Apple launches in-app Subscriptions…

  • Avatar

    Posted: 04 May 2011 09:32 PM #106

    What’s that?  In-app subscriptions brouhaha?  When was this exactly?

    Huh.  Another tempest in a teapot.  “Boils” (heh) down to show me the money.  And the iPad is THE tablet content delivery device.  In some ways, the _only_ one.


    The Summer of AAPL is here.  Enjoy it (responsibly) while it lasts.
    AFB Night Owl Teamâ„¢
    Thanks, Steve.

  • Avatar

    Posted: 05 May 2011 03:33 PM #107

    ...the ?9.99 monthly rate is a big saving on the equivalent ?26.40 (?6.60 per week) cost of subscribing to The Telegraph in print.

  • Avatar

    Posted: 05 May 2011 04:08 PM #108

    Now that’s the discount that all of the publishers should use.  Content, price, convenience.  All of these have room for improvement.

  • Avatar

    Posted: 07 May 2011 04:11 AM #109

    Funny how they’re now falling over themselves trying to be first. It wasn’t very long ago when they were threatening to abandon the iPad and head over to…uh…to Android tablets? I guess 20 million iPads steadily growing to 40-50 million by year’s end is much more compelling than the lackluster debuts of dozens of Android tablets. Who knows how many of them are actually in the wild instead of on the shelves.

    Cond? Nast Springs Ahead of Hearst With iPad Subscription Pact

  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 May 2011 03:24 PM #110

    The New Yorker’s iPad app has already been updated to reflect the new subscription system, with new users being able to subscribe to the iPad version for $5.99 per month or $59.99 per year.

    *sigh* I thought they were going all out and dropping it to $19.99/year. You can get discounted subscriptions for the print mag for $40/yr.

  • Avatar

    Posted: 12 May 2011 02:06 PM #111

    Apple has consistently stated that they intend to run the iTunes and App Stores at, or just above, break-even. I know they report revenue from the stores. Do they say what the profit has been? Has the profit margin from these stores increased? Wouldn’t you consider it a low margin business (for Apple) since it can never reach 30%?

    I assume that if the cost of operating the stores goes down significantly, they would pass on the savings to the consumer or the content creators. I don’t think Apple is interested in selling content per se. Access to content is only one of the enticements to buy their hardware products.

    iTunes/App Store revenue will continue to go up, but it will never catch up to hardware revenue. I don’t think it’s even keeping pace with YOY hardware revenue growth.

  • Avatar

    Posted: 07 June 2011 08:50 PM #113

    Financial Times Won’t Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

    In a email to subscribers today, the FT didn’t mention the App Store at all, instead touting “valuable improvements” including claims that the web app will be faster and more up-to-date.

    Ben Evans notes, however, that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side:

    “The challenge for other publishers in following the FT is that by doing so, they gain 30% but lose frictionless installs from the app store and frictionless payment from iTunes. For the FT, with a dedicated readership willing to pay, it may be worth giving those things up in exchange for the ability to offer a true cross-platform experience. But if you’re depending on impulse download, the tablet experience and the ease of payment to get people to pay for your product where they never paid before, paying Apple 30% of something may be better than keeping 100% of nothing.”

    Uncensored Playboy app arrives on iOS, via a Web app

    As a Web app, the Playboy app can skip the App Store. Not only does it mean it can be uncensored, it also means it gets out of the App Store’s subscription policies which take 30 percent of the revenue from a sale.

    However, being a Web app has its limitations. Unlike a native app, it can’t download the entire issue to your iPad for perusal offline. If you’re not connected to the Internet, you’re not connected to Playboy, either.