runs an online game called TibiaME for mobile phones. Naturally it makes sense to use premium SMS for payments. The downside:
- You need to have agreements with each an every provider separately, world wide!
- Most provider charge an arm and a leg for their service, partly more than 50%

Now compare that to Apple's offer where you have exactly 1 company to talk to and that's charging 30-40%. It's still a lot of money - but far better than what the others charge you.

(I know this article was referring to newspapers and the like, but the system is pretty much the same.)

Digital will be same price as print

[JSombra]

And soon people will be wondering why digital copys are not much cheaper than print versions of magazines. Sadly in this case they will be blaming the magazines when fault really lays with apple being greedy

SPAMers think this too.

[DrYak]

interrestingly enough "About Fucking Time" is exactly what all the SPAMers and virus writers are thinking. Un-like your PalmPilot which used a highly directionnal IrDA beam to print (or the short ranged Bluetooth that modern wireless printers offer), this uses wireless *networking*. And in a standard fashion.

so this opens up a whole new world of SPAM possibilities and exploits. *Paper*-SPAM possibilities. It's the SPAM-over-Fax era all-over again !

Re:SPAMers think this too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people write "spam" in all caps? It's not an acronym. Also, to write "SPAMers" takes you more time than to write it the correct way - "spammers".

Not really...

[SuperKendall]

they do however REQUIRE you to purchase a new device to utilize MANY of these new features they benevolently add......

All of the features in iOS4.2 are supported back to the iPhone 3G, EXCEPT for multitasking. How does this equate to "REQUIRE MANY" as you posit?

Simple fact: It does not, and like all Apple Haters you transpose the unusual with the common.