For international coverage, I much prefer the Economist, the NYT/IHT and the Financial Times. I admit I tend to go light on cultural/features coverage. If I have time, I might read some, if not, oh well.
I still take the Economist in print (with free online access), because there are times when print is better, like when on a plane about to take off or land, lol.
I have several subscriptions that I have that I wish would go onto Newsstand. There are things that are not practical for the programmers to do, and pleasing everyone is part of the issue. And then you have to deal with the issue that most app programmers are not up to the task of a full feature app. The companies hire somebody to come in and create an app like every other app. The type of app where they take a generic template and add a few details to get by.
Supporting Newsstand is very simple. Ask your subscription services to do so in their next update
But as I said, different strokes for different folks.
The Newsstand complaint basically is lack of choice for certain content. The NYT, Financial Times and Economist, for example, have online content that isn't locked to an app. Sounds like the New Yorker is not accessible in the same way, if you want all its content, so you're stuck with using Newsstand.
Last edited by Kaykaykay; 10-23-2011 at 02:25 AM.
Just to clarify. If an app for a publication is available on the iPad Apple gets 30% of the subscription price, a deal similar to other apps in the Apple App Store. That's true whether the publication is part of "Newsstand," or not. The major advantage of an app (Newsstand enabled or not) is the local archiving features the app typically provides. This can be duplicated to some extent by third party apps (e.g. instapaper) that archive web-based content (assuming it is available). Otherwise, the only advantage is a user experience optimized for the iPad.
The only difference between the New Yorker as an app on the iPad (prior to iOS 5) and the New Yorker as a hostage of "Newsstand" is that I must now have an ugly icon with an extra step involved to access my subscription. Conde Nast paid Apple the same 30% for iPad access that it now pays for inclusion in Newsstand. Newsstand is nothing more than an electronic Apple version of Publishers Clearing House, the equivalent of junk mail that clutters up my screen rather than filling my mailbox. The only difference is that I can't win millions of dollars by using "Newsstand."
I think it's smart for publications to want exposure to the iOS market, but the smarter ones will have a wider strategy of creating non-iOS apps as well, to give readers choice. In such cases, the publication can collect 100% of subscription fees, rather than splitting with Apple. The Financial Times does that with an iOS app, as well as its own Web app, for example. That approach also gives the publisher direct access to readers' info, which is a valuable commodity.
The New Yorker and other pubs could do likewise, which would allow readers to skip Newsstand altogether if they liked.
Last edited by Kaykaykay; 10-23-2011 at 01:34 PM.
The Newsstand is just a new access portal. It does not affect the functionality of the New Yorker in any way. I think the Kindle Fire is going to use a variation of a Newsstand as well.
Some publishers try to make their publications available everywhere, a very smart move. But one oddity I ran across not too long ago was a daily newspaper that was available on the native Kindle device, but not on the Kindle app for either iOS or Android.
Last edited by singlestick; 10-23-2011 at 03:01 PM.