I think calling it 'stupid' is a little strong. There are hundreds of millions of iOS users, and many newspapers exist serving cities with smaller populations than that.
iOS is also a very different environment with regards to payment:
- On iOS the process of purchasing paid and free apps is the same: you type in your password.
- On the web the process of purchasing paid applications has built-in friction: 'free' is the default, and payment requires the user to trust the store, input card information etc.
There are more people on the web, but web users are less willing to pay for things.
I don't deny that a larger audience is better, but it adds overhead to support more platforms, so focusing on one can be an advantage. Marco, the creator of The Magazine (http://the-magazine.org), mentioned that he hasn't ruled out other platforms, but with limited resources it's easier to focus on iOS for now (he's the sole developer). Apparently after four issues he already has enough income to pay market rates per-word to writers and hire an editor.
> I don't deny that a larger audience may be better, but it adds overhead to support more platforms, so focusing on just one can be an advantage
Publishers should however consider approaching their readers with respect. Limiting access to content with platform is not pleasant for those who don't use that platform. In case of physical books / magazines there is no such limitation. So spending some more resources to avoid offending potential readers is a worthy goal. Plus as I said that overhead doesn't sound to be that dramatic - what's so difficult in providing a link to a PDF?
For example when you buy e-books through some web store, you don't expect all of them to be free, you pay and get your PDF/ePUB or whatever. So it's not an entirely foreign concept for the web.
And comparison with regional physical newspaper distribution is not valid, since physical media is limited with physical space. Digital media is not - it can easily be distributed anywhere the network can reach, as far as publisher put just minimal effort to publish it in accessible form. So there is for sure nothing smart in limiting the distribution media to one isolated platform.
Back of a napkin, shaky math, but if we say The Magazine has maybe 25k subscribers it should net about $42105 after Apple's cut per month, which is pretty damn good money for what's essentially a niche publication, but it's not exactly cash to start throwing after other platforms until it's got a consolidated base on one platform. That 25k could turn to 5k tomorrow if the quality dips.
iOS is also a very different environment with regards to payment:
- On iOS the process of purchasing paid and free apps is the same: you type in your password.
- On the web the process of purchasing paid applications has built-in friction: 'free' is the default, and payment requires the user to trust the store, input card information etc.
There are more people on the web, but web users are less willing to pay for things.
I don't deny that a larger audience is better, but it adds overhead to support more platforms, so focusing on one can be an advantage. Marco, the creator of The Magazine (http://the-magazine.org), mentioned that he hasn't ruled out other platforms, but with limited resources it's easier to focus on iOS for now (he's the sole developer). Apparently after four issues he already has enough income to pay market rates per-word to writers and hire an editor.