Slashdot Mirror


Apple To Keep 30% of Magazine Subscription Revenue

Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Guardian reports that Apple has launched a new subscription service for magazines, newspapers and music bought through its App Store, expanding the model developed for Rupert Murdoch's iPad newspaper and will keep 30% of the revenue from subscriptions if the subscription is purchased through Apple. 'Our philosophy is simple – when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30% share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100% and Apple earns nothing,' says Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, who is presently taking a medical leave of absence from the company. 'All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same – or better – offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one click right in the app.' Apple's control over its App Store payments plan has long been a cause for concern for content companies. Publishers want to have access to subscriber data which can provide lucrative demographics on which to base advertising campaigns and targeted reader offers. Apple says customers purchasing a subscription through its App Store will be given the option of providing the publisher with their names, email addresses and zip codes. The use of such information will be governed by the publisher's privacy policy rather than Apple's."

12 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this better than mailing dead trees? by bigzoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Publishers in the print world will happily sell subscriptions for less than the price of postage in order to increase their paid subscription count (and hence their ad dollars). To get 70% of the subscription money, all of the ad money, and have no printing/postage costs actually doesn't sound too bad for publishers. If Apple demanded that they get 30% of ad revenue too, that would start to be a much larger issue.

    1. Re:Isn't this better than mailing dead trees? by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A magazine has much better control of their costs as they are typically being distributed by the publisher directly.

      This move by Apple is intended to punish Apple's competitors, that's other distributors and in particular Amazon. There's no way Amazon can afford to give Apple a 30% cut of sales, since their margin is significantly lower than that.

      Other subscription services could also suffer. Will this extend to Pandora/Spotify etc? Again there's no way they could afford to give apple 1/3 of their subscription fee as their margin is going to be lower than that.

      Apple really want content producers to make direct deals with them, cutting out the middlemen that are making money on Apple's platform. Cutting competition lets them keep prices, margins and profits high.

  2. The Future Niche Market of the iPhone by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did they just wait around for Murdoch's The Daily experiment for this? Is this just round two of wait-for-third-parties-to-develop-apps-and-then-hold-them-ransom like with eBooks? What's next?

    If I were a mobile app developer I'd be asking myself right now if it's a smart idea to try to plan a viable business plan around iOS right now. Any good will you build by bringing people to iOS with your app is totally overlooked by Apple while any customers "they bring" to you runs a hefty 30% Apple tax.

    I think it's highway robbery but I'm okay with it because I didn't buy into that bullshit. I bought into Android and instead of lording my decision over everybody I'm just going to remind everyone that the long run has been predicted by many industries. Apple and Blackberry will remain as niche players but it's going to be an Android future. So go ahead and hold publisher's -- who already hemorrhage cash -- feet to the fire. It's just going to hasten your fall.

    Apple sits atop a crumbling marketshare (Schmidt claims 300,000 activations a day) and their response is to turn the screws on the third parties that set them apart from the competition? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Future Niche Market of the iPhone by aztektum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm more OK with how Jobs acts than MS.

      Apple has real competition in Android, webOS maybe and diehard BB users will only switch when you pry it from their cold dead hands.

      The tight control Jobs likes to have over at Apple, for the most part, only impacts Apple users. Don't like it? Go elsewhere.

      OTOH, MS used its position to control, or attempt to anyway, the entire consumer computer industry and more. Don't like it? Well fuckin' tough.

      If you don't like the policies don't buy the phone. You have no room to complain if you haven't bought in. If you did buy in, well you did so of your own accord. Enjoy the Kool Aid.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
  3. But Worse Than Distributing on Android? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To get 70% of the subscription money, all of the ad money, and have no printing/postage costs actually doesn't sound too bad for publishers.

    Okay but why not just go to the Android Market where you get 100% of the subscription money, all of the ad money, and have no printing/postage costs?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:But Worse Than Distributing on Android? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Apple does a much better job about delivering a large set of eyeballs attached to people who are already trained to pay out money for cool shiny things. Apple is primarilly a marketing company and they are damn good at it. I am not in their target demographic: young, trendy, willing to spend money for the cool factor. So Apple delivers the right audience for online magazines.

      I suspect most droid users would say "fuck it... I can get the same info for free if I just spend 10 seconds and Google it".

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:But Worse Than Distributing on Android? by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've taken apart an iMac a Macbook and an iPod. I'm well aware what's in them.

      And no, they are NOT the same as everything else. In the same way that all buildings are not the same just because they all use off the shelf construction materials.

  4. 30% forever? by jaymz666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that 30% for as long as they keep renewing or is it 30% for the initial term? How does one determine if it's a new subscriber?

    Also, charging the same price in and out of the apple verse could increase prices for all

  5. As you sow, so shall you reap... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was anybody seriously expecting the app store not to degenerate into blatant rent seeking?

    The original deal, while compulsory(which is not a good sign) was a 30/70, where apple took 30 in exchange for hosting the thing, transaction handling, etc. The fact that that was the only deal in town was a bit skeezy; but it was certainly a boon for the indies who couldn't or didn't want to deal with logistics themselves.

    At this point, though, it's a pure money grab. Hey, Amazon, want to offer customers the ability to purchase ebooks(downloaded from your server, linked to their amazon accounts, through the kindle application)? 30% of that is ours, and you aren't allowed to charge a higher price in-app to make up for that. You don't like that? Well, it's a nice app you've got there. It'd be a pity if it were to suffer a cryptographic revocation accident, Capiche?

    1. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the part that sucks. Their dickery doesn't bother me that much when only affects the garden-dwellers, but this has the potential to raise prices across the board. Part of the blame for that will go to publishers who will not let Apple eat 30% of their profits, but Apple is the root cause.

    2. Re:As you sow, so shall you reap... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact I can't charge less for it somewhere else? While not quite a monopoly, they're abusing their market position.

  6. Re:Pay to play in the garden with millions of user by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    70% revenue for a customer pool of millions of iPhone and iPad users is better than 100% revenue for zero of them.

    It's not when you only have a 5% profit margin. When you're losing money on every unit sold, you can't "make it up in volume."