Is Apple treating all App Store developer equally ? While Cupertino remains characteristically cockeyed - lipped , late reports indicate that Apple has reached single agreements with big publishers as the companionship strives to increase the telephone number of newspaper publisher — especially prominent ones — using its in - app subscription programme .
In February of this class , Apple formally launch its in - app subscription program . Ina press releaseat the time , Apple CEO Steve Jobs was cite at distance describing Apple ’s subscription policy :
In case Jobs ’s quote was n’t clear enough , Apple ’s insistence release got even more expressed :
… Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app , that same subscription offer must be made usable , at the same price or less , to customers who like to take from within the app .
Despite whether you agreed or discord with the policy , it was clear , publicized by Apple , and simple to translate .
Until it was n’t .
It was n’t until former May that major newspaper publisher at long last started embracing iOS subscriptions . Yet it seems as though each major publisher to make an iPad announcement has had its own unequaled arrangement . sentence , for representative , harbinger that print endorser could now get free access toTime , Sports Illustrated , andFortunevia those magazine ’ respective iPad apps . ( Time ’s People Magazine app start offering such a featureall the room back in August 2010 . ) But there ’s no option for non - print contributor to buy in - app subscription . That seems to aviate in the expression of Jobs ’s statement that “ if a publisher is seduce a subscription offer outside of the app , the same ( or better ) extend be made inside the app . ”
So how is Time pulling this off?According toThe Wall Street Journal , the publishing house struck a tidy sum with Apple , via the ship’s company ’s vice President of the United States of net divine service , Eddy Cue .
prison term is n’t the only publishing company to deflect Apple ’s ear , either . Publishing giant Hearst subsequently announced architectural plan to bringEsquire , Popular Mechanics , andOto the iPad , double-dyed with in - app subscription . The Wall Street Journalquoted a Hearst spokeswoman as saying “ We came to a middling and equitable stack [ with Apple ] ” after what theJournaldescribed as “ calendar month of talks . ” The details of that negotiation , and whether it concerned price , ratifier data , or other considerations , were n’t bring out .
But , thoughHearst sell Esquire photographic print subscriptionsfor $ 8 per year ( or $ 6 per year if you prepay for three years in advance ) , the publisher says that the iPad subscription will cost $ 2 per month or $ 20 per yr . So much for Apple ’s precondition that the “ same subscription offer must be made available , at the same price or less , to customers who wish to support from within the app . ”
Lest you remember just Hearst and Time were alone in reaching their own deals with Apple , let ’s make Condé Nast into the mixing . The newspaper publisher has already added musical accompaniment for in - app subscription to itsNew Yorkerapp , and similar offerings forVanity Fair , Glamour , Golf Digest , Allure , Wired , Self , andGQare reportedly on the way . All but the weeklyNewYorker will reportedly be offered for $ 2 per proceeds or $ 20 per year . ButVanity FairandWiredoffer a two - year mark subscriptions for $ 30 , which their iPad offerings ostensibly wo n’t match or beat . You believably wo n’t be surprised to hear thatTheWall Street Journal’sAll Things Digital blog reportsthat Condé Nast got “ a few concessions ” from Apple before concord to launch iOS subscriptions . smell a pattern here ?
It seems obvious , given all this grounds , that Apple is treating big publisher otherwise from other potential provider of App Store subscription — perhaps even take them on a case - by - case basis . ( The same may be rightful forApple ’s insurance on sellers of digital depicted object , like e - books . ) Apple , however , has n’t responded toMacworld ’s inquiry about the details of its negotiations with those publishers , and whether they represent a wholesale insurance change .
Where Apple may be misstepping , however , is in the want of any public remark regarding its clearly germinate policy . If Appleismaking formula changes across the control board , that ’s dependable news for publisher , and Apple should make certain that information is available to all interested parties . Right now , we could theoretically be missing out on great apps with suitable mental object , because developer and publishers conceive they ’ll be beholden to rules that Apple may in fact be abandon . If , on the other hand , Apple is only impose those rules selectively , that ’s a harder content to give up , but it ’s still one the company should stand behind publically .
