A Few Thoughts on iTunes Subscriptions

There seems to be a lot of distress over the fact Apple will be taking a 30% cut for online subscription materials. I can understand why this would make me angry if I published a magazine but (then again) if I published a magazine, I’d probably be too paralyzed with fear over a failing business model to work up any anger. I get that 30% is a big cut but I also think delivering 100 million registered credit card consumers and eliminating the need for printing and shipping has some value.

As a consumer, however, I like what Apple is doing. I am (finally!) able to control how much of my personal information gets to publishers and protect a few shreds of my vanishing privacy. I can easily pay for subscriptions using my existing iTunes account and I can manage my subscriptions in one place. All of this makes sense to me. My gut reaction is, that as a consumer, I prefer this model. Either way we are venturing into uncharted waters here and it will be interesting to see how all this shakes out in a year. I suspect innovators will emerge and make a killing along the way.

MacSparky.com is sponsored by Bee Docs Timeline 3D. Make a timeline presentation with your Mac.

45 Comments A Few Thoughts on iTunes Subscriptions

  1. bjdroopywanlund@gmail.com

    You hit the nail squarely on the head, sir. I'm right there with ya.

    However, I feel that there is, at this moment, no "one-stop" app on either iPod touches, iPhones, or iPads (or Mac–who knows?) where I can go and say, "I would like to subscribe to Nintendo Power magazine digital only, therefore no need to wait for it to arrive in my mailbox," as just one of numerous examples.

    BJ

    Reply
  2. bjdroopywanlund@gmail.com

    You hit the nail squarely on the head, sir. I'm right there with ya.

    However, I feel that there is, at this moment, no "one-stop" app on either iPod touches, iPhones, or iPads (or Mac–who knows?) where I can go and say, "I would like to subscribe to Nintendo Power magazine digital only, therefore no need to wait for it to arrive in my mailbox," as just one of numerous examples.

    BJ

    Reply
  3. bjdroopywanlund@gmail.com

    You hit the nail squarely on the head, sir. I'm right there with ya.

    However, I feel that there is, at this moment, no "one-stop" app on either iPod touches, iPhones, or iPads (or Mac–who knows?) where I can go and say, "I would like to subscribe to Nintendo Power magazine digital only, therefore no need to wait for it to arrive in my mailbox," as just one of numerous examples.

    BJ

    Reply
  4. bjdroopywanlund@gmail.com

    You hit the nail squarely on the head, sir. I'm right there with ya.

    However, I feel that there is, at this moment, no "one-stop" app on either iPod touches, iPhones, or iPads (or Mac–who knows?) where I can go and say, "I would like to subscribe to Nintendo Power magazine digital only, therefore no need to wait for it to arrive in my mailbox," as just one of numerous examples.

    BJ

    Reply
  5. bjdroopywanlund@gmail.com

    You hit the nail squarely on the head, sir. I'm right there with ya.

    However, I feel that there is, at this moment, no "one-stop" app on either iPod touches, iPhones, or iPads (or Mac–who knows?) where I can go and say, "I would like to subscribe to Nintendo Power magazine digital only, therefore no need to wait for it to arrive in my mailbox," as just one of numerous examples.

    BJ

    Reply
  6. michael.fessler@gmail.com

    I think that the magazine publishers, frankly, need to get over it. I think the same is probably true of Kindle, though the result might be the death of the Kindle app or a hike in ebook prices across the board. I am more concerned about publishers in other media, like Netflix, Hulu, and Rhapsody, Profit margins in these industries are extremely thin, and (unlike magazines), firms like these are generally paying third-party content providers on a per-user basis for rights. Per-capita costs don't necessarily go down as user base increases. Also, Netflix and Hulu are hosting their own content, and have already built a streaming architecture of their own – 30% is a lot for payment processing that duplicates something they have already built, and integrating Apple's stuff with their own existing authentication infrastruction also can't be painless.

    I hear there is a bigger problem for Kindle — right now there is a hard limit of about 4000 specific items per app available for in-app purchase. How are they supposed to be able to sell books in-app if there is no way to make their catalog available?

    Reply
  7. michael.fessler@gmail.com

    I think that the magazine publishers, frankly, need to get over it. I think the same is probably true of Kindle, though the result might be the death of the Kindle app or a hike in ebook prices across the board. I am more concerned about publishers in other media, like Netflix, Hulu, and Rhapsody, Profit margins in these industries are extremely thin, and (unlike magazines), firms like these are generally paying third-party content providers on a per-user basis for rights. Per-capita costs don't necessarily go down as user base increases. Also, Netflix and Hulu are hosting their own content, and have already built a streaming architecture of their own – 30% is a lot for payment processing that duplicates something they have already built, and integrating Apple's stuff with their own existing authentication infrastruction also can't be painless.

    I hear there is a bigger problem for Kindle — right now there is a hard limit of about 4000 specific items per app available for in-app purchase. How are they supposed to be able to sell books in-app if there is no way to make their catalog available?

    Reply
  8. michael.fessler@gmail.com

    I think that the magazine publishers, frankly, need to get over it. I think the same is probably true of Kindle, though the result might be the death of the Kindle app or a hike in ebook prices across the board. I am more concerned about publishers in other media, like Netflix, Hulu, and Rhapsody, Profit margins in these industries are extremely thin, and (unlike magazines), firms like these are generally paying third-party content providers on a per-user basis for rights. Per-capita costs don't necessarily go down as user base increases. Also, Netflix and Hulu are hosting their own content, and have already built a streaming architecture of their own – 30% is a lot for payment processing that duplicates something they have already built, and integrating Apple's stuff with their own existing authentication infrastruction also can't be painless.

    I hear there is a bigger problem for Kindle — right now there is a hard limit of about 4000 specific items per app available for in-app purchase. How are they supposed to be able to sell books in-app if there is no way to make their catalog available?

    Reply
  9. michael.fessler@gmail.com

    I think that the magazine publishers, frankly, need to get over it. I think the same is probably true of Kindle, though the result might be the death of the Kindle app or a hike in ebook prices across the board. I am more concerned about publishers in other media, like Netflix, Hulu, and Rhapsody, Profit margins in these industries are extremely thin, and (unlike magazines), firms like these are generally paying third-party content providers on a per-user basis for rights. Per-capita costs don't necessarily go down as user base increases. Also, Netflix and Hulu are hosting their own content, and have already built a streaming architecture of their own – 30% is a lot for payment processing that duplicates something they have already built, and integrating Apple's stuff with their own existing authentication infrastruction also can't be painless.

    I hear there is a bigger problem for Kindle — right now there is a hard limit of about 4000 specific items per app available for in-app purchase. How are they supposed to be able to sell books in-app if there is no way to make their catalog available?

    Reply
  10. michael.fessler@gmail.com

    I think that the magazine publishers, frankly, need to get over it. I think the same is probably true of Kindle, though the result might be the death of the Kindle app or a hike in ebook prices across the board. I am more concerned about publishers in other media, like Netflix, Hulu, and Rhapsody, Profit margins in these industries are extremely thin, and (unlike magazines), firms like these are generally paying third-party content providers on a per-user basis for rights. Per-capita costs don't necessarily go down as user base increases. Also, Netflix and Hulu are hosting their own content, and have already built a streaming architecture of their own – 30% is a lot for payment processing that duplicates something they have already built, and integrating Apple's stuff with their own existing authentication infrastruction also can't be painless.

    I hear there is a bigger problem for Kindle — right now there is a hard limit of about 4000 specific items per app available for in-app purchase. How are they supposed to be able to sell books in-app if there is no way to make their catalog available?

    Reply
  11. b.michael.payne@gmail.com

    "MacSparky.com is sponsored by Bee Docs Timeline 3D. Make a timeline presentation with your Mac."

    You've created a presumably stable lifestyle based on known financial and business rules. You have a budget, know your costs, and have a revenue target. You work hard to exceed that target, and your blog is growing in popularity or whatever.

    After this environment is all nice and set up and know, the FCC says, 'Hey, we regulate the Internet. Any commerce done over the Internet is built on our backs. We want a cut.'

    App publishers didn't sign up to give Apple equal access to subscribers and 30% of that revenue. Arguments saying, 'Without the app store, publishers would get 100% of nothing' are laughably spurious. (Looking at you, Ben Brooks… even though you're not here, I guess.)

    It's like, hey, news flash, I don't know how to say it more clearly: IF YOU HAVE BUILT A BUSINESS WITHIN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT ISN'T ALREADY PREDICATED ON GIVING UP 30% OF YOUR REVENUE, AND THEN THAT RULE IS IMPLEMENTED, YOUR SHIT IS GOING TO GET FUCKED UP.

    And as a consumer, I'd prefer companies I like not to go out of business. Thanks.

    Reply
  12. b.michael.payne@gmail.com

    "MacSparky.com is sponsored by Bee Docs Timeline 3D. Make a timeline presentation with your Mac."

    You've created a presumably stable lifestyle based on known financial and business rules. You have a budget, know your costs, and have a revenue target. You work hard to exceed that target, and your blog is growing in popularity or whatever.

    After this environment is all nice and set up and know, the FCC says, 'Hey, we regulate the Internet. Any commerce done over the Internet is built on our backs. We want a cut.'

    App publishers didn't sign up to give Apple equal access to subscribers and 30% of that revenue. Arguments saying, 'Without the app store, publishers would get 100% of nothing' are laughably spurious. (Looking at you, Ben Brooks… even though you're not here, I guess.)

    It's like, hey, news flash, I don't know how to say it more clearly: IF YOU HAVE BUILT A BUSINESS WITHIN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT ISN'T ALREADY PREDICATED ON GIVING UP 30% OF YOUR REVENUE, AND THEN THAT RULE IS IMPLEMENTED, YOUR SHIT IS GOING TO GET FUCKED UP.

    And as a consumer, I'd prefer companies I like not to go out of business. Thanks.

    Reply
  13. b.michael.payne@gmail.com

    "MacSparky.com is sponsored by Bee Docs Timeline 3D. Make a timeline presentation with your Mac."

    You've created a presumably stable lifestyle based on known financial and business rules. You have a budget, know your costs, and have a revenue target. You work hard to exceed that target, and your blog is growing in popularity or whatever.

    After this environment is all nice and set up and know, the FCC says, 'Hey, we regulate the Internet. Any commerce done over the Internet is built on our backs. We want a cut.'

    App publishers didn't sign up to give Apple equal access to subscribers and 30% of that revenue. Arguments saying, 'Without the app store, publishers would get 100% of nothing' are laughably spurious. (Looking at you, Ben Brooks… even though you're not here, I guess.)

    It's like, hey, news flash, I don't know how to say it more clearly: IF YOU HAVE BUILT A BUSINESS WITHIN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT ISN'T ALREADY PREDICATED ON GIVING UP 30% OF YOUR REVENUE, AND THEN THAT RULE IS IMPLEMENTED, YOUR SHIT IS GOING TO GET FUCKED UP.

    And as a consumer, I'd prefer companies I like not to go out of business. Thanks.

    Reply
  14. b.michael.payne@gmail.com

    "MacSparky.com is sponsored by Bee Docs Timeline 3D. Make a timeline presentation with your Mac."

    You've created a presumably stable lifestyle based on known financial and business rules. You have a budget, know your costs, and have a revenue target. You work hard to exceed that target, and your blog is growing in popularity or whatever.

    After this environment is all nice and set up and know, the FCC says, 'Hey, we regulate the Internet. Any commerce done over the Internet is built on our backs. We want a cut.'

    App publishers didn't sign up to give Apple equal access to subscribers and 30% of that revenue. Arguments saying, 'Without the app store, publishers would get 100% of nothing' are laughably spurious. (Looking at you, Ben Brooks… even though you're not here, I guess.)

    It's like, hey, news flash, I don't know how to say it more clearly: IF YOU HAVE BUILT A BUSINESS WITHIN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT ISN'T ALREADY PREDICATED ON GIVING UP 30% OF YOUR REVENUE, AND THEN THAT RULE IS IMPLEMENTED, YOUR SHIT IS GOING TO GET FUCKED UP.

    And as a consumer, I'd prefer companies I like not to go out of business. Thanks.

    Reply
  15. b.michael.payne@gmail.com

    "MacSparky.com is sponsored by Bee Docs Timeline 3D. Make a timeline presentation with your Mac."

    You've created a presumably stable lifestyle based on known financial and business rules. You have a budget, know your costs, and have a revenue target. You work hard to exceed that target, and your blog is growing in popularity or whatever.

    After this environment is all nice and set up and know, the FCC says, 'Hey, we regulate the Internet. Any commerce done over the Internet is built on our backs. We want a cut.'

    App publishers didn't sign up to give Apple equal access to subscribers and 30% of that revenue. Arguments saying, 'Without the app store, publishers would get 100% of nothing' are laughably spurious. (Looking at you, Ben Brooks… even though you're not here, I guess.)

    It's like, hey, news flash, I don't know how to say it more clearly: IF YOU HAVE BUILT A BUSINESS WITHIN AN ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT ISN'T ALREADY PREDICATED ON GIVING UP 30% OF YOUR REVENUE, AND THEN THAT RULE IS IMPLEMENTED, YOUR SHIT IS GOING TO GET FUCKED UP.

    And as a consumer, I'd prefer companies I like not to go out of business. Thanks.

    Reply
  16. daniel@danielandrews.com

    While overall I think it'll be a good thing to have subscriptions centralized, I do fear the 30% cut will force some providers of services to look to alternative methods (read: lots of web applications) to provide content to their users.

    Something like the fantastic Rdio streaming music service come to mind. It's $5 a month to unlock the mobile app streaming option. Can't imagine the margins on streaming music to devices is very good, so giving up 1.50 a month of that to Apple for … umm … just because isn't going to sit well with these small/medium sized companies.

    I think in the end, consumers will overall be just fine and reap a lot of benefits, but innovation might slow down or move back to the web as companies look for ways to avoid paying such a high percentage for little or no additional value.

    Reply
  17. daniel@danielandrews.com

    While overall I think it'll be a good thing to have subscriptions centralized, I do fear the 30% cut will force some providers of services to look to alternative methods (read: lots of web applications) to provide content to their users.

    Something like the fantastic Rdio streaming music service come to mind. It's $5 a month to unlock the mobile app streaming option. Can't imagine the margins on streaming music to devices is very good, so giving up 1.50 a month of that to Apple for … umm … just because isn't going to sit well with these small/medium sized companies.

    I think in the end, consumers will overall be just fine and reap a lot of benefits, but innovation might slow down or move back to the web as companies look for ways to avoid paying such a high percentage for little or no additional value.

    Reply
  18. daniel@danielandrews.com

    While overall I think it'll be a good thing to have subscriptions centralized, I do fear the 30% cut will force some providers of services to look to alternative methods (read: lots of web applications) to provide content to their users.

    Something like the fantastic Rdio streaming music service come to mind. It's $5 a month to unlock the mobile app streaming option. Can't imagine the margins on streaming music to devices is very good, so giving up 1.50 a month of that to Apple for … umm … just because isn't going to sit well with these small/medium sized companies.

    I think in the end, consumers will overall be just fine and reap a lot of benefits, but innovation might slow down or move back to the web as companies look for ways to avoid paying such a high percentage for little or no additional value.

    Reply
  19. daniel@danielandrews.com

    While overall I think it'll be a good thing to have subscriptions centralized, I do fear the 30% cut will force some providers of services to look to alternative methods (read: lots of web applications) to provide content to their users.

    Something like the fantastic Rdio streaming music service come to mind. It's $5 a month to unlock the mobile app streaming option. Can't imagine the margins on streaming music to devices is very good, so giving up 1.50 a month of that to Apple for … umm … just because isn't going to sit well with these small/medium sized companies.

    I think in the end, consumers will overall be just fine and reap a lot of benefits, but innovation might slow down or move back to the web as companies look for ways to avoid paying such a high percentage for little or no additional value.

    Reply
  20. daniel@danielandrews.com

    While overall I think it'll be a good thing to have subscriptions centralized, I do fear the 30% cut will force some providers of services to look to alternative methods (read: lots of web applications) to provide content to their users.

    Something like the fantastic Rdio streaming music service come to mind. It's $5 a month to unlock the mobile app streaming option. Can't imagine the margins on streaming music to devices is very good, so giving up 1.50 a month of that to Apple for … umm … just because isn't going to sit well with these small/medium sized companies.

    I think in the end, consumers will overall be just fine and reap a lot of benefits, but innovation might slow down or move back to the web as companies look for ways to avoid paying such a high percentage for little or no additional value.

    Reply
  21. adam@beedocs.com

    I think the concern here is not that Apple is trying to unify the in-app purchase experience. Rather that they are charging 30% for payment processing where others (Amazon, Google, Paypal, etc..) are charging less that 5% for similar payment services. I suspect most everyone involved would be on board if the in-app processing fees were more competitive.

    This isn't really a charge for payment processing, it is a charge for access to the platform.

    In regards to Mr Fessler's comment. I do think the concern here is how far this is going to go. It doesn't take much imagination to see Apple charging 30% for every financial transaction related to an app. What about physical products purchased through the Amazon app? How about web services like 37signals? What about advertisers who don't go through iAds? Apple could ease a lot of minds if they clarified the limits of this policy, but it feels like there are going to see how much they can get away with before setting limits.

    Can you imaging if Google required that every business in it's search index accept Google Payments as a payment method and then charged 30% of revenue for those transactions (or else kicked you out of their index)? That is what this feels like to me.

    Reply
  22. adam@beedocs.com

    I think the concern here is not that Apple is trying to unify the in-app purchase experience. Rather that they are charging 30% for payment processing where others (Amazon, Google, Paypal, etc..) are charging less that 5% for similar payment services. I suspect most everyone involved would be on board if the in-app processing fees were more competitive.

    This isn't really a charge for payment processing, it is a charge for access to the platform.

    In regards to Mr Fessler's comment. I do think the concern here is how far this is going to go. It doesn't take much imagination to see Apple charging 30% for every financial transaction related to an app. What about physical products purchased through the Amazon app? How about web services like 37signals? What about advertisers who don't go through iAds? Apple could ease a lot of minds if they clarified the limits of this policy, but it feels like there are going to see how much they can get away with before setting limits.

    Can you imaging if Google required that every business in it's search index accept Google Payments as a payment method and then charged 30% of revenue for those transactions (or else kicked you out of their index)? That is what this feels like to me.

    Reply
  23. adam@beedocs.com

    I think the concern here is not that Apple is trying to unify the in-app purchase experience. Rather that they are charging 30% for payment processing where others (Amazon, Google, Paypal, etc..) are charging less that 5% for similar payment services. I suspect most everyone involved would be on board if the in-app processing fees were more competitive.

    This isn't really a charge for payment processing, it is a charge for access to the platform.

    In regards to Mr Fessler's comment. I do think the concern here is how far this is going to go. It doesn't take much imagination to see Apple charging 30% for every financial transaction related to an app. What about physical products purchased through the Amazon app? How about web services like 37signals? What about advertisers who don't go through iAds? Apple could ease a lot of minds if they clarified the limits of this policy, but it feels like there are going to see how much they can get away with before setting limits.

    Can you imaging if Google required that every business in it's search index accept Google Payments as a payment method and then charged 30% of revenue for those transactions (or else kicked you out of their index)? That is what this feels like to me.

    Reply
  24. adam@beedocs.com

    I think the concern here is not that Apple is trying to unify the in-app purchase experience. Rather that they are charging 30% for payment processing where others (Amazon, Google, Paypal, etc..) are charging less that 5% for similar payment services. I suspect most everyone involved would be on board if the in-app processing fees were more competitive.

    This isn't really a charge for payment processing, it is a charge for access to the platform.

    In regards to Mr Fessler's comment. I do think the concern here is how far this is going to go. It doesn't take much imagination to see Apple charging 30% for every financial transaction related to an app. What about physical products purchased through the Amazon app? How about web services like 37signals? What about advertisers who don't go through iAds? Apple could ease a lot of minds if they clarified the limits of this policy, but it feels like there are going to see how much they can get away with before setting limits.

    Can you imaging if Google required that every business in it's search index accept Google Payments as a payment method and then charged 30% of revenue for those transactions (or else kicked you out of their index)? That is what this feels like to me.

    Reply
  25. adam@beedocs.com

    I think the concern here is not that Apple is trying to unify the in-app purchase experience. Rather that they are charging 30% for payment processing where others (Amazon, Google, Paypal, etc..) are charging less that 5% for similar payment services. I suspect most everyone involved would be on board if the in-app processing fees were more competitive.

    This isn't really a charge for payment processing, it is a charge for access to the platform.

    In regards to Mr Fessler's comment. I do think the concern here is how far this is going to go. It doesn't take much imagination to see Apple charging 30% for every financial transaction related to an app. What about physical products purchased through the Amazon app? How about web services like 37signals? What about advertisers who don't go through iAds? Apple could ease a lot of minds if they clarified the limits of this policy, but it feels like there are going to see how much they can get away with before setting limits.

    Can you imaging if Google required that every business in it's search index accept Google Payments as a payment method and then charged 30% of revenue for those transactions (or else kicked you out of their index)? That is what this feels like to me.

    Reply
  26. kirk.mcpike@gmail.com

    I bought my iPad in part to replace my Kindle. This 30% extortion by Apple, for doing nothing but processing the credit cards, will render it impossible for Amazon to profitably sell ebooks to iOS users. I suspect that I will lose access to my Kindle app. So, Apple's "consumer friendly" rule will have substantially harmed me.

    I am so livid at Apple right now, for the first time I'm considering whether or not to investigate an Android-based tablet.

    Reply
  27. kirk.mcpike@gmail.com

    I bought my iPad in part to replace my Kindle. This 30% extortion by Apple, for doing nothing but processing the credit cards, will render it impossible for Amazon to profitably sell ebooks to iOS users. I suspect that I will lose access to my Kindle app. So, Apple's "consumer friendly" rule will have substantially harmed me.

    I am so livid at Apple right now, for the first time I'm considering whether or not to investigate an Android-based tablet.

    Reply
  28. kirk.mcpike@gmail.com

    I bought my iPad in part to replace my Kindle. This 30% extortion by Apple, for doing nothing but processing the credit cards, will render it impossible for Amazon to profitably sell ebooks to iOS users. I suspect that I will lose access to my Kindle app. So, Apple's "consumer friendly" rule will have substantially harmed me.

    I am so livid at Apple right now, for the first time I'm considering whether or not to investigate an Android-based tablet.

    Reply
  29. kirk.mcpike@gmail.com

    I bought my iPad in part to replace my Kindle. This 30% extortion by Apple, for doing nothing but processing the credit cards, will render it impossible for Amazon to profitably sell ebooks to iOS users. I suspect that I will lose access to my Kindle app. So, Apple's "consumer friendly" rule will have substantially harmed me.

    I am so livid at Apple right now, for the first time I'm considering whether or not to investigate an Android-based tablet.

    Reply
  30. kirk.mcpike@gmail.com

    I bought my iPad in part to replace my Kindle. This 30% extortion by Apple, for doing nothing but processing the credit cards, will render it impossible for Amazon to profitably sell ebooks to iOS users. I suspect that I will lose access to my Kindle app. So, Apple's "consumer friendly" rule will have substantially harmed me.

    I am so livid at Apple right now, for the first time I'm considering whether or not to investigate an Android-based tablet.

    Reply
  31. awwells@gmail.com

    As a consumer are you not disappointed that more of the purchase goes into the publications? Once apple take a slice, and the publisher take a profit slice, then editorial have even less money to work with…I suppose maybe apple are trying to kill off publishers and attract editorial teams directly or somthing (which is a bad idea). 30% seems like a large cut for doing nothing beyond, giving access, it feels quite exploitive of that position, since no ones gonna be able to compete….

    Reply
  32. awwells@gmail.com

    As a consumer are you not disappointed that more of the purchase goes into the publications? Once apple take a slice, and the publisher take a profit slice, then editorial have even less money to work with…I suppose maybe apple are trying to kill off publishers and attract editorial teams directly or somthing (which is a bad idea). 30% seems like a large cut for doing nothing beyond, giving access, it feels quite exploitive of that position, since no ones gonna be able to compete….

    Reply
  33. awwells@gmail.com

    As a consumer are you not disappointed that more of the purchase goes into the publications? Once apple take a slice, and the publisher take a profit slice, then editorial have even less money to work with…I suppose maybe apple are trying to kill off publishers and attract editorial teams directly or somthing (which is a bad idea). 30% seems like a large cut for doing nothing beyond, giving access, it feels quite exploitive of that position, since no ones gonna be able to compete….

    Reply
  34. awwells@gmail.com

    As a consumer are you not disappointed that more of the purchase goes into the publications? Once apple take a slice, and the publisher take a profit slice, then editorial have even less money to work with…I suppose maybe apple are trying to kill off publishers and attract editorial teams directly or somthing (which is a bad idea). 30% seems like a large cut for doing nothing beyond, giving access, it feels quite exploitive of that position, since no ones gonna be able to compete….

    Reply
  35. awwells@gmail.com

    As a consumer are you not disappointed that more of the purchase goes into the publications? Once apple take a slice, and the publisher take a profit slice, then editorial have even less money to work with…I suppose maybe apple are trying to kill off publishers and attract editorial teams directly or somthing (which is a bad idea). 30% seems like a large cut for doing nothing beyond, giving access, it feels quite exploitive of that position, since no ones gonna be able to compete….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.