I think this remains to be seen.

I have an iPhone, and an Android phone, as well as an iPad.

At the current time, there really is no Android tablet. Sure, rumors abound, but ground is being conquered NOW with the iPad.

The Android phones I've used have been nice, but the whole iPhone user experience, from app-store to interaction, just feels "cleaner" and more efficient to me.

The content providers will go after whatever space provides them the great profit. This is mostly a factor of user-base exposure in terms of users who actually purchase things, not just raw handset numbers. The Economist would take 60% of a $1.00 subscription from 200 Million users over 99% of a $5.00 subscription from 5 million users (just making up stats to make a point).

If Apple can deliver the users and the dollars, plus create a whole fully-integrated elegant content-delivery subsystem, they'll win this market. If they can't, they'll lose it or share it with Android, WinMo7, etc.

One thing about Apple though, they do not appear to make random sporadic decisions. They seem to price things with much consideration, factoring in their position, value-add, and what the market will bear.

> They seem to price things with much consideration, factoring in their position, value-add, and what the market will bear.

If Apple had different categories of content that required different rates, I might be able to see that point. However, this looks like they just said "let's get our 30% from subscriptions as well".

Currently, Android Market doesn't support subscription billing. Please note that collecting payments through your application is not allowed under the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement. -- http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an...

> Apple just gave up the content app space to Android.

* There is no android tablet (or android for tablet, for that matter

* The android market does not support subscriptions

> Do you think the Economist, the Financial Times, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Rdio and others are really going to hand over 30% of their subscriber revenue?

Depends on one thing and one thing only: do they believe they can reach (at least 70% of) those clients an other way. If they don't, then you bet your ass they will.

Several new tablets have been announced. Moreover, the lack of a subscription API didn't stop the mentioned services from creating iPad apps to begin with.

Those services are all successful independent of their iOS app. They have no reason to buckle. Instead, they can turn the pressure back onto Apple.

In speaking with several developers this morning, I know some are halting iOS development based on this. For those that can, they'll offer the service via website only.

"the lack of a subscription API didn't stop the mentioned services from creating iPad apps to begin with."

But, Android does not allow _any_ subscription services, especially self-developed ones:

"Please note that collecting payments through your application is not allowed under the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement."

Why did Rupert Murdoch decide to launch on the iPad then? The fact is the majority of tablet users right now are iPad users and iPad users are far more likely to pay for premium content.

Why did he buy MySpace? Maybe he's just behind the curve?

My only point is this kind of reasoning is weak.

He did specify at the launch that he thought this 30% would be negotiable after a year. Should be an interesting conversation when it happens.

That will all depend on what competition emerges.

How much of subscriber revenue goes out to shipping magazines and newspapers to people's doors and stores?

In comparison, 30% may not be that big of a deal, especially when you can reach a global audience.

Subscriptions are a money looser for most magazines. The end game with subscriptions (historically) has been to support ad rates that are calculated on a Cost Per Thousand readers basis. Ads are where they've made the bulk of their profit/revenue.

A better place to look for a comparison is the cost structure of selling magazines on the newsstand. In that situation, it's a 33/33/33 split between the publisher, a distributer middle-man, and the retailer selling the magazine.

In either situation, however, retaining 70% of the revenue is a HUGE advantage over the old way of doing it for ad-driven properties.

With news/magazines, at least, yes, they will. They're already handing over more than 30% of their subscribe revenue to the folks who print and deliver their stuff.

But will the Economist, the Financial Times, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu pass up on the large amount of iOS users out there? They could easily make up losses with new users. (Higher volume of users, Easier billing system, more user friendly,etc etc)

Amazon with their current pricing structure with ebooks can NOT, because on anything priced from 2.99 to 9.99 their own cut is only 30% of the sale price.

yep, they will.