[c2]

The flip side of course is that these apps make the iPhone/iPad more appealing to more people. I can see Apple shooting themselves in the foot with their predatory practices against app publishers. Losing a big chunk of your margin while developing apps for free for Apple's products is only going to be sustainable for so long. And more likely then not, it will drive away the big players first where each percent means more.

[Samuel_Michon]

A supermarket that sells magazines will appeal more than a supermarket that doesn't. That doesn't mean it owes its success to the magazine publishers.

I very much doubt that the availability of magazine and newspaper apps like The Daily will be a primary reason for customers to buy an iPad.

[OpieCunningham]

Magazines in a supermarket are slotted, so the publisher is paying the supermarket to stock the magazine.

[Samuel_Michon]

In a supermarket, shelf space is limited. Online retailers like Apple and Amazon have virtually unlimited shelf space. That's one of the reasons why distributing paid content online is so much cheaper than in print. Compared to print, Apple's 30% take for payment processing, marketing and distribution is a great deal. That's how News Corp can offer a daily newspaper via the App Store for only $1 a week, for which you would normally pay $1 a day.