Can't move Newsstand into a Group.

[Kaykaykay]

This really is not about Newsstand. The app versions of the Economist and the New Yorker were available before Newsstand came along. And I don't see that print is better when I can have multiple editions of The Economist loaded on my iPad to have with me on the plane, which I regularly do. I couldn't see the point of lugging extra paper around, or having to depend on getting an Internet connection to read it on the Web.

But as I said, different strokes for different folks.

I've never lugged around the Economist; a single issue is pretty thin, lol. I bring the latest copy and my iPad has a bunch of other content, of course, when on a plane. Let's say the plane is taking off or landing, that's when print is readable and digital isn't.

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.

 

[jsh1120]

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."

 

[Kaykaykay]

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."

Agreed about Newsstand functionality or lack of, depending on user preference.

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.

 

[singlestick]

I've never lugged around the Economist; a single issue is pretty thin, lol. I bring the latest copy and my iPad has a bunch of other content, of course, when on a plane. Let's say the plane is taking off or landing, that's when print is readable and digital isn't.

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.

It's very informative to learn about other people's travel choices. I load up all my books on the Kindle app, and archive magazines on various iPad apps. I don't want to have any physical copies of anything when I travel, not even for the brief segments of takeoff and landing. Sometimes I would leave a book or magazine in a coffee shop or my room. Now I just have to remember not to forget my iPad.

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.

 

[Kaykaykay]

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.

It's a long-term commitment for publishers to distribute their content over multiple platforms, including not just building and distributing apps, but maintaining customer support and continuing updates. They also end up having to split their revenue with multiple companies. That's why a Web app is appealing.

 

[singlestick]

It's a long-term commitment for publishers to distribute their content over multiple platforms, including not just building and distributing apps, but maintaining customer support and continuing updates. They also end up having to split their revenue with multiple companies. That's why a Web app is appealing.

A web app is just another front end. I am not sure that it is either more or less appealing than any other method of delivering a magazine to a consumer. It's good to have multiple delivery methods and options.

The "Project" magazine app, which I don't think exists as either a physical magazine or a Web based product, used to be a standalone app. Now it shows up in Newsstand. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future.

 

[Kaykaykay]

A Web app can be built to scale for many devices, rather than an app tailored for Android, iOS, etc. The work isn't readily visible to users, but the content (headlines, photos, captions, blurbs, etc.,) must be written and cropped differently for various apps, etc., which still requires labor-intensive cropping and editing, for instance. This work is changed multiple times a day for many news stories, as news develops. The more applications a publisher attempts, the more work is needed even as publishing is financially strapped. Publishers have to decide what they can reasonably manage, which is why for instance the paper you mentioned is probably available only on Kindle, and not Android and iOS, too. The Kindle display is very limited, and less labor-intensive. And there are few labor-intensive doo-dads, like links, graphics, etc.