Apple Impasse With Magazines Over Subscriber Data

Pickens writes "Peter Kafka reports at All Things Digital that Apple and the publishing industry haven't been able to come to terms over magazine app subscriptions. Publishers want the ability to sell the subscriptions themselves, or at least the opportunity to hang on to subscribers' personal data, and Steve Jobs won't let them. Publishers also don't like the 30 percent cut that Apple wants to take in the iTunes store, but their real hang-up is lack of access to credit card and personal data. It's valuable to them for marketing because the demographic data helps magazines sell advertising, and without it they can't offer print/digital bundles. All Apple is willing to offer is an opt-in form for subscribers that would ask them for a limited amount of information: name, mailing address, email address."

Comments

Credit Card data?

[Yvan256]

They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk.

If their business model requires both to sell me the magazine AND have access to my data to be able to get money from ads on top of that, too bad for them.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Stregano]

Well Apple already has all of that data, so to get anti-corporation about your personal data is a little silly.

Also, besides porn, who goes to magazine kiosks anyway? Even mentioning going to a kiosk here in /. is like telling me I have to put on pants to program: "It's not happening"

Re:Credit Card data?

[bmo]

People like you don't matter to the magazine publishers. Indeed, magazine publishers could do just fine without the newsstand vending because that's not where the bulk of their subscribers come from. The only thing newsstand vending does for them, really, is get new subscribers to sell ads for.

Indeed, the vast bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from the subscriptions. The subscriptions are gravy.

So yes, this is a very big deal for them to not get demographics. Without it, you'd see Newsweek, Time, etc., at 8 bucks/week to make up for the advertising loss.

--
BMO

Re:Credit Card data?

[dfm3]

They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period.

Well then you wouldn't exactly be a subscriber, would you?

Ever wonder why most magazines cost $5-9 at a newsstand, but you can often get a year's subscription to the same magazine for $2-4 per issue? Hint: they're not just making money off of the subscription. The types of magazines a person is interested in can tell marketers quite a bit about their interests, and there's good money to be made in consumer profiling.

Re:Credit Card data?

[wiggles]

"If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period." ...but if you get a subscription, you pay around 10% of the cost of purchasing each edition individually because the magazine gets your personal data (name, address, telephone number, personal interests) that they then sell to advertisers. That's been their business model for eons. How do you think they produce telemarketing lists?

Re:Credit Card data?

[hedwards]

The only time I ever do that is at the airport, and even then it's only been when I haven't though ahead to buy something at a cheaper store before heading out.

Re:Credit Card data?

[91degrees]

If he doesn't sell it he returns it to the publisher (or distributor) for a refund. So the publisher has some reasonably fine grain data about where its customers are, and also what type of shop they purchased the magazine from.

There's a lot of data if you know what you're looking for.

Re:Credit Card data?

[M. Baranczak]

Well Apple already has all of that data

Apple has a legitimate need for the data; how are they gonna charge you if you don't give them your CC?

telling me I have to put on pants to program: "It's not happening"

Amen, brother Stregano.

Re:Credit Card data?

[puto]

If you buy a magazine at a kiosk there is a trail of what distributor sold it to what kiosk. The magazinse knows how many of their copies sell where, and can pull demographic data by location. They can target local advertising then.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Dancindan84]

My boss was telling me the other week that he tried to convince his boss that the college's programmers should be able to work from home (regularly, we already do occasionally when there's a particular need). My first thought was, "Awesome. No pants."

Unfortunately it didn't fly.

Re:Credit Card data?

[IsaacD]

Consumer Reports?

Re:Credit Card data?

[Skater]

It always seemed to me like the specialized magazine apps weren't quite the right mechanism for handling repeating content like magazines. Apple and other companies would be smart to come up with something for the book reader app that lets people subscribe to magazines and read them through the app, if they don't have something like that already.

Personally, I haven't tried the magazine apps; the one or two magazines I read that have them would charge me a second time (I already have a paper subscription) to read them electronically, and I don't want to spend the extra money. It's the equivalent of buying a second copy at the newsstand, price-wise. Since I'm already a subscriber, I'd prefer a free or even low-cost electronic option, at least until I give up paper magazines entirely - at that point my current subscription payment would be for the electronic version instead.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

Well Apple already has all of that data, so to get anti-corporation about your personal data is a little silly.

Here is the deal, though: most (sensible) anti-corporation people that complain about personal data do so precisely because they dislike their data being shared afterwards. Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it.

Re:Credit Card data?

[hedwards]

A large part of that has to do with the waste the comes from them not being able to accurately predict how many issues they're going to sell in a given month at the various news stands. Additionally, part of that extra charge goes to pay for the cost of the news stand staying in business.

It's not that hard to believe that the extra costs associated would end up being in that range.

Re:Credit Card data?

[yuhong]

Yep, many confidential information is given only on a need-to-know basis.

Re:Credit Card data?

[sexconker]

Ever wonder why most magazines cost $5-9 at a newsstand, but you can often get a year's subscription to the same magazine for $2-4 per issue? Hint: they're not just making money off of the subscription. The types of magazines a person is interested in can tell marketers quite a bit about their interests, and there's good money to be made in consumer profiling.

No. It's because 12 * 3 > 4 * 5 .
Someone who buys at a newsstand will, on average, NOT buy anywhere near the full year's worth of issues. They'll buy, on average, 3 or 4 issues over the entire year.

And when you buy from a newsstand, the newsstand makes a profit (shocking, I know!). And if you think that's a razor-thin profit, think again. At one point the Sunday Los Angeles Times cost me 37.5 cents a paper, while I turned around and sold it for the newsstand price of $1.50.

And by "me" I mean "me". That is to say, I've done this before and I know what I'm talking about.

Re:Credit Card data?

[IsaacD]

I (might?) live in Atlanta, but each month I hire nineteen different homeless people in nineteen different cities and give them each enough money to hire another homeless person that buys one random magazine and an envelope for it. I also give them nineteen different addresses that I have in a one time pad, but only one of those addresses is my neighbor's. When a magazine arrives, I steal it from my neighbor's mailbox, but only after disguising myself as the neighbor's sister. The bulge is hard to hide in a dress, the bums sometimes steal my money, and I never know what magazine I'll get - but damnit if I am going to let anyone target me in an advertisement!! Oh, and I chose nineteen because it's a prime number, but the government is working to fix that.

Re:Credit Card data?

[hawguy]

but you are paying full-price for the magazine, but when you subscribe, you're often paying 50 - 80% (up to 100%) off of newsstand prices. Magazines can do that because they can quantify you to advertisers, and can often provide demographic information to advertisers either from a survey that you fill out, or by correlating you with other marketing databases.

Apple is not so much a "digital kiosk" as they are a digital "Publisher's Clearinghouse" that sells magazine subscriptions.

Maybe publishers should let people pay a higher price to remain anonymous, or a lower price if they allow their personal information to be sent to the publisher.

Re:Credit Card data?

[mcmonkey]

I'm going to make the same argument, but in the opposite direction.

If I call the magazine to purchase a subscription and have the magazine delivered by USPS, neither the phone company nor the post office needs my credit card data.

The phone lines and postage need to be paid for, but those parties need no access to the particulars of my transaction with the magazine company.

Likewise, Apple is just connecting one entity to another. If I've paid Apple for the iPad and paid AT&T for the bandwidth, why does either need to know which credit card I used for the magazine subscription?

If Apple's business model depends on selling me the hardware and software and getting a kick back on all data passing through the device, too bad for them.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Consumer Reports is published by the Consumers' Union, a non-profit organization. Comparing Consumer Reports to the likes of Time and Newsweek is like comparing apples and oranges.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Just because you can't work at home doesn't mean you have to wear pants.

Re:Credit Card data?

[hawguy]

While it's true they can find geographic sales data from distributors, Advertisers are willing to pay more money for "Small Business Owners earning > $200K/year with interests in technology and basket weaving living outside of mid-west small towns, driving a BMW or Mercedes as their primary car" than for "People who live in smaller towns that frequent mall book stores, primarily in the mid-west"

Re:Credit Card data?

[hymie!]

Consumer Reports is non-profit on purpose.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Lordrashmi]

In fact, not wearing pants in the office will most likely lead to you spending more time at home.

Of course if you will continue to be paid is a different matter

Re:Credit Card data?

[bhcompy]

Giftcards and Paypal both allow you to buy things with credit without giving that merchant your CC. Visa also has(had?) an online program for doing that with one time use CCs tied to your account.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Well Apple already has all of that data, so to get anti-corporation about your personal data is a little silly.

If I want $PUBLISHER to have my personal data, then I will buy directly from $PUBLISHER. If they're going to misuse my personal data to generate additional profits, then they can go fuck themselves. I think Apple's doing the right thing.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Simon80]

Depending on what you read and your willingness to read off of a screen, carrying around a mobile computer with a large enough screen and a reading (or video) backlog can eliminate the problem of not having something to read. I would say this is the main thing I use my N800 for, despite the multitude of other possible uses for it.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tanktalus]

I have mod points right now, but I can't find the "+1, WTF?" mod for this. Wow. Just wow.

(Yes, I could use +1, Funny, but that doesn't get you any more karma than this reply.)

Re:Credit Card data?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why went droid, google is the best advertiser, they make sure companies get access to my data

Re:Credit Card data?

[natehoy]

And while I agree, I think the whole argument slams smack-dab into the walls around the walled garden. If you want to have your software on an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc, that software has to be sold through Apple (barring jailbreaking, which does not a viable business model make).

What if I wanted to buy a subscription to Android Magazine for my iPad so I could read up on it? Apple can deny the publishers the right to sell their magazine for use on my device, and (without jailbreaking) there's no way I can buy it. And if selling an app requires jailbreaking, most publishers know their subscription numbers hardly justify building out an app for it.

More to the point, what if I wanted to buy software and didn't want to use my Apple account for it? What if I wanted to use a different credit card, or wanted to go to a brick-and-mortar and pay cash to install something? Nope, Apple purchases go through the Apple store, and that's that.

I'm not saying that the model is inherently wrong - it's got its advantages and disadvantages that have been discussed to death already. But it does mean that you can't buy any software for your iOS-based device except exclusively from Apple, and they get to decide who they do business with.

The walls can protect you, and they can restrict your motion. You have to choose whether you accept the restrictions that go with the protections. If you can't, don't get locked into a multi-year contract with the thing.

I have an older iPod Touch, and for the most part if I had a choice, I'd PREFER software that is available in the Apple Store. It's been vetted out to an extent, I'm only giving payment information to one vendor (decreasing the likelihood of credit card breaches), and all that. But I think it would be nice (in a "I'm not going to be able to get this anyway, so I might as well dream" sort of way) to have a competitive marketplace for applications on the platform so I can stray from the path if I want.

It's not a deal-killer for the iPod because I won it in a contest, and I really only use it to listen to music (via my already-purchased library and imported CDs, not iTunes) and run a few free apps. It's not my phone or anything terribly important to me, and when the battery finally dies it'll get installed permanently in a music player docking station and I won't lament the loss of the other features too much.

But the point is, it's Apple's playground, and Steve hands out the marbles. There are other playgrounds if you don't like Steve's rules, but the point of these stories is to make those rules clear to people about to make a buying decision. Many people are very comfortable with the walled garden, and that's fine, just understand that the top of the walls have razor wire on them, and you aren't getting out.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Herkum01]

As I recall, isn't it illegal to hold onto Credit Card numbers after a transaction has occurred?

Re:Credit Card data?

[aristotle-dude]

>how are they gonna charge you if you don't give them your CC?

iTunes gift card?

That is another payment methods but I prefer to pay for the exact amount rather than having a prepaid card that I cannot even use fully since I will likely be left with a balance that is too small to make another 99 cent purchase once the taxes are added on.

I hate the Xbox "points" and the PSN store charging me in 5 dollar increments instead of just charging me for the actual purchase price.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Nerdfest]

I would bet that Apple is sharing the data, but only with those who pay them for the data.

Re:Credit Card data?

[snspdaarf]

It does here. Our dress code is long pants or skirt, and if I am going to wear a kilt to the office, the dirk is going too, and they don't want that either.

Re:Credit Card data?

[PCM2]

You're an idiot.
Low circulation = no one will buy ads in your rag.
Circulation numbers and demographic data are the entire business model for magazines.

And where do you think those circulations numbers come from?

Here's a news flash for ya: The majority of magazines that are sold on newsstands are sold on a returnable basis. That is, you ship the retailer a certain number of copies, and if the retailer doesn't sell the copies, it can return them for a refund (or without paying for them in the first place).

Furthermore, because most magazine content is timely, magazine publishers don't really want those unsold copies back (what are they going, to do, sell them three months from now?). So usually how you "return" magazines is you tear the covers off, throw the rest of the magazines in the trash, and just send the covers back to prove that you've returned them (saving some postage). So overall, figuring out how many copies are sold from newsstand sales takes some time, and even then is highly vulnerable to fraud. So most magazines don't really do it -- at least, not with any accuracy.

Circulation numbers are usually calculated from how many magazines the publisher printed, with some adjustments for how many copies are returned, but by and large the most accurate portion of the figure comes from subscription sales -- not newsstand sales.

Furthermore, circulation numbers and demographic data are closely related. Circulation costs money. For some magazines, it occasionally makes sense to reduce circulation -- that's right, out of the blue the magazine says "we used to sell 210,000 copies, now we sell 175,000" -- but to push the demographics as a way to increase ad rates. So the magazine says, "yes, we only sell 175,000 copies, but all of those 175,000 subscribers are exactly the people you want to reach as an advertiser." In other words, the magazine sells fewer copies but charges more for advertising than a competing magazine that sells more copies.

Bottom line: For Apple to refuse to share demographic information with magazine publishers pretty much cuts the business model off at the knees. The actual sales, as "from a kiosk," are far less important than building the demographic relationship with the buyer.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

This is what I call an epic derail.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Frankenshteen]

One could argue that magazines exist solely for targeted marketing. Just like TV. Programming is geared at a particular demographic to facilitate marketing particular products. Cable's taken it to the next level with whole channels aimed at a tribal demographic, and then refined to the markets within that demo. Very much like a magazine is aimed at a tribe, with articles geared to particular interests surrounded by ads targeting the sort of folks who read such articles.

Re:Credit Card data?

[IsaacD]

Comparing a periodical published on paper (and also available online) that is available for purchase at most newsstands to another periodical published on paper (and also available online) that is available for purchase at most newsstands is comparing apples and oranges? They're both fruit - I even find them together in that crappy fruit salad that my mother-in-law makes. My point is simply that a publication _can_ exist by subscription. Though, I do certainly recognize that there are fundamental differences in the content (But, I'm a CRO subscriber!).

Re:Credit Card data?

[Coolhand2120]

They refuse to share it with these publications. That is not some sort of guarantee they refuse to share it.

Re:Credit Card data?

[PopeRatzo]

Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it.

They didn't say they weren't going to share it, just that they weren't going to share it to magazines for free.

Re:Credit Card data?

[ThatMegathronDude]

Put down the Dark Tower books already, you're scaring the kids!

Re:Credit Card data?

[Yvan256]

He posts a lot on Slashdot. Does that count?

Re:Credit Card data?

[Red Flayer]

People like you don't matter to the magazine publishers. Indeed, magazine publishers could do just fine without the newsstand vending because that's not where the bulk of their subscribers come from. The only thing newsstand vending does for them, really, is get new subscribers to sell ads for.

You obviously don't know the magazine business very well -- it could be your knowledge is only of the bigger magazines.

Newsstand sales are vital to magazines, because it affects their advertising sales and the rates they can charge. Relative newsstand sales indicate a couple things to advertisers -- does your magazine entice people who buy on impulse? Will your subscribers also be enticed by your magazine, and thus be more likely to view the ad buys? Also, newsstand sales are full-price sales; the revenue is disproportionate to the sales volume.

Indeed, the vast bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from the subscriptions. The subscriptions are gravy.

There are a mix of business models for magazines; while most major magazines have the majority of their revenue coming from advertising, circulation revenue is also important. And for niche or small magazines, subscriptions can easily outweigh advertising for revenue. These are the magazines that tend to have the best content, IMO.

All that said, demographics are key to ad sales. It IS a big deal, as you say, for them not to have the demographics. Which is humorous, IMO, since I've never audited a publishing company that didn't play a little fast-and-loose with circulation demographics. Subscriber surveys, etc. This makes me think there's another reason besides demographics that the magazines want that info. And I think that reason is subscriber renewals. A couple circulation studies I've seen showed that third-party subscriptions had renewal rates far, far lower than direct subs. When a publisher can use direct mail to contact those lost renewals, the conversion rate is much higher than related-interest (non-former-subscriber) DM campaigns. So really, I think it's about being able to get renewals.

Also, it's important for cross-marketing of other titles by the same publisher.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

That sonic boom was my point going right the fuck over your head. I'll rephrase it for you: Consumer Reports is published by a nonprofit. Other magazines are not.

Re:Credit Card data?

[PopeRatzo]

The walls can protect you

I didn't realize that Apple's walled garden was there for MY benefit.

I suppose that as long as I have nothing to hide, there's no reason I should care if Apple collects my personal information. Especially since we all know that Apple has only our best interest at heart.

I feel a lot better now.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

Apple has been rather vocal about privacy. Or at least Steve Jobs has. I admit I am not confident of this staying so forever, but I feel safe as long as Steve Jobs is in charge.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Red Flayer]

Actually, sexconker is partially correct. The guy who "clearly knows quite about about how the magazine publishing world actually works" does not know as much as you think he does.

As for my credentials, I worked in magazine publishing for 7 years (as an accountant, but I also was involved in ABC [Audit Bureau of Circulations] audits), then audited financials of magazine publishers (among other companies) for three years.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

And you seriously think magazines have not offered them money yet? I would not be shocked if magazines have already even offered Apple a larger cut in exchange.

Re:Credit Card data?

[interval1066]

"Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it."

Right, any corp with brains at the helm would sell it. I have a hard time believing that Apple would actually do the right thing and lock it away, if they are, kudos to them.

Re:Credit Card data?

[chemicaldave]

They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk.

If their business model requires both to sell me the magazine AND have access to my data to be able to get money from ads on top of that, too bad for them.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The article is referring to subscriptions while you're referring to a one-time sale. The reason they don't need your information is because when you buy from a kiosk you pay a huge premium compared to the subscription cost.

Re:Credit Card data?

[natehoy]

I don't think so - I think that your original post is missing the point of view of the publishers and the argument they are trying to make.

First, Apple is being admirable at not selling your personal data to others for purchases made at the Apple Store, and I'll give them serious cool points for that. They would be in serious shit if they ever started selling off that information, because you are their customer.

But that's not the core of the argument.

The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.

Agree or disagree, but that's the crux of the issue. We as consumers can't decide whether this is something Apple should do, only whether we're comfortable with it.

Apple don't allow me to do business with anyone other than them for iOS app purchases. I have to include their store in everything I do with my iPod except importing music.

Only one entity (Apple) gets access to the things I do with my device, and that has its advantages. But they get a complete view of everything I do, and I can't do anything they don't approve of. To me, that's a disadvantage.

Whether that outweighs the advantages (one central vendor, less chance of credit card breaches, fewer people with personal data, etc) is a matter of personal preference.

The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.

You can only buy software for your iOS device using a payment instrument that Apple accepts, and Apple has a comprehensive list of everything you've bought.

You can only buy software for your iOS device that Apple has approved, and that's good when the thing you want is unsafe, but Apple has a history of denying things they don't like that are perfectly safe for you to use.

Re:Credit Card data?

[GooberToo]

If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period.

and by definition, you are not a subscriber. So you have absolutely no valid point what so ever.

Magazines are typically subsidized by ads. Subscription prices typically only cover print and distribution, if that. Granted, in this case there isn't anything to print, but they still need that ad revenue. Denial of customer information means they must now pay another party to obtain the exact information they would otherwise have. So basically it means they pay a 30% premium so they can immediately turn around to pay yet another party to obtain the information they previously had free.

In exchange for this customer information, they magazine then attempts to focus their content for the people who actually subscribe to the magazine.

Apple is cutting off everyone's nose to spite everyone who just got their nose cut off.

Basically for this to work means magazines are going to have to find an entirely new business model. I'm not saying it doesn't exist or that it can't be made to work, but it sounds fairly high risk and all for the privilege of paying out a lot more money, in exchange for simply being available in an extra medium. Just about any reasonable business person, at this stage of the game, would tell Apple to go fuck themselves. Unless that is, they have better numbers and a business plan which don't immediately make themselves available to the public.

Really it sounds like they need to release an application and made available content subscriptions via another pay route; which doesn't require Apple's 30%. If that's not available, it seems like Apple is walking a line of illegal product tying. And if that is the case, I sincerely hope the FTC is looking into the situation.

Re:Credit Card data?

[hrieke]

Bullshit. Apple is "saying" that they're doing it for personal data reasons, but the real reason is that they want to OWN the relationship between the consumer (you) and them (the company).

Re:Credit Card data?

[way2trivial]

no..

CVV data yes-- you aren't allowed to retain that at all beyond minimum required to process the charges

if you expect to charge the card again, you can retain the rest- subject to a hell of a lot of PCI rules

Re:Credit Card data?

[GooberToo]

So you don't want to subscribe to a magazine that cares about the content as it relates to you, the reader?

Re:Credit Card data?

[Red Flayer]

Several niche magazines are published by non-profits.

Whether or not a business is a non-profit is ancillary to their business model; publishing is a competitive business and margins are thin, for both for-profit and non-profit publishers.

Consumer Reports is a niche magazine with a subscription-driven revenue model. One of the woodworking magazines I subscribe to also shares this model.

One of the publishers I used to work for had a few titles on this model, and a title on the advertising centric revenue model.

I guess the point of this post is, what does Consumer Reports business status have to do with whether their business model is [advertising|circulation]-revenue centric?

As an aside, Consumer Reports is more profitable than many for-profit publishers. What they do with their profits is a different matter (reinvestment in the business vs. distribution to shareholders/partners).

Re:Credit Card data?

[TooMuchToDo]

This would explain a lot about my subscriptions to Scientific American, MAKE, Nuts and Volts, and The Economist.

Re:Credit Card data?

[IsaacD]

You might enjoy a subscription to The NonProfit Times - The Leading Business Publication for Nonprofit Management

http://www.nptimes.com/

Re:Credit Card data?

[exomondo]

They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk.

No, because you don't buy a subscription at a kiosk like you do when you buy from Apple.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Red Flayer]

And when you buy from a newsstand, the newsstand makes a profit (shocking, I know!). And if you think that's a razor-thin profit, think again. At one point the Sunday Los Angeles Times cost me 37.5 cents a paper, while I turned around and sold it for the newsstand price of $1.50.

Many publishers lose money on newsstand sales. Not only does the newsstand take a cut, but you have to *pay* for the privilege of having your magazine on the shelf, and you have to *pay* for good placement, simlar to getting your products in a supermarket.

The trade-off of the loss on newsstand sales is the beneficial impact the NS sales numbers have on your ad sales.

No. It's because 12 * 3 > 4 * 5 .

You're only considering 1/2 of the equation -- revenue. What about expense? Expenses are far higher nor NS sales than they are for sub sales.

Someone who buys at a newsstand will, on average, NOT buy anywhere near the full year's worth of issues. They'll buy, on average, 3 or 4 issues over the entire year.

Where are you getting this estimation from, I'd be curious to read up on it -- I don't recall seeing numbers as high as 3-4/yr for monthlies (I've been out of publishing a long time) -- IIRC, it was something like 1-2.

At one point the Sunday Los Angeles Times cost me 37.5 cents a paper, while I turned around and sold it for the newsstand price of $1.50.

I don't know how much newspapers differ from magazines, since I was never involved in newspaper publishing. But for magazines, the retail markups I've seen were around 100%, not 300%... it might have something to do with the fact that newspapers have a much higher percentage of their sales from NS than magazines do.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Nothing prevents the magazine from offering a pay-wall version of their magazine online using good old HTML. They can even provide RSS updates.

However, if they want to make an app then they will have to play by Apple's rules...

Re:Credit Card data?

[M. Baranczak]

No, I don't. Next question?

Re:Credit Card data?

[Chyeld]

I don't want to ever pay for the privilege of being someone elses product. And when I can't avoid it, I do not buy into bullshit like "this information is going to be used to help us make the magazine focused more on you" because I'm self aware enough to know that for every inclination I have, there is an Anti-Chyeld out to cancel that out.

Re:Credit Card data?

[cowscows]

Almost nothing in this world is guaranteed. If complete certainty is a requirement for doing anything, then you're going to lead a very dull and pointless life.

Re:Credit Card data?

[RocketRabbit]

Other than National Geographic which I get with my NGS membership, i purchase all the magazines I am interested in at a newsstand.

You should visit one sometime.

Re:Credit Card data?

[wygit]

What part of the word "subscriptions" did you not understand?

Re:Credit Card data?

[wygit]

But I hope you don't think Cooking Light has it's own circulation department? Most magazines farm it out, and those companies make a considerable amount of money even selling the subscriptions for $10/yr.

It's $5/issue at the newsstand, $1/issue at the cheapest subscription rate I've seen (I just resubscribed a friend) and to resubscribe online, you end up at secure.custsvc.com which is the circulation center for dozens of magazines.

Read the self-description of the service that gets used if you subscribe through Amazon.
http://www.synapsegroupinc.com/profile.html

If you can wade your way through the business buzz-speak. Where's my Dilbert bingo card?

"Synapse Group, Inc. is the leading independent provider of customer acquisition and management services for publishers of consumer magazines in the United States. Our distribution channels are built upon networks of affinity marketing partners, including some of the most recognized brands in the United States. We enable our affinity-marketing partners to use magazines as a marketing tool to add value to their customer relationships. "

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.

...

The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.

And again you derail. You may have missed it, but the story in question is a rumor on magazine publishers wanting more from apple for their upcoming magazine subscription service than Apple is willing to give.

We don't know much from this, as far as we know it may be an app like iBooks (or even just iBooks) with a Subscribe button.

No publisher is complaining about anything in the context of this discussion, all we know is that supposedly they are holding back on the venue because Apple is not willing to spill out consumer data.

Right now any magazine publisher can make magazines for the iOS devices and sell individual issues, as far as I know they can even sell "subscriptions" this way, this is what leads me to believe the service in question is just going to be a iMagazine app or something like that, a centralized hub exclusively for magazines where publishers wont have to fight over attention with other apps.

Oh and at the end of the day, there ARE third party magazine apps for the iPhone. I think the sector is "dominated" by Zino, a free downloaded app that sells magazine subscriptions.

It is true that Apple controls app distribution to the device, but they have no lockdown in books/magazine distributions. The presence off Kindle and Nook stores (not to mention other comic book stores) on top of the iBooks one are testament to that. Existence of apps like Netflix and Hulu+ also prove that Apple wont lock down competing video services or force their billing to go through Apple's billing.

Apple is [preparing] offering a service, and Apple will be entrusted by it's consumers with their data and Apple refuses to share that data. If the magazine publishers refuse to move on without this data, well, they have options like Zinio. Magazines like National Geographic, Rolling Stone and The Economist already sell there.

So, as I stated before: your post is a derail as it's a rant on Apple's app market and makes no sense in the context of magazine publications.

Re:Credit Card data?

[natehoy]

I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue. Not the specific terms themselves, but that Apple does not give their "vendors" or their "customers" the right to do business with each other outside those terms.

Apple wants all apps sold under the news stand model, where vendors sell the apps to Apple and Apple sells them to the end customer.

I don't think that's irrelevant to the discussion at all, nor do I feel it's a rant. I think, by and large, that the Apple Store is a good thing for most consumers, provided you are willing to accept the restrictions it brings.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

Hmm, I don't think Apple is saying anything. This was not a press release by Apple, you know.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue.

I'll make this easy for you, with fewer words so you cant blame missing it in a wall of text:

I give my credit card information to Zinio and they feed my little iPad application with said magazines, in a subscription model.

That is: magazine subscriptions. With the iPad (or iPod or iPhone.) Not managed by Apple.

Same holds true for Netflix and Hulu+, btw, between others, mainly newspaper publications that grant "free" access to their digital releases if you subscribe to the paper version.

In the risk of making this post too long and making the previous points too hidden (for a second time) I also want to let you know that Single Magazine Apps that rely on newsstand per-issue sales are doing so because that's what they choose. They can just as easily sell you, in one click, a full year of issues.

But you would need to have a clue what is being talked about to realize all this, by now your ignorance have proven you don't own any of these devices and are riding the "must hate that thing called Apple even if i have never seen one" train of thought.

Re:Credit Card data?

[SETIGuy]

That's weird, because if I buy a subscription to a (paper) magazine, they won't send it to me unless they get my postal address. And I need to pay for it with a credit card (in which case they get my account number and expiration date) or a check (which contains my bank account number).

If anyone didn't know that selling your address and targeting ads towards the people who read their magazine was part of the business model, they just weren't paying attention. So I can understand why they want this info for their electronically delivered subscriptions.

P.S. I'd bet Apple sells your data for targeted advertising, too. They just don't want a competitor devaluing their customer data.

Re:Credit Card data?

[egranlund]

I believe they were talking about magazine subscriptions. Unless your magazine kiosk provides you with subscriptions every month then you're talking about something totally different. As it is now, when you subscribe all your data goes to the magazine company.

Re:Credit Card data?

[natehoy]

I'll make this easy for you, with fewer words

I stop reading when the post goes from discussion to condescension. Fuck you.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Tharsman]

You stopped reading earlier since it was already said in the previous post and you didn't see it.

Re:Credit Card data?

[natehoy]

OK, I did miss your point about Zino, and I apologize for that.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Reaperducer]

Actually, Apple didn't say either of the things you state. Apple hasn't said a single word about this. You're just adding your spin to another person's conjecture based on a rumor.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Reaperducer]

If you believe all of the world's content worth reading is also contained on the internet, then you live in a very very small world.

Re:Credit Card data?

[jo_ham]

You can also use iTunes solely with giftcards - just buy them from a store (even with cash if you want to eliminate the paper trail entirely) and then set up an iTunes account without using a credit card. You can do this, just not directly from an iPhone/iPad - you have to set it up via iTunes. From then onwards you can charge up the account using iTunes giftcards from iTunes or via the app store on the phone.

No credit card info ever has to go near Apple.

Re:Credit Card data?

[cgenman]

Why do you think it is $60 per year to buy a magazine at stands, or $20 per year to have it mailed to you? Most magazines make their real money on advertising, and for that they need to let advertisers know who you are.

I'm not surprised Apple doesn't realize this, considering the problems they've had with their advertising program recently.

Re:Credit Card data?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

You might enjoy a Semtex suppository.

Re:Credit Card data?

[ncc74656]

iTunes gift card?

That is another payment methods but I prefer to pay for the exact amount rather than having a prepaid card that I cannot even use fully

Huh? When you redeem the card, the amount on it is credited to your account. If you end up with 50[cents-sign] remaining and want to purchase a song that costs $1.29, that 50[cents-sign] is applied to your purchase and the other 79[cents-sign] can be paid from another source.

Re:Credit Card data?

[m50d]

But Apple won't let you buy directly from $PUBLISHER

Re:Credit Card data?

[RocketRabbit]

You can't get 2600 Magazine or Dble Gun Journal or the Journal of Asian Martial Arts on the Internet.

You are really behind, buddy, especially if you are slurping at the slop-trough called CNN.

Music Industry

[Enderandrew]

Apple wanted lock-in and total control with the music industry and got it. Now they're an industry leader and have all the leverage while the magazine industry is going in the toilet.

Re:Music Industry

[bluefoxlucid]

Yeah, they should totally sell your personal information for profit.

Re:Music Industry

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple wanted lock-in and total control with the music industry and got it"

Only because the music industry was busy fighting the Internet instead of innovating, while Apple did. I mean, seriously... shouldn't the music industry have come up with iTunes WAY before Apple?

Re:Music Industry

[Enderandrew]

I didn't suggest Apple was in the right, or a good company. I suggested they have leverage.

Re:Music Industry

[hawguy]

Only because the music industry was busy fighting the Internet instead of innovating, while Apple did. I mean, seriously... shouldn't the music industry have come up with iTunes WAY before Apple?

They did, or rather, someone did back in 1999 or so, but the music industry shut them down. Mp3.com was one of the early online music distributors -- they had a great business model -- they kept your existing music library online (verified by making you load the original CD) and whenever you bought a physical CD from them you could download or stream it online instantly.

It was a great service, I bought dozens of albums from them, but I guess the music industry thought that DRM locked solutions were the way to maximize profits.

Re:Music Industry

[Hijacked Public]

I think the music industry handed Apple lock-in on a silver platter.

They demanded DRM. iTunes was the only good consumer oriented digital music store at the time and only iPods could play the DRM'd AAC files it sold.

Re:Music Industry

[Duradin]

Can you tell the one about how little Amazon forced the mean ol' Apple to stop using DRM? I like that fairy tale.

Re:Music Industry

[Enderandrew]

Don't presume to put words in my mouth.

Thanks.

Re:Music Industry

[Duradin]

You did say Apple wanted lock in so I assumed you were okay with putting words in other people's mouths.

Being forced to have DRM is very different from wanting DRM.

Re:Music Industry

[Uberbah]

Apple wanted lock-in and total control with the music industry and got it.

There hasn't been any DRM on iTunes music tracks for years. Did you parents want to drop you on the head as a child, and succeeded?

Re:Music Industry

[Eskarel]

Different lockins.

Apple may or may not have wanted DRM(Steve claims not, but we've no record of the original negotiations), but they sure as hell wanted to lock you into iTunes and the iPod.

Re:Music Industry

[dzfoo]

And the person who replied to you suggested Apple was in the right. I'm also suggesting that Apple is a good company. If they have leverage to protect my personal information, then I say they better use it.

          -dZ.

Re:Music Industry

[Enderandrew]

To clarify though, it isn't like they'd be selling your info to random spammers. Currently I have a newspaper subscription to Wired magazine. I pay Wired with a credit card. They have some basic information on me as a subscriber. They use that information to tell advertisers what demographics their readers fall under.

In this scenario I'd have a subscription of Wired on my iPad, Apple would take a large chunk of the revenue, and Wired wouldn't be able to provide demographics to advertisers, hurting them financially.

Re:Music Industry

[dzfoo]

I think your last scenario is flawed. It would be more accurate to say that you would have a subscription with the Apple Subscription Service, which offers Wired magazine. The Wired publisher is free to not use the Apple Subscription Service and create their own online billing and distribution system. This is how the Marvel Comics app, among others, works: you get the app from Apple, and you purchase the content separately and directly through Marvel, bypassing the iTunes App Store and the iOS in-app purchasing system.

This scenario is similar to a newsstand offering, say, a "magazine of the week" service whereas clients pay them a monthly fee for the privilege of picking up one magazine off the rack each week. The service in this case is offered by the newsstand, at their expense, and not by the individual publishers. If the publishers want in on the deal so that both they and the newsstand may benefit from the service, then they need to negotiate with the latter, not make any claims as to the transaction. Ultimately, such a service is between the newsstand and the customer. The customer is also free to purchase the subscription from the publisher directly, if he so wishes.

      -dZ.

Re:Music Industry

[Enderandrew]

That's the point. Magazine companies aren't happy with Apple and won't use their service. The New York Times has their own app. Apps can require subscriptions (even before the 4.3 update) that are completely seperate. For instance, the MLB app requires me to sign-in with a MLB.TV account if I want to access live streaming games.

Apple is trying to create a gateway where they control those subscriptions and take a bunch of money off the top. Why would anyone use it?

Re:Music Industry

[dzfoo]

So... what's the harm? If Apple is "trying to create a gateway where they control those subscriptions and take a bunch of money off the top," and publishers have the choice of not taking them up on it; I say, big deal.

I think in practice, it is a bit more nuanced than this. First off all, Apple wouldn't be "taking money off the top" as a thug demands protection money. That is their share that pays for the distribution and automatic billing infrastructures, just as a mall charges rent for store-space, or a realtor charges commission for listing and selling real estate. That is the cost of doing business.

Moreover, publishers are not doing so good erecting their own "paywalls", and so far they seem unable or unwilling to implement their own electronic distribution channel, complete with international cross-currency billing support. They could even pool together and create their own system to compete; nobody is stopping them.

Is it Apple's business to save them from their (possibly) broken business models, if they fail to do so? The iTunes Store and In-App subscriptions or purchases are actually a big attraction to the publishers, but that is Apple's turf, and if they want to play there, they have to pay for the service and follow the rules. It is just business.

          -dZ.

Good for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I cancelled my subscriptions to Make Magazine and Utne Reader for exactly that reason - the asshats couldn't stop themselves from selling my personal data to advertisers. Within two months, I was getting both paper and email spam from all over the place because of them. I know it was them because I always use custom email addresses and custom misspellings of my name to track how companies use my data.

Re:Good for Apple

[IsaacD]

I am a Make subscriber (3 years now), but haven't noticed any additional junk through USPS, couldn't really say about email, though. Who have you seen that they've sold to, is it just anyone who'll pay or something that might be "targeted"? Regardless, if I were to see this, I'd be quick to drop them as well, but the only problem I've had is that they mixed up a gift subscription and my renewal for one issue.

21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[Kensai7]

But this is no news, I guess.

I only hope these policies are not Apple's undoing because it would be a real shame. Steve Jobs is a genius, but he makes so many enemies in the industry. In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[gstoddart]

I only hope these policies are not Apple's undoing because it would be a real shame.

I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should someone have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that your business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of your *(%*# business.

I don't understand why these companies feel entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why they need it in the first place. In a sane world, corporations would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.

In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.

Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.

Personally, I'd rather see companies who insist on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[Kensai7]

No. You imply that Apple "protects us" from the "bad" magazine marketeers. It's not so. Apple simply wants to keep all the personal data for itself and as a leverage for every deal they make.

They've already bowed the music industry, now it's the turn of the publishing one. What's next?!

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[mcmonkey]

I only hope these policies are not Apple's undoing because it would be a real shame.

I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should someone have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that your business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of your *(%*# business.

I don't understand why these companies feel entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why they need it in the first place. In a sane world, corporations would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.

In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.

Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.

Personally, I'd rather see companies who insist on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.

I think what you're missing in this case is you are the customer, the magazine is the business you're dealing with, and Apple is the 3rd party company insisting on having your credit card details.

Let's look at your comment with some of the pronouns filled in.

I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should Apple have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that Apple's business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of Apple's *(%*# business.

I don't understand why Apple feel[s] entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why Apple need[s] it in the first place. In a sane world, Apple would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.

In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.

Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.

Personally, I'd rather see Apple who insist[s] on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.

Do you see?

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[gstoddart]

No. You imply that Apple "protects us" from the "bad" magazine marketeers.

No, I state outright that I don't think those companies need any of that %$@* information.

Apple simply wants to keep all the personal data for itself and as a leverage for every deal they make.

That may be true, but they're not giving it away that Facebook would happily do.

They've already bowed the music industry

In what way? As I recall, the tracks are still $0.99, and they managed to get the Beatles' library ... seriously, how have they caved?

now it's the turn of the publishing one.

Well, TFA doesn't seem to say they're caving to the publishing industry.

You make a couple of assertions, but you're not backing up anything.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[gstoddart]

I think what you're missing in this case is you are the customer, the magazine is the business you're dealing with, and Apple is the 3rd party company insisting on having your credit card details.

I have a direct business relationship with Apple. I expected them to have my credit card, since I gave it to them.

If I buy something from Apple, I sure as hell don't expect the company who made that thing to get any information on me.

Do you expect that if you bought a Playstation from Wal Mart that they would send it to Sony?

Do you see?

As a matter of fact, NO. You haven't said anything meaningful, and you haven't refuted anything I said. You merely switched some pronouns and decreed you've made a great coup of logic.

You haven't.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[wygit]

Apple doesn't have to cave to it.. Neither do the magazines.
If the magazines don't like business terms, they can choose not to sell through Apple. That's sorta how the open market works.

Some other tablet will come out, someday, that can compete with the iPad as far as GUI and ease-of-use (Gawd, I hope so.)
And maybe it will have terms the magazines like better.

I love my iPad, but that doesn't mean I don't dislike Steve's lock-in on what I can put on it.

Really, it's no biggee.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Hasn't stopped iTunes. Publishers will have to get used to the change or get left behind.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[Kensai7]

Line-by-line quoting is childish and annoying so here's my concentrated answer.

You implied that they don't need that information, but it seems that it is ok for you that Apple already has it. Otherwise you should have said something about it as well. And in Apple's case, it's becoming pretty serious since today and in the near future you will do almost everything with an AppleID.

Apple perhaps doesn't need to sell to third parties (like Facebook) because it uses the information itself for its own marketing and advertising. It's a vertical company.

Competition is good. When one party has already won spectacularly you don't have any more serious competition. When I say the music industry bowed I mean that we won't be seeing an alternative (and perhaps better) model of buying songs anytime soon.

As for the publishing industry, expect an iTunes-track system for paying books with all major publishers pretty soon. Especially if the iPad becomes the prime ereader and Amazon fails miserably. I hope they don't.

I backed up almost everything, my assertions had known facts from past history inside. You should have filled the blanks yourself.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[dzfoo]

I agree with your correspondent, so let me make a few remarks. I will respond directly to selected paragraphs from your comment in order to keep their point within context.

You implied that they don't need that information, but it seems that it is ok for you that Apple already has it. Otherwise you should have said something about it as well. And in Apple's case, it's becoming pretty serious since today and in the near future you will do almost everything with an AppleID.

You don't seem to get it: If I pay Apple for a service or a product, I understand that I need to give them my credit card and other personal information. This is a transaction for which I have full control. If I don't want to purchase from Apple, I do not give them my credit card nor any other information. So, once I pay Apple for that service or product, I expect them to not share that information with anybody else. Whoever supplied the product to Apple, nor any other third-party, has absolutely no claim to that information.

Now, why do I feel it's OK for Apple to have this information and not others? Well, in case the previous paragraph did not make it clear, let me be explicit: Because they treat me like their customer, are happy to profit from my money, and refuse--like this example that we are discussing right now--to share my personal information with unwarranted third-parties. That builds trust, which is why in the future, when faced with the choice of giving my credit card information to The Random Publishing & Advertising Whore Company or giving it to Apple for the same transaction, I will gladly call on Apple.

Competition is good. When one party has already won spectacularly you don't have any more serious competition. When I say the music industry bowed I mean that we won't be seeing an alternative (and perhaps better) model of buying songs anytime soon.

While I agree that competition is good--very good--I would extend that to say, competition from sustainable and customer-friendly business models is good. I am not about to welcome and support a business model or corporation of which I do not approve for the mere sake of giving Apple some competition, any competition. If other businesses do not have a sustainable business model, or decide that being sneaky and promiscuous with my personal information (I'm looking straight at you, online advertisers!), then I say they deserve what they get. And if Apple resists this model, then I wish it continued success.

That said, business is not necessarily a zero-sum game; these markets are huge and can stand diverse competitors and models. As others have mentioned before, the music industry failed to capitalize on digital media on time and with a successful business model, and now they may have lost control. As has also been said, they should have been the ones that brought the iTunes Music Store to the market. But no, Apple did, and here we are.

It would be unfortunate if Apple were the only player in its market, not because they are Apple, but because it is unfortunate that a good, sustainable, and customer-centric business model was not available to challenge them. However, if this were to happen, the one thing I would not lament is the loss of organizations that play fast and loose with customer information and disregard their privacy.

Some of us are not opposed to advertising in principle. What I'm opposed--and very strongly--is to the blatant and wholesale sharing of my personal information for profit, without my consent and without any respect to my privacy.

            -dZ.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[Kensai7]

You don't seem to get it: If I pay Apple for a service or a product, I understand that I need to give them my credit card and other personal information. This is a transaction for which I have full control. If I don't want to purchase from Apple, I do not give them my credit card nor any other information.

Well, you don't seem to get it either: I can say the exact same about the publishing industry. If you don't trust a publisher you simply refrain from subscribing to his products and services. Buy your copies from the newsstand.

The thing about Apple is that they now want to have everything. As if they have developed some Microsoft-complex from the near-death experience they had in the 90s by their archenemy. And day by day, the acquire everything: the customers' data (for Apple's interests of course), the 30% cut of the profits, the final say about what goes in the stores and what the customer can legally buy (music, apps, now books), everything.

It's the new big brother they so loathed in 1984. As much as I like the ubiquity of the AppleID entry system to a world of digital content, I hate that I don't have serious alternatives because nobody will take onto Apple.

I hope the publishers make a good stand. After all, alternative ereaders exist and they're actually pretty good for the job.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[dzfoo]

Wrong. The publisher has the right to publish themselves and not use the iTunes Store.

You have serious alternatives: you can just not use Apple products. Or is it somehow some right or necessity to own and use an iPhone?

      -dZ.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[Kensai7]

Wait a minute! You have the same alternatives as well.

You can just not use the publisher who betrays your confidence. Or is it somehow some right or necessity to own and use a certain subscription?

I'm telling you, I prefer not to put all my eggs under a basket. We all see what happens when Apple flexes it muscles to move the industry where IT wants (see Flash issue, 3rd-party runtimes, etc), not where everybody would be free to go.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[dzfoo]

I know, and I choose not to do business with such institutions. However, the difference here is that some of these institutions collect and share their information without my knowledge or consent. When their intentions are public, as when published in a "Privacy Policy" (which I read), I make a decision at that point. More often than not, I decline to use their services.

Notice that I am not arguing against publishers, they can do whatever they want. I argue that they have no claim to my data when I do not directly transact with their business.

          -dZ.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[Kensai7]

Apple might be doing the same thing with your information. And since Apple spans from music to apps to books now, it's really dangerous. Always without your consent, to promote their own products.

I don't know with which publishers you had to do in the past, but the serious publishing houses I'm subscribed to don't sell my information without my consent. You know, the little box that says "consent giving this info to 3rd-party advertisements". If I press no, my info remains to me.

Re:21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant!

[dzfoo]

Two things: First, the fact that Apple is refusing to share my information, and has had a pattern of this behaviour since before it had the influence it wields today, I am inclined to trust them. I also notice that when I purchase something from Apple, I do not get spam nor junk mail from direct marketers and other third-parties immediately following the purchase, as happens with some online stores.

I'm not talking about obscure, fly-by-night, mom-and-pop shops; I'm talking about Amazon.com, Harry & Davis, Hallmark.com, Hickory Farms, etc.

Second, your comment regarding publishing houses is not entirely correct. The little box typically says, "If you do not tick the box, you're information will not be shared unless as specified in our Privacy Policy." Then, when you read the privacy policy, it explains how it uses the information collected from you for "improving their services," and shares it with partners and affiliates as "allowed by law." Usually what the box means is "we will not spam you directly," not "we will not use your information in any way."

I understand that this is not the case with every publisher, but it is common enough. At least this is my experience. The point is that there are very few organizations willing to treat their customers as their customers, not publicly traded commodities; and to make money from selling them products or services, as opposed to depending on the exploitation of their personal information as part of their business model.

By refusing to share information, which is not a profit-oriented decision, Apple appears to be of the former kind.

        -dZ.

It's simple really...

[Itesh]

We had problems like this at VeriSign, back before PayPal bought out Payment Services. So, what we did is provide access to the data in aggregate so that they could see what the demographics were without revealing the individuals behind the data. If all they are looking for is the ability to sell advertising based on demographics, aggregate data should suffice.

Apple is an advertising company

[Ryanrule]

Apple now sells ads.

bummer

[bigmo]

I feel so dirty when I agree with Steve Jobs.

Re:bummer

[boristdog]

I also don't like agreeing with Jobs. But as long as consumers still have choices, he can do what he wants.

I won't do business with Apple, but as long as they don't have a monopoly or near-monopoly they can be dicks to whomever they want, charge whatever they want, put unreasonable restrictions on their own offerings, etc.

Re:bummer

[TooMuchToDo]

No worries, there's an app (iBleach) for that ;)

Mods: I kid! Live a little.

Re:bummer

[__aaqvdr516]

And then you wonder why they'll be displaying Tampax advertising in your next issue of "I live in my parents basement" magazine.

If Apple wanted to really help you, they could do a lot more with the data they're already collecting and share it with everyone that's approved on their store. At least that might get relevant ads for you. I don't own anything made by Apple though, so feel free to mod me down as you see fit.

My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[FictionPimp]

My advice is to simply not develop for the iphone. If you are not getting what you want, there are plenty of other phone markets to target.

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[Tharsman]

You heard the man! If you don't like Apple protecting user data, go to a platform that does not!

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[Sir_Sri]

ya. Get it your way on some other platform, and consumers will make the choice if your product is worth being on a particular platform for, if it works out Apple will be forced into an agreement at the risk of losing subscribers to android/WP7. I'm not sure magazines are a killer app for slates, but they might be. I don't own one, and I don't read non technical magazines, so I'm not sure I can comment on how valuable this proposition is to the device sellers.

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[shutdown -p now]

Better yet, just make a web app. For a magazine it should in fact be easier!

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[Locke2005]

My advice is, if you can make money developing for the iPhone, go ahead and do it. Sure, it's akin to prostitution in that you need to bend over and scream "Oh, you're so good!" every time Apple demands it, but hey... it's a living! P.S. Don't forget the lube.

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[FictionPimp]

Actually, I have to agree this is the best choice. Then they can have their cake and eat it too.

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[TooMuchToDo]

Which works as long as my iPad has connectivity. Why can't they just make regular apps like Wired and The Economist did? Or is Lord Jobs going to say "whoa whoa whoa, magazine apps get to the back of the line".

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[shutdown -p now]

iOS (well, actually, HTML5) supports offline web apps. If coded properly, you will only need connectivity to run it for the first time.

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[TooMuchToDo]

So can magazines subvert this whole Apple push by simply developing their own iOS apps?

Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone.

[shutdown -p now]

As noted, they can do it with offline-enabled Web apps. Thing is, those don't go into App Store - it really is just an URL you open, where there is also a manifest that tells the browser what files to cache. I think that those magazines really want the store access, though, as that's where the people go looking first.

Not facebook?

[bluefoxlucid]

What, Apple doesn't want to come under the same fire as Facebook?

Re:Not facebook?

[Tharsman]

Jobs has been very public about his distaste on personal data sharing.

Re:Not facebook?

[kellyb9]

What, Apple doesn't want to come under the same fire as Facebook?

Not a good comparison since Facebook's business model is based on the idea that people actually want to share personal information. Apple isn't going to do it because they want to control everything.

Re:Not facebook?

[Entropy2016]

Apple isn't going to do it because they want to control everything.

When a company's actions lack any financial motive, chances are they're doing it out of principle. When Apple exercises control over something (like a closed iPhone App Store), it has a financial motive. Refusal to sell personal information has no financial motive.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[ceejayoz]

Yes, they get a cut of subscription revenue. Apple is handling the platform, billing, and content delivery, so they get paid for doing what would be printing, billing, and postage in a paper subscription. It's using Apple's merchant account and bandwidth, so that seems fair.

The apps will probably be free or include a "free" month's subscription to offset the purchase price.

Is it just me?

[Serenissima]

Or does Apple actually seem reasonable in sharing customer data with third parties? You can be a fanboy or anti-fanboy on this, but when's the last time you've seen a major company take a stance on customer privacy? I feel like I've become jaded and just assume every corporation is trying to screw me over and I never expected that THIS would be the reason for the hangup in the negotiations.

Re:Is it just me?

[Serenissima]

I guess I should clarify, Apple's policies about sharing customer data seem reasonable

Re:Is it just me?

[fast turtle]

The main issue here is that Apple sells the same data that the Magazines want for free. That's right. Apple is doing exactly what the Magazines are doing. selling our personal information for a profit instead of the magazine getting that information for that can then be sold to the marketers.

Magazines?

[southpolesammy]

What is this term "magazine" that you speak of?

Re:Magazines?

[blair1q]

It's part of a glock.

Now ask me about the Royale with cheese...

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[gstoddart]

I know they get a cut of the sale of the magazine app, but they also get a cut of any subscriptions?

Well, turn it around a little bit ... Apple is essentially operating a retail store for use by anybody who wants to sell through it. Cut out distribution costs, costs of processing credit card transactions, cost of bandwidth, cost of fighting fraud, verifying people's ages ... and what Apple is doing cuts out a lot of traditional costs and overhead.

Apple is shouldering the work and cost of doing all of this ... I'm betting there's a lot of smaller entities who are jumping at the ability to have Apple to all of this. I think that 30% is actually quite reasonable for what Apple is providing. Judging by the number of games which rely on in-game purchases to generate revenue, I'm betting it is probably pretty lucrative if you make something people are interested in.

In this case, it's somewhat disruptive to the existing business practices, but it's not like Apple is ripping them off. I think they're getting fair compensation for providing a useful infrastructure that makes it easy for consumers to gets stuff, and for companies to throw something over the wall and then collect the revenues.

And, yes, I do have an iTunes account. And, no, I have never paid for a damned thing from it -- there are developers making all sorts of really good free software. And before someone throws out this old chestnut ... the MP3s I rip from CDs using iTunes are DRM free.

Deal with the devil

[Solandri]

The publishing industry, being the sole supplier of many popular magazines and newspapers, refused to release those magazines and newspapers in ebook format until a hardware manufacturer agreed to all their onerous DRM requirements. Apple was the only one who took them up on the offer, and the iPad was the result. Now they're finding out some of the problems that come with having to deal with a sole supplier (in this case, for the hardware platform on which your electronic publications are distributed). Serves them right I say. Pot, meet kettle.

Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

I thought Ticketmaster was bad. Apple now runs what's left of the music industry with iTunes, and wants to do the same with publishing. Apple wants to a) squeeze out magazine publishers from being able to shift subscribers OUT OF Apple's store if they later choose, and b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.

And it's completely their capitalistic right to do both - unless our regulated market realizes it's in the best interest of consumer choice to *not* allow Apple to have this potential stranglehold on information. What if Apple becomes the default magazine-delivery platform, and they decided they don't want to host any magazines OR ads that say good things about Android? Or mention that the new iPhone (x) has a tendency to explode?

I sure hope Apple doesn't succeed in this. If they do, it sure was nice living in a world where the average citizen had something like a fair shot.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

It's *not* the publisher's "right" to do that. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not discussing the rights of corporations to do x or y or z.

What I'm saying is that this power in Apple's hands is bad for **citizens** and **free speech**. It is exactly the same sort of issue, actually, as Comcast charging Netflix more money. It's more potential anti-free-speech capability in the hands of those who control our access to information.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

Overreaction, huh? You recall how Apple recently deleted an App that showed Android information? Did you think that was particularly cool?

IF Apple becomes the default delivery mechanism for magazine publishing, then we are in just as much trouble as if **any** single corporation controlled publishing.

And if you don't think that's a problem waiting to happen, I suggest you read up on William Randolph Hearst. The guy who actually pushed the US into a war to sell newspapers - and succeeded.

Do you not think that can ever happen again, for some reason? If so, please tell me. I'd love to have an optimistic view of this.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[avatar139]

And it's completely their capitalistic right to do both - unless our regulated market realizes it's in the best interest of consumer choice to *not* allow Apple to have this potential stranglehold on information. What if Apple becomes the default magazine-delivery platform, and they decided they don't want to host any magazines OR ads that say good things about Android? Or mention that the new iPhone (x) has a tendency to explode?

I think you're loosing sight of the reality of the article here is favor of pushing an abstract (and IMHO absurd) personal opinion. Apple is protecting the rights of the consumers such as myself by not wanting to share their personal information with other companies. I mean personally I can kind of understand about why most companies don't want to take these sorts of ethical stands against positions that would be much more profitable (like say, sharing a bunch of personal information) if all everybody wants to do is lambast them with criticism for not doing enough?

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[Late Adopter]

Apple now runs what's left of the music industry with iTunes

You're kidding me. Every purchased mp3 on my hard drive came from Amazon.com, which has approximately the same selection as the iTMS at same or better prices. With the death of DRM on music (which Apple itself pushed for!) Apple has no power over competitors. The muscle they DO have is against the music industry and every time it's been wielded it's been a benefit for the end user!

If you want to use the words Apple and anticompetitive in the same sentence, you should talk about their ebooks. THERE's a place where their agreements have gotten ridiculous.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

Are you attempting to suggest that Apple does NOT have an incredible amount of control over the music industry? If so, I don't see how you can make that argument.

And Apple themselves had to bludgeoned into giving up DRM. The only reason they did was because people were downloading torrents rather than put up with Apple's DRM.

Nor has Apple's weight only been used to benefit users. For example, Tool doesn't want to sell their songs individually on iTunes. But Apple refuses to budge from selling songs individually. Therefore Tool is not making their music available on itunes - which is a loss to users. And Tool is only one example of this larger issue, of Apple's insistence on breaking up albums into singles.

But you're right with eBooks - they are another area in which Apple is simply not to be trusted with being the exclusive pipeline for that media. Which Apple has proven consistently that they will attempt to do, for every single kind of media they can get a fingerhold on.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

If you think Apple won't use that same information to push their *own* advertising, I have an underwater bridge on the moon you may want to invest in. It has a variable-rate mortgage credit default swap based in Nigeria.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

This is not an "ethical standard" of Apple's. They are clearly going to use the information for their **own** advertising. They just don't want to pass the information on to benefit anyone else.

Which is in Apple's best interest - just not in the rest of ours interest, as it helps further solidify Apple as a monopoly.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[avatar139]

This is not an "ethical standard" of Apple's. They are clearly going to use the information for their **own** advertising. They just don't want to pass the information on to benefit anyone else.

Yes, but I don't care if Apple uses it for their own advertising purposes since I can easily opt out of their advertising data collection for profiling (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228), unlike any of the other companies that Apple could've potentially shared my information with.

Which is in Apple's best interest - just not in the rest of ours interest, as it helps further solidify Apple as a monopoly.

I'm not sure how this make practice helps to make Apple a "monopoly" though?

I mean if anything it would seem to me that this is just going to encourage competition by encouraging advertising companies to look at other mobile platforms for their offerings, which should in anything, foster the competition!

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

Wow, great refutation. What is that, the Socraptic method?

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[gmhowell]

Your idiocy isn't worth the contribution to universal entropy that would be created by my neurons firing to pen a refutation of you.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

That's where we differ. Your idiocy IS worth the contribution to universal entropy that would be created by my neurons, because your idiocy left unchecked would create much more entropy.

See, I can insult you back, or we can have a rational discussion. To paraphrase Rush, if you choose not to be rational you still have made a choice.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[gmhowell]

Apple has less control over the music industry than Wal Mart.

The recording industry forced Apple to use DRM in their initial offerings. Apple had tried from day one to get them to give it up. You and a few nerdlings getting torrents didn't move Apple. Maybe it moved the RIAA members.

Let Tool go to Amazon. Or self-publish online. There are going to be corner cases, but on average, Apple's actions have benefitted consumers.

What's wrong with Apple trying to get a chunk of ad revenue out of magazine publishers?

If they decide not to publish a magazine, let the magazine come up with their own online distributionism.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[jbeach]

The problem with that is exactly the problem with every other company that becomes a monopoly: it becomes able to assert a level of control that prevents free competition. This hurts not only their customers but the public as a whole.

I suggest you read up on the Robber Baron era, and understand why we developed antitrust laws in the first place, so you can become more familiar with this concept.

Re:Do Antitrust suits even happen any more?

[gmhowell]

I'm quite familiar with the history. If Apple either had a monopoly or was abusing it, I would get your point.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Well, for every one of you, there's one of me, and I will happily pay them to keep my private data private.

Maybe the reason that the "portal" or "middleman" business model has failed so often on the Internet is that they've failed to do their jobs. Apple, in this case, seems to be doing it--they make it easier to find what I want, shield me from what I don't want, and otherwise get out of the way. I'm happy to pay the premium.

dead due to cost

[fermion]

To me the subscription model is dead due to cost and quality. I have one subscription through an app on the iOS, and that is pretty much a donation sort of thing. I would not mind having a subscription to a Linux magazine, but they want a huge amount of money. Ditto for Financial Times, WSJ, and most other subscriptions.

To me the whole thing is silly. These people have been complaining for years that paper and distribution costs are killing them, and that circulation is in the decline. Here is a model in which they can keep the ads but increase the number of adds as there is no incremental costs for ads in terms of delivery and paper costs, while increasing distribution. While I get annoyed that Architectural Digest has the first third of the magazine as ads, it is still a deal at less than $2 an issue. OTOH, They could have many more ads on iOS, linked to the advertiser, sell it for a dollar, and I would not be annoyed.

It seems this is second opportunity to traditional media to monetize on the web. Offer digital products, mostly supported by advertising, reduct traditional ineffecient infrastructure, and offer a product at a price that attracts new consumers.

Apple might be a driver in the process, like they were with music. Or the media companies could resist, as they did with movies which lead to distribution companies like Netflix making the profits at the expense of the media companies. At this point it can go either way.

Drop the app model, embrace HTML

[Eponymous Coward]

There is an easy way to fix the problem - disintermediate Apple. Develop their digital version for the web. They would get the side benefit of a much larger pool of potential customers.

What fantastic value does the app format provide that makes publishers put up with these shenanigans?

Re:Drop the app model, embrace HTML

[mozumder]

What fantastic value does the app format provide that makes publishers put up with these shenanigans?

Fewer clicks and hurdles to purchase. Each click dramatically reduces purchases.

Re:Drop the app model, embrace HTML

[dzfoo]

An already available and tested electronic, international, multi-currency payment system, seeded with an established customer base.

      -dZ.

Duh!

[Locke2005]

Put the magazine on a web page instead of a dedicated app!

Re:Duh!

[boristdog]

Yeah, why they need a dedicated app has always confused me. Plenty of publications have paid web subscriptions, including different formats for mobile devices.

So replace it

[SuperKendall]

Indeed, the vast bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from the subscriptions. The subscriptions are gravy.

That's true. But magazines on an iPad could simply embed iAds, along with some other ad frameworks. iAds would deliver the most targeted ad (from which the magazine would see revenue) and the other ad frameworks could target ads for the demographics of the readership the magazine can otherwise figure out.

The thing is, if the magazine people don't figure out this arrangement someone else will. It's not like magazine subscriptions are going gangbusters. I've canceled some magazines I was getting for free because I got tired of the clutter and the ad overload that comes with a free magazine.

Apple's opt-in approach sounded pretty reasonable to me. Most people (including myself) would be happy to give a magazine we like some data about ourselves to get better content and ads.

They don't care about YOU!

[rickb928]

"They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk."

First, most magazines don't care much about newsstand sales. They care about subscribers, with some exceptions. Mostly because they know where subscribers live, etc., and so they can tell advertisers somethign about their audience. Otherwise, why would anyone bother to advertise in, say, GQ?

Second, Apple thinks they own the magazines, and the publishers are merely content providers to Apple and hence to THEIR subscribers, who they DO know a lot about.

I'm heartened by this. Apple will be killing their revenue potential for iPad sales and then sales through the App Store and iTunes. Levels the playing field just a little bit.

Jobs does get it, this is just a fight for the customer. Should Apple start publishing its own e-magazines? will anyone care? Will Apple figure out who their customer REALLY is in iPad publication? Hint, it's NOT the iPad user.

Come on, farfetched at best

[SuperKendall]

a) squeeze out magazine publishers from being able to shift subscribers OUT OF Apple's store if they later choose

How exactly is that true since anyone could just end a subscription when they felt like? Subscriptions were said to be monthly. Which is better than you can do right now with real magazines!

A person could just drop the subscription and subscribe on another platform.

b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.

Where do you get that from? Yes a magazine could embed iAds. But they can also use any framework they like, just like with any app. In fact Apple almost reccomends using another ad provider in addition to iAds since iAds may not be able to fulfil every request for an ad.

Apple never had a stranglehold on the music market either. The music industry was free to un-strangle at any time, all they had to do was let go of DRM... there is no stranglehold the industry does not create for itself. Apple just lets them have the rope and holds one end for them.

Re:Come on, farfetched at best

[jbeach]

It is exactly what I wrote - "squeeze out magazine **publishers**." Sure, individual users could decide to do that - if they wanted to.

But what I'm talking about is Apple as a delivery platform. If Apple becomes the default e-publishing platform and decide to raise rates on all publishers, the publishers **would not** be able to switch their subscribers to a different platform the **publishers** chose. It would be up to convincing every single one of their audience to move.

Do you see what i'm saying?

b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.

Where do you get that from?

From the article:

"Publishers want the ability to sell the subscriptions themselves, or at least the opportunity to hang on to subscribers' personal data, and Steve Jobs won't let them. ...It's valuable to them for marketing because the demographic data helps magazines sell advertising, and without it they can't offer print/digital bundles."

See? Apple **keeping** that info AND not passing it on to the magazines automatically gives Apple the upper hand in ANY kind of marketing. Which is the only reason why they wouldn't pass on the non-credit-card-info.

Which is exactly why the magazines and Apple are at an impasse. Magazine publishers can tell this means they're all working for Jobs.

Can see a case for the apps

[SuperKendall]

The apps are more truly "offline" than web apps. Sure web apps can have offline storage but then you are relying on the browser to cache an awful lot of things like images... a magazine is better served as a standalone content with a lot of locally cached media, and that's just not a space web apps are in right now.

Also apps CAN have more interactivity, but I've not really seen a magazine app yet that really makes use of that. You can really see the potential though, imagine a Make magazine with videos of how to construct something, and a planning app that let you figure out exactly what materials you needed or customize plans...

I guess no one has read Apple's privacy policy

[LynnwoodRooster]

Apple's Privacy Policy:

At times Apple may make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers. For example, when you purchase and activate your iPhone, you authorize Apple and its carrier to exchange the information you provide during the activation process to carry out service. If you are approved for service, your account will be governed by Apple and its carrier’s respective privacy policies. Personal information will only be shared by Apple to provide or improve our products, services and advertising; it will not be shared with third parties for their marketing purposes.

Emphasis added. In other words, Apple doesn't want magazines to have that information to help their own sales, but Apple will gladly use your information - and share it with their own partners - to help themselves.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, they get a cut of subscription revenue. Apple is handling the platform, billing, and content delivery,

I thought AT&T/insert-carrier-here handled content delivery. And the subscription information comes from the magazine, on their own servers. Apple sells the program to let you look at that magazine's data over your carrier's bandwidth.

And for billing, they make a 30% commission. Funny, I can set up automated payments with Paypal, Bank of America, and hundreds of other vendors/creditors/institutions and it's free. That's the beauty of software - you don't need a person to process those transactions - they Just Work.

Next, Apple will start replacing the ads

[Animats]

The next step will be when Apple insists on replacing the magazine ads with their own. After all, Apple has the demographic information, and the publisher doesn't. So doing that will increase ad value. Of course, they'll have to share some of that revenue with the publisher. Some of it.

Readers Digest

[phorm]

And heaven help you if Reader's Digest ever gets your personal info.
I had a subscription one year. I moved and had to call to ensure they wouldn't auto-resubscribe me. When they asked for my new address for my last few mags, I told them I'd rather not get the mags then have to submit to their mail-spam again!

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[TooMuchToDo]

Then Apple needs to charge a fair, flat rate. The post office doesn't get a cut of the value of something I ship. They get a flat rate based on weight, whether that be an ounce of gold or an ounce of water.

SO WHAT

[way2trivial]

Read "vendor lock in" on wikipedia, yep it does qualify as vendor lock in

read the second sentence- it's illegal only if Apple has a monopoly position.

they don't-- therefore it's not DOJ actionable....

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[ceejayoz]

AT&T's handling the user side of delivery, for which I pay them. Apple's handling the server side of delivery, for which they pay their own bandwidth and server bills.

I suspect Apple will be handling the data. Magazines'll provide the content to be pushed out to Apple, but Apple'll do the delivery to devices.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[ceejayoz]

A credit card transaction isn't a flat rate, though - it's a fee plus a percentage of the transaction, in most cases. And, again, Apple's using the money they make to, among other things, provide and enhance the platform (hardware, software, and infrastructure) these magazines are taking advantage of. If magazines don't like the cut, they're by no means forced to put their content on the iPad/iPhone.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Unless Apple specifically bothered all their users by asking them the question, the percentage of people who would take the trouble to find the option and then answer yes to it is small enough that it probably wouldn't be worth it even to the magazine publishers. And I don't want to be bothered with the option, so if Apple did start asking, and somebody else didn't, for an otherwise equal service I'd go to the one that didn't even ask the question.

Fuck the magazines and their business model. They've already proven themselves un-trustworthy with personal data, and now they're clearly desperate, which would make me careful with someone who was previously trustworthy. If they can't get themselves back on an even ground without selling their customers' CC info, maybe it's their time to die.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[TooMuchToDo]

I agree. Magazines should simply distribute to iPads via secure PDFs, sidestepping the issue with Apple.

So why not share the stats?

[DaveGod]

If Apple's only concern was the privacy of their customers, there's a simple solution to keep everyone happy: hand over the stats instead. No personal identifiable information is directly required by the magazines, at least not unless they intend to perform direct marketing, so all Apple needs to do is aggregate the information they are without doubt gathering for themselves and chop out the private.

They could even analyse it for them, just like a certain major competitor does famously well.

This is an obvious solution. Only one company gets personal data, and that is the company with the highest public profile (hence greatest incentive not to abuse it). Magazines and advertisers get the data they do require. Apple should also be able to achieve substantial scale economies, it already has your account info and it's only paying (if anything) the CC companies once per year. Then there's iTunes' "anonymous usage statistics" data which should be a marketer's wet dream. Apple really should be able to provide for almost zero cost vastly better data (even when anonymous) than most companies get by spending millions.

Frankly I'm stunned Apple doesn't already do this. So much so I'm inclined to assume that they do and TFA has it wrong: more likely the only stickler is that publishers want to be able to send you a mailer in the eventuality that they (or Apple...) pull their product from iTunes. After all, this is without doubt the only reason Apple isn't giving it to them.

Re:So why not share the stats?

[barthrh2]

Direct marketing is the reason they want it. They asked for name, address, email, etc. Magazines sell their lists like crazy. One subscription of mine had a typo in the name and I could always tell when I'd been sold by them to a mailer.

Re:So why not share the stats?

[dzfoo]

That may be what Apple is offering, we don't know. However, the publishers do not seem keen on this idea; they want specific customer information for direct marketing, and apparently they are as unyielding with this request as Apple is with their refusal.

      -dZ.

So Apple is evil for protecting your privacy now?

[Brannon]

Anyone? Seriously?

You've been quiet on killing puppies...

[Brannon]

...anything we should infer from that?

I bet that you are a pedofile

[Brannon]

we both have the same amount of proof. At least Apple has publicly and strongly stated their position on sharing user data (i.e., they don't)--you have been suspiciously quiet on being a sexual predator.

Don't like it?

[C_Kode]

If they don't like it, don't sell via iTunes. If everyone does it, Steve Jobs will get the hint. The 30% Apple charges is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe companies accept that. It's straight up robbery.

What about 0 * 12?

[brunes69]

You can get pretty much any magazine subscription in the known universe for free or next to nothing. I currently have a subscription to Maxim I pay $0 for and one to Wired I pay $2 / year for. $2 / year would not even cover the postage.

I do this via the great mystical method of "eBay.com"

Magazines DO NOT CARE about subscription income. They make all their money in ad dollars. People who pay actual money for magazine subscriptions are just poor shoppers, the same as people who pay full sticker on new cars.

Re:What about 0 * 12?

[sexconker]

In this case, the eBay (re)seller is the one datamining. Typically, these are people who have X subscriptions they have to give away / sell for super cheap as part of some shitty MLM / publisher clearing house "we'll buy out your future college loans though we expect you to never go to college lol!" scheme.

It may be the actual magazine publisher that is datamining. In this case, the magazine subscriptions have already been bought (at a severely reduced rate) from themselves. The magazine owners and operators still get $ from those subscriptions, even if they go unclaimed.
It is the publishing house that is looking to datamine specific demographics. So they give away / discount subscriptions for magazines in certain categories. The publishing house will publish for dozens or hundreds of different magazines. They then sell this data to other marketers.

Individual magazines don't give a fuck because their focus is so narrow the only demographic they care about is that of their reader base - and they already have it. When the magazine itself is giving away subscriptions, it means one of two things:

A - It's in danger of going under and it's a desperate attempt to secure ad contracts and financial loans.

B - It went under, and someone else bought it, "retooled" it, and put it out again under the same name.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[jo_ham]

Apple pays for its servers, and its bandwidth to AT&T's network, and its backup systems and staff to look after those servers. It also handles the front-of-house store, and listing of your products for sale in a consumer-rich marketplace.

They also handle the microtransactions involved in small purchases such as this, lowering your costs overall, since they can get bulk rates and economies of scale.

They don't already have my info?

[JustCallMeRich]

I thought the privacy rights folks have been telling me for years that my data is everywhere already. I guess my data isn't as far flung as I was led to believe.

*woosh*

[Rix]

It's Time and Newsweek that are non-profit by accident.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[ceejayoz]

That'd be an interesting approach. I've never tried a PDF with security settings that prevent redistribution on iOS, wonder how it works.

Re:Apple gets a cut of subscriptions?

[TooMuchToDo]

I would assume it would work the same as any PDF with license restrictions turned on. At least that's how the PDF I bought from Amazon many moons ago worked before they had the Kindle and their kindle format.