Financial Times Web App More Popular Than Native iOS App

Site hits does not equal app downloads. That doesn't mean it's not impressive and doesn't have strong value to have a web app versus a native one, especially if you disagree with Apple's rules, but it's not a one-to-one comparison.

Doesn't matter

"spending much more time with the content," he said. "They are consuming about three times as many pages through the app as they are through the desktop in an average visit."

Is the key part.

More time + More page views = higher advertising costs.

Advertisers love sites with longer views and increase readership.

I'm not buying that unless they are talking about gross hits or those who went to check out the site once. FT has some pretty creepy paywall policies which I found out with the app. Your "ten free articles per month" end up being zero. It always said I had used up my ten. Unless you subscribe to the print version at $250/yr and then to the online version for a further $350, you get nothing. Subscribing binds the user into a perpetual renewal contract unless canceled well in advance of the anniversary date at which time you lose any remaining time on the subscription. With FT being unable to count to 10, I opted for The Economist which offers free, full access with a print subscription. Those who can afford $600 per year for the FT are welcome to it.

Wonder if other news papers will follow suit? Such as the times.

Well I actually canceled my subscription because they were pushing this web app idea so hard. I take the train to work every day where I only have a very slow to partly non-existent Internet connection. So I used to download the ft before leaving and read it on the train. Not possible anymore. Thanks FT. And I am sure I ain't the only one who feels that way.

It is still possible, the web app downloads in exactly the same way for offline reading. That's exactly what I do before getting on a train or plane.

I was sceptical about the web app when they first announced it, but I think it's works excellently and kudos to them producing something so seamless out with the app store.

If cloud computing is the future, then web apps are the futer as well.

The Financial Times reports its web app, launched this past June, has more readers than the version sold on the App Store, which has since been removed.

:confused:

In other news, Ford outselling Pontiac which has since been discontinued.

I find it really irritating that they dont sell single issues on the web app. You can buy them in a Kindle, but not on a Kindle iOS app.

I wrote to FT about this. Theyre pretty smug and happy that you either subscribe or you dont read FT. I think the best way to get new regular subscribers is to let them buy single issues. I told them that - they didnt seem to care.

I used to buy single issues of the paper editions. Theyve lost me now though.

Native iOS app would be better of course, but I agree with publishers that Apple's 30% cut is too much, and I support publishers on this. And by the way, usually publishers have received personal info from subscribers, so why suddenly everyone is against it?

I am a paid FT subscriber..i love the native appp. But FT has been agressively pushing all the users to switch to the webapp to avoid paying future revenues to Apple. The main issue is that webapp is cache dependent. If you like to keep logged in, you cannot register your cookies etc. once you do so, you need to relog in with the webapp version. IOS 5 is coming with a private browse function that is clearing cache often, Which will force webapp users to relog in eachtime they use the webapp given they ios' private browse option is on.

Main reason FT webapp is more popular is only due to FTs aggressive force on native app users each time they use the app. It bugs to hell out of me to be promted that there is a webapp for FT, 5 times a day.

The web makes news very very affordable now a days.