Comments on: The NYT’s bizarre iPad paywall

By: boekelheide

boekelheide — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:43:45 +0000

The USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism hosted media analyst Ken Doctor for a talk yesterday, and he touched on some of these points, specifically with the NYT’s pay-for-access plans and Apple’s changing apps policy.

Video clips are here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWfXxhXoE m8, and the relevant portion starts around 3:30.

More coverage here (and there’s a transcript pending!): http://annenberg.usc.edu/News%20and%20Ev ents/News/110125M2eDoctor.aspx

By: trb456

trb456 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:43:21 +0000

I think you are overlooking something: websites can tell if you are using an iPad (and probably other devices) or not. So NYT could simply shunt IPad users to a web page saying “use the app to gain full access”, in effect turning off browser access. I’ve seen other sites that do this. Not widespread yet, but why assume they would not try this? Sure, it will royally torc people off, perhaps spawn a big backlash, and hacks will appear, but I’d bet this is what’s going to happen.

By: klhoughton

klhoughton — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:19:59 +0000

Everyone else has ganged up and noted that some of the blame lies with AAPL here. So let’s look at the Rest of the Story:

Is AAPL really taking half the revenues? The highest estimate I saw–haven’t looked too hard–is 30%. That would be about $14.50 a month, give or take. The extra $5.50 is pure NYT profit for providing an inferior service.

Which brings us to the second part: if the iPad app is worse than reading the NYT online, why would people choose to read through the App in the first place? You’ve already got a large supply of people who opt for an inferior delivery mechanism; that may of them can’t count either seems a reasonable bet.

So the NYT is looking at free money from an impaired-mentally-but-not-credit-constra ined portion of the population. As we say every year, “Ma nishta…?”

(As an aside: Yes, Felix, there are a sizable number of people who commute with iPads. And the NYT does itself no favors in making the print edition more expensive to have it delivered than to buy at the newsstand.)

By: KenG_CA

KenG_CA — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:21:14 +0000

There are ways to work around the Apple rules, although everyone is right and Apple is wrong on this. A publisher could offer a free app that reads a digital magazine format (epub + video + audio), which does not have to necessarily be sold through the app store. A European company, Woodwing, actually offers a service to do just this, although you will be trading Apple’s mobster cut for theirs (I don’t know how much they charge). The publisher could sell the subscriptions on their website, and Apple couldn’t tell whether the files that are downloaded onto the ipad were purchased or obtained for free.

This should eventually be a moot issue, because I don’t expect the competing tablet OS vendors to be as aggressive with their subscription systems. Once Amazon started selling DRM-free MP3 songs, Apple did the same on itunes, and I expect that once Android and WebOS (and possibly even Blackberry) tablets are available, Apple will have to match their terns. As an Apple shareholder, I’m disappointed they would resort to such a greedy and short-sighted tactic. They have an opportunity to establish the iPad as the defacto electronic magazine platform, but their tactics are making the publishers delay their implementations, which gives Apple’s competitors a chance to make up for their inexcusable delay in offering their own tablets.

By: polit2k

polit2k — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:09:43 +0000

More analysis here:
Apple’s upcoming subscription plan is making large publishing companies hysterical. Rightfully so. Some of them built a complete business model for the iPad based on a commercial agreement that is now being revoked. Apple is not only changing the rules, but it does so in the worst possible way — in their usual cold My Way Or The Highway manner. But one of the most interesting aspects of the maddening change is the strategic thought behind Apple’s move.

http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/01/23/app les-bet-on-publishing/

By: dWj

dWj — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:52:25 +0000

My understanding is that Apple blocked a plan to give free access to print subscribers because Apple gets a cut of iPad app subscription fees. It’s possible Apple is somehow involved in this. It’s also possible that this just an attempt at price discrimination, with the expectation that a lot of people would rather buy the web subscription but that the price-insensitive customers will make this worth while. Or that the Times is comparing this in some way to the current price of a print subscription, which is well over $20 a month, while they compare web access to the current price of web access, which is free. I don’t know whether customers would buy that framing.

BTW, I’m not endorsing any of this, so much as just brainstorming.

By: RZ0

RZ0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:34:10 +0000

Charge $1 a year. People will buy what seems like a bargain.