Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 99,458

                  1. Think of it this way, is giving Apple 50% of your subscription revenue any worse then giving Google and Facebook 70% of your advertising revenue? I think the sad consequence of the economics of digital media is these shares are likely the same for many, and Apple did the math.
                1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                  It's shitty to hold publishers over the barrel, but honestly it's a better deal than most small / medium media companies get out of their display units and the accounting is a lot clearer. Most display ads only end up with 40% of associated revenue ending up in publisher pockets
              1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                Depending on how they're allowed to price their subscription, they may make more money per user, who knows. The real question is if it eats into existing users or brings totally new subscribers.
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              Anyway, thanks ad tech for making it a better deal for some publishers to cede 50% of their revenue from subscriptions than to try to run ads on their site. That's not a great place at all.
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            I mean this is basically the same deal as FBIA, Snapchat, Facebook Watch and maintaining a Facebook page. pilhofer/1096037680528478208?s=19
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          None of this is good. But it is worth noting that Apple's proposal is not out of nowhere in terms of approach or pricing structure.
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        It's just blunter and more obvious about it.
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      The problem is less Apple "twisting the knife" more that the media has already been stabbed multiple times and keeps asking to be stabbed more while pushing out press releases about how great it is to partner with knife wielding maniacs.
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    Apps were a mistake. Once we gave over to two big tech companies the portal to the internet and accepted them sticking their own marketplaces and rules in front of them we made this sort of thing inevitable. We didn't give away the news for free, we gave away the internet.
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        It wasn't like we didn't see this coming. Chronotope/199511425641754624?s=19
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          Everything repeats. No one learns.
          oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            Anyway, this is the world we let ourselves be pushed into. I think publishers don't have a great choice here, but honestly it's better than some other options. The marketplace needs to be fixed and Apple subscriptions really doesn't have a lot to do with it one way or the other
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              That said, Apple could have done a lot more and offered a better price simply to seem less villainous for nice PR. I know capitalism means maximizing the money, but they sure have a lot of it already. I understand this is basically asking for charity, but seriously.
              1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                I was thinking this is more dangerous for them then they realize, because they could easily kick off a war on pricing by aggregation apps, but then I realized they would get a cut of that too, so they don't really care.
                1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                  It is the same thing for them as it is for Facebook, or Google, if you're the gatekeeper of the Internet for a huge swath of the population than any deal will make you more money because even the competition has to go through you.


Search tweets' text