Apple now requires that newspaper and periodical apps offering access to subscription content either offer subscriptions through in-app purchase, which entitles Apple to a 30 percent cut of all revenue, or remove links to their own external subscription sign-up pages. FT‘s subscriptions were handled outside of the store, and rather than just remove the sign up link like competitor The Wall Street Journal  did, FT apparently prefers removing its native software altogether in the hopes that readers will make the transition to the web-based app.

The problem with Apple’s model wasn’t so much the revenue split, according to FT CEO John ridding, who spoke to paidContent.org recently. More important to the newspaper was the valuable customer information normally gathered through subscriptions, which under Apple’s model is an opt-in process that customers can decide on for themselves, rather than something passed on to the publisher automatically. FT‘s revenue model depends on its ability to gather that information, which isn’t guaranteed through Apple’s system.

But the effect the iPad has had on FT‘s digital success is not insignificant. FT.com now represents around one-quarter of the newspaper’s overall sales, and the iPad was directly leading to around 10 percent of the company’s digital subscriptions.  Since the iPad’s introduction, however, the FT has seen around 100,000 new subscriptions, and even if only a fraction of those actually signed up through the iPad, that doesn’t mean other web-based subscribers didn’t consider iPad access a motivating factor in their decision.

The web app has already seen 550,000 users according to the FT, but it also provided free access for multiple weeks following launch, so it’s too early to say whether it’ll be able to drive the same kind of subscriber increases that the app managed.

So far, Apple has had mixed results when it comes to convincing publishers to embrace its subscription model, but many magazines in particular seem to be on board, and that number is growing. That might be because magazines depend more heavily on advertising dollars as opposed to subscriber info for revenue. FT is actually planning to continue to use the App Store for those type of products, including its How To Spend It weekend luxury magazine.

For those interested in seeing how an outsider approach to Apple’s ecosystem works out when compared to playing nice with Apple’s guidelines in exchange for a spot in the App Store, the FT represents a near-perfect test case, so stay tuned.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Flash analysis: Steve Jobs
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

FT cited several music industry executives as the source of the information. Apple has apparently been making sure its music label partners have a clear view of how it intends to use the cloud. It’s likely the company is doing this to assure the labels it’s sticking to the pay-per track model, allaying any fears its subscription revenue plans may have raised.

Apple is still planning to make use of the cloud (Tim Cook basically said as much discussing the new N.C. data center Apple will be opening this spring), but those plans don’t involve unlimited streaming of Apple’s exhaustive library to subscribing customers. Instead, Apple wants to make it possible for users to back up their existing iTunes music collections online, making them available for remote access from any Mac or iOS device associated with the user’s Apple ID (which sounds a lot like what a revamped MobileMe media “locker” aims to accomplish).

Apple sees its strategy as a form of “insurance” for iTunes customers, according to one person who spoke with FT. Apple may be spinning it that way to record labels to avoid butting heads with them over additional royalties the labels want paid for remote playback.

Currently, Apple maintains a dominant presence in the music sales business. Until it begins to feel pressure from serious competition using a subscription-based model, there’s no real reason for it to endanger that position at present. Serious competition could be just around the corner, however, as Spotify and Google both appear to be ramping up to deliver cloud-based music solutions, and Sony continues to expand the reach of its Music Unlimited service. Mike Wolf paints a good picture of the overall landscape, detailing those and other players.

Will a cloud-based locker for your existing collection satisfy your remote music needs? Or is unlimited, subscription-based streaming the ultimate future of digital music distribution?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d)

• Three Ways Google Can Succeed in E-books
• Strategies for the Future of Digital Content Storage
• Google’s Route to Your Wallet: Music and books

Amazon announced that it would be increasing the revenue split for newspapers and magazines sold in the Kindle store to 70/30 after delivery costs, with the larger chunk going to publishers. It’s the same deal Apple offers, so the Kindle store should see an influx of content, but it’s the not the part of the deal that hold the most promise for Amazon.

In exchange for the new distribution of revenue, Amazon now requires that all periodicals must be able to be read on any platform on which the Kindle application appears, including the iPhone, iPad and Android devices. Currently, content delivered through newspaper and magazine subscriptions in the Kindle store can only be viewed on actual Kindle hardware. Extending the “buy once, read anywhere” strategy that’s helping Amazon win the e-book war will greatly increase its chances in this battle, too.

Making Kindle periodicals cross-platform will give Amazon the advantage when it comes to providing digital subscriptions on iOS devices. Since the Kindle reader is a proven success, and the Kindle Store has a much wider reach than the Apple iBookstore, that should translate into a big lead in the digital magazine market, too.

The New Yorker costs $4.99 per issue if bought as an iPad app. Subscriptions to the magazine in the Kindle Store only cost $2.99 per month. It’s a large gap, and users aren’t likely to be willing to pay the difference even if the iPad versions are specifically formatted for the platform and contain some extra interactive content. Kindle’s interactive digital editions, introduced back in February, may help narrow the feature gap anyway.

If Amazon can convince publishers to accept the new deal and provide cross-platform content, something it clearly hopes to encourage via the new, easier publishing tool it also announced alongside the new revenue model, then Apple might be stuck on the outside looking in when it comes to digital periodical sales.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• In Q3, E-Books and White Spaces Ruled
• Mobile Operators’ Strategies for Connected Devices
• Is Amazon The New Self-Publish Kingpin?

Apple is whispering in the ear of major record labels, heightening their fears that the ad-based model doesn’t provide enough revenue, and that download sales of music content, which already suck, could get worse still if Spotify is allowed to make landfall here. According to CNET, at least one of those record label’s CEOs, Edgar Bronfman Jr. of Warner Music Group, is already firmly set against Spotify’s way of doing business. Though it’s worth noting that Warner Music Group is traditionally last on board most new technology initiatives.

If Spotify is willing to pay big royalties for content up front, chances are music labels will allow them entry into the market. Rumors are circulating that Spotify will be part of Windows Phone 7 launch coming early next week. If it does come that soon, though, it’ll probably only offer a limited catalogue.

Record industry buzz suggests that Apple is taking the opportunity of Spotify’s looming presence to renew its talks with labels around a streaming music subscription service. Cupertino may be banking on the fact that with Spotify and possibly Google knocking at the door with ad-supported models in hand, a paid subscription service (which guarantees revenue up front) may be much more attractive to the music industry. Apple also offers a built-in device ecosystem that boasts an attractively large prospective subscriber base, owing to strong sales of the iPod, iPhone, iPad and now Apple TV.

Apple’s iTunes chief Eddy Cue is certainly hoping that’s something a tune record execs will find pleasing to the ear, as he’s been on the phone within the past few weeks trying to get talks about subscription plans moving again, according to the New York Post. One thing’s certain: The future of music (and media in general) is in the cloud, and the first company that gets the music industry to finally submit to that idea in a big way will have a huge advantage over its competitors.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Strategies for the Future of Digital Content Storage
• Upset About Your Cloud Contract? Tough Luck.
• Who Owns Your Data in the Cloud?

The iPad is a great e-reading device, but it falters when compared with the Kindle in that there is no consistent means of subscribing to periodicals. Some apps feature in-app purchases to get around this (i.e., the Times), some, like Zinio, handle it outside of Apple’s iTunes store framework, and the iBooks app is missing such a system altogether. According to sources familiar with the matter, though, Apple is about to remedy that with a new subscription scheme tailored to digital newspapers.

Industry watchers predict the revenue scheme will resemble existing models, with Apple grabbing 30 percent of all subscription fees, and possibly nearer 40 percent of advertising revenue from the digital newspapers. Cupertino has also apparently agreed to an opt-in function for subscribers to share their data with publishers, instead of just with Apple itself, which is normally the case for transactions made through iTunes.

According to Roger Fidler of the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute (via San Jose Mercury News), newspaper publishers aren’t thrilled at the deal. They wanted to pay Apple a straight fee rather than a percentage of profits derived from subscriptions and advertising. Advertising in newspapers generally subsidizes subscription costs, so handing over a significant portion of both will mean that news outlets have to look at restructuring how they make money, and from where.

It’s not surprising that Apple wouldn’t want to change the revenue formula that’s worked for it in other areas. It enjoys a 70/30 split on all apps and in-app purchases currently, and a 60/40 split from its iAd in-app advertising platform. To extend the rules to newspapers is just common sense.

But digital advertising isn’t as effective as print. And the fear is that even with large numbers of subscribers to digital editions, it won’t be able to support the bottom line since attracting advertisers will be difficult. Not to mention that people will still expect to pay the same low fees for subscriptions, if not less because they think digital publishing incurs less cost than traditional, paper-based production.

Bottom line, newspapers have to start delivering content in a way that extends beyond presenting a scanned page or a glorified RSS reader to users if they want to attract new revenue. They should take a cue from Wired and other iPad magazine apps which have made full use of the platform, embedding interactive and rich media content into their designs.

Better yet, start from scratch and build something from the ground up aimed specifically at tablet computers. It’s a risk, but is it any more of one than continuing to watch readership numbers fall?

Time Inc. is the publisher that finally convinced Apple to bypass the pay-per-issue model and allow existing subscribers to reap the benefits of their iPads. As of Thursday, People magazine allows existing subscribers to download and view current content on their iPads for free. Subscribers forced into paying twice for the same content had previously contributed to extremely negative reviews for apps like Sports Illustrated and others.

Apple’s reluctance is understandable. In allowing existing magazine subscribers to essentially bypass its own in-app purchasing system, it gives up a considerable share of revenue. Magazines and other publications now have a precedent for charging users outside of the App Store itself for content delivered within, which could pose a considerable threat to Apple’s bottom line.

On the other hand, Apple fought hard to win over the magazine publishers prior to the launch of the iPad, and it wasn’t exactly doing itself any favours in terms of fostering good will by alienating the magazines’ subscribers. Allowing for external subscriptions to apply within the App Store should pay off in that it will allow a pool of new users a way into the iPad through traditional media avenues.

Other Time Inc. properties like Sports Illustrated and Fortune are expected to follow suit with free content for subscribers in the near future. I’d expect other publishers to be shortly behind them. Even better for iPad users, this should prompt a number of fence-sitting magazines to jump on the iPad bandwagon, since it allows them to expand their customer base without requiring they buy into a revenue-sharing model.

Related GigaOM Pro Research: The iPad: Cable TV For Publishers?

The service is currently in private beta, but you can sign up for the opportunity to try it out. Invites appear to be going out already, though who knows how many folks will get a chance early on in the private program. The subscription will run $9.99 per month, and give season pass type access to full seasons of television shows, as well as past seasons for some programming. All of the content will purportedly be presented in glorious HD.

Though the service itself is in private beta, the iPhone/iPad app is available right now for download. There is a gallery of free sample content and a tour of the content offerings as a whole, but otherwise you must have a beta invite to log in and do more.

It looks fairly similar to the ABC television layout — and interestingly, highlights some of the ABC programming that’s freely available via its iPad app. The app works and feels much like the browser-based and desktop interfaces, which was a good move to keep things simple for anyone already familiar with the service. The search functions in real-time and gives an immediate listing of available content for consumption in an easy to navigate layout. You can even hide the top horizontal pane to focus on the shows that you’re looking for without distractions. From a player perspective, you can pause and play, but like the existing service, there are intermittent commercials to sit through which you cannot skip.

I’d be lying if I said this premise didn’t piqué a little bit of interest for me. However, a couple of things seem odd. The first, is that they aren’t clear whether the private beta is allowing you to try it for free, or try it with the $10-a-month subscription. I would hope the former if, but it doesn’t seem to be stated where I could find any clarification. The other odd part, is enabling this subscription service and content for web-enabled television sets. Content-wise, we’re talking about free, over the air network television programming, not cable which may be limited to some people who would pay $10 a month for this access. We can already watch this stuff on our TVs without paying for it. Oh, and we’re still getting commercials while paying for this otherwise free content? Hm…

Yes, there are older shows available, and yes, it’s cool to see this stuff on the go via iPad or iPhone, but with many people having DVRs and Sling devices — not to mention Netflix and the ABC apps for iPad — how enticing will Hulu Plus actually be? If you’ve gotten an invite and have some insights to share on the topic — or even have an opinion (we know you do) about the attractiveness of this new offering — we’re all ears. Guess Flash on the iPhone wasn’t such a big barrier after all.

Apple’s subscription strategy makes the most sense when viewed alongside the introduction of a larger screen iPod device. Some will buy the “iPod Tablet” because it’s new and exciting, but at an average of $25 or more per season per show, iTunes as it currently exists won’t be replacing your cable company anytime soon. However, with a network-wide subscription service, the balance changes.

More devices means the same content in more places for the same monthly fee. Your Apple TV becomes the digital hub Steve always imagined it to be and, hopefully, gets upgraded by Apple to handle it’s new role as a set-top box. Your iPod Tablet becomes your TV anywhere device; not as good as your home TV, but much better than your iPhone.

Back in June, I wrote how cable companies and Apple were on a collision course, and the WSJ’s article only reinforces the points I made then. It’s not just cable companies of course; DirecTV, AT&T Uverse and other traditional media distribution companies will feel just as threatened. Cable companies, though, are the most established in the field and have the most to lose. Combined free HD over-the-air local broadcasts and a iTunes network subscription for premium content, and Apple really starts looking like a spoiler to Comcast and the like.

Cable companies bundle content to increase revenue. Subscribers can’t pick and choose channels a la carte. If you want ESPN, you often have to pay for Disney and ABC Family. To be fair, the networks, not the media distribution companies, are sometimes the ones forcing these packages down our throats. Want SyFy? Then NBC/Universal can make the cable company carry other owned stations such as MSNBC and Bravo. The cost of the additional channels is passed along to the consumer.

Pricing a few shows from the same network on iTunes today, I find it’s often cheaper to just buy the next tier with your provider rather than subscribe “per show” via iTunes. Apple’s new plan changes these traditional rules. According the the WSJ article, networks actually make more money by removing the cable company middleman. It’s the cable providers and local affiliates that are left hurting.

Not only do the traditional cable companies lose subscriber money, but they also lose their fringe revenue sources. All of a sudden people aren’t renting expensive DVR. They also lose lucrative “On Demand,” opportunities as well as local advertising dollars as consumers downgrade their channel lineup or drop their subscription altogether.

Is it any surprise that Comcast wants to buy NBC/Universal? Do they see where Apple is going? Probably. The value isn’t in the pipe providing content, but the content itself. Time shifting and place shifting are empowering consumers and raising expectations. Hulu, Boxee, Slingbox, iTunes, and Netflix allow us to watch our TV shows practically anywhere. Live sports is one area Apple hasn’t quite figured out, but it’s only a matter of time. Considering Steve Job’s relationship with Disney, which owns ESPN, I expect some innovative method of providing live content to the forthcoming tablet.

Apple pushed the music industry hard to allow digital distribution — and won. First, they got a majority of labels to provide content to iTunes, and then convinced them to drop the DRM. Does Apple have the muscle to push the TV industry while fighting local franchise authorities? Even with Steve Jobs on the board of Disney, I think Apple bit off more than they can chew.

Expect the hardest pushback from companies that provide both TV and internet service. Some will even employ internet bandwidth restrictions or tactics that violate the principles of net neutrality. They’ll also claim that since Apple isn’t a Multiple System Operator as defined by the FCC, Apple is an unfair competitor. Unlike cable companies, Apple isn’t bound by “Must Carry” rules, and the cable companies will cry foul.

Who will win? In reality, the networks and the cable companies are already at war, Apple just decided to choose sides. I want Apple to win so I can ditch the cable company, but I think the deck is stacked against the Mac maker, and the backlash of any small victories will prevent other networks from signing on. Only the Ghost of Christmas Future knows the outcome.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Apple’s Path to the Living Room
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015

According to “multiple sources” speaking to All Things Digital’s Peter Kafka, Apple is trying to gather support for a monthly subscription service that would see TV programs made available via iTunes in an on-demand basis. Luckily for most, Apple is keeping the proposed service open to all platforms, instead of trying to use it to bolster lackluster Apple TV sales figures, as one might reasonable expect.

Interestingly enough, Gene Munster actually predicted Apple might do something like this, though he predicted 2011 as the launch year. Apple’s proposed launch timeframe for the new service is early 2010, but that’ll be a tall order given the current state of buy-in from content providers. Networks are happy to provide shows for purchase on the iTunes service, but a move to a subscription model would represent a complete change in the relationship between Apple and the programmers.

Giving that much power over distribution to Cupertino could result in a relationship similar to the one that exists between Apple and record labels, in which the computer maker holds an uneven balance of power because of its ability to reach the consumer. Networks are probably also not very eager to damage the existing arrangements between themselves and cable/satellite providers, which still represents significant revenue from subscription fees, despite the recent consumer turn towards web-based content.

Apple’s proposal comes close on the heals of Hulu’s announced plans to begin charging for some of its service, and I don’t think the timing is coincidental. The time is coming when digital distribution becomes the default method for content provision, and Apple clearly means to spearhead the movement.

Success now will depend on offering a good enough revenue sharing deal to the networks to make it worth their while to sign on. It’s a question of finding the right tipping point to convince programmers that the potential gain outweighs the considerable risks. The key will be convincing multiple big name networks to join in, since this will only succeed if we as consumers think Apple is providing enough variety to justify ditching our cable subscription.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

Mary Jo Foley reports on her ZDnet blog that Microsoft is seriously considering making Zune services, such as the subscription-based Zune Pass, available to other platforms — and that includes Apple’s very own Mac OS X.

It’s early days though, as Foley admits, “There’s no guarantee that the Redmondians will end up doing this — or timetable as to when this could happen — but it’s one of many strategies under active consideration.”

She adds, “I’ve been thinking that there might be a number of Apple iPod/iPhone users who might prefer a music subscription service over a pay-per-song one. (And one that’s better than Rhapsody.)”

Jose Pinero, Director of Communications for Microsoft’s TV, Video and Music Business told Foley that:

“…with the addition of the ability to stream music from a browser that is part of the new Zune 4.0 experience, Mac and Linux users already can stream music to their systems if they have a Zune Pass subscription. The streaming capability isn’t limited to Internet Explorer; it works with any browser.”

So does this mean we may see a Mac OS version of Microsoft Zune Player software appearing one day soon? The latest version,  Zune 4.0, is described in a recent review by Paul Thurrott as “…vastly superior to its only real competition, Apple’s iTunes.” Ouch.  

But as Pinero explained, Zune Pass wielding Mac owners can already use their web browser to listen to their music. What they can’t do on the Mac OS is purchase and manage their music. And that’s where a native version of the Zune software comes in.

This raises the sticky-sweet issue of the Subscription Model, and whether Apple ought to adopt it. It’s a model proven supremely successful by the likes of Rhapsody in the U.S. and Spotify in Europe. Let’s take a quick look at those services.

Spotify

Spotify is, at its most basic level, completely free (through the unpredictable insertion of thankfully-occasional unskippable ads). An optional monthly fee of £9.99 (around USD$15) buys the user a Premium Account, banishing the ads and allowing the user to store streamed songs locally on their desktop computer (and now iPhone) for listening offline.

Rhapsody

Rhapsody doesn’t offer a free service, and at $12.99 its cheapest membership level is relatively expensive when compared to Spotify. For two dollars more, Rhapsody users can store music for offline listening.

Zune Pass

Zune Pass comes in at one price only — a hefty $14.99 — and offers both unlimited streamed music and a selection of 10 downloadable tracks each month that are yours to keep. That’s 120 songs per year. If you have a PC and a Zune player, you can store songs for offline playing.

Now consider how Apple could dominate this market. At its September 9 Press Event Steve Jobs said Apple manages over one hundred million active iTunes accounts with credit cards. That’s a staggeringly huge number, and even if we make some pretty conservative estimates, we still arrive at impressive results. Try this on for size; if Apple launched a monthly subscription service, priced at just $9.99 per month (cheaper than Zune Pass, Rhapsody and Spotify) and if only one percent of its credit-card-toting iTunes customers signed-up… that’s still almost a billion dollars in the bank, per year.

There’s more. While Rhapsody, Spotify and Zune Pass all cater to our (strictly) musical needs, a subscription service from Apple could potentially draw on the vast repository of content found throughout iTunes. So, to Music we can add TV shows, movies, maybe even custom-made “premium” podcasts from high profile celebrities and artists. And in a post-Tablet 2010, it’s conceivable subscription-based magazines, newspapers, journals and books could be added in to the mix.

Others might have been first to the Subscription Model party, but it’s easy to imagine the Apple pitch: “Today, Apple reinvents the Subscription model…” only, y’know, they’d say something way more funky than that.

I can’t believe I’m excited at the prospect of yet another reason to give Apple my money. But I do believe this is a service Apple would do well to consider. The Rhapsody’s and Spotify’s of this world prove there’s a growing, lucrative market demand for streaming content. That Microsoft is seriously considering expanding its Zune Pass service to other platforms tells me, beyond a shadow of doubt, there’s gold in them thar hills. I wonder if Apple has noticed?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content

From what I’ve been reading on support forums, some users of Quicksilver saw no affect from upgrading their machines to Snow Leopard. I however, was not one of those people. And although I am warming more and more to Google Quick Search Box, I still supplement my usage of QSB with Quicksilver where the former is lacking in features. So I tinkered around until I was able to resuscitate and use Quicksilver again under Snow Leopard.

Been having similar problems? Let me walk you through the process.

First, make sure you’ve upgraded to the most current version of Quicksilver. B56a7 is the most up to date version, that is built for Snow Leopard. Download it here if you haven’t already done so. Once that’s done, go ahead and try running Quicksilver. If you’re lucky, that’s all that is needed. If you’re not, don’t fret, because we’ll figure it out in short order.

What I found to be the issue with getting my installation of Quicksilver working, was the huge collection of plug-ins that I’ve installed over the years. Plug-ins (in my opinion) are what have made Quicksilver what it is to so many of us today. They extend it into nearly every nook and cranny of your Mac, allowing you to control everything. The downside, is that some of those plug-ins are broken in OS 10.6′s new underlying architecture.

So let’s fix that.

• Navigate (using Finder) to ~/Library/Application Support/Quicksilver
• Open the ‘PlugIns’ folder
• Select all of the plug-in files, and drag them someplace else (I suggest the Desktop, for easy access, as we’ll be using them again)

Now, let’s make sure Quicksilver opens before we go any further. If at this point the answer is no, I’d recommend posting the question to the Blacktree Quicksilver group on Google. (I’m happy to help too of course, but I’m not that bright, and if I can’t duplicate your setup, there’s a slim chance I’ll be useful on the subject.) If on the other hand, Quicksilver is starting up, let’s continue.

• Quit Quicksilver
• Drag the first plug-in (that you moved somewhere, like your Desktop) back into that ~/Library/Application Support/Quicksilver/PlugIns folder
• Launch Quicksilver

Did Quicksilver remain open? Or did is crash after a few moments? If Quicksilver is still running, then that plug-in was not the culprit, and you may return to the ‘Quit Quicksilver’ step, and repeat with the next plug-in file. If Quicksilver bombed after launch, continue on below. (Does this feel like a choose your own adventure to anyone else?)

• In the ~/Library/Application Support/Quicksilver/PlugIns folder, delete the plug-in that you just placed there

Unfortunately, that plug-in was no longer valid under the new Snow Leopard architecture. At this point, you should rinse and repeat (so to speak), moving the next plug-in file from your Desktop, into the Quicksilver PlugIns folder, and then seeing if Quicksilver crashes or not. Do this until you’ve deleted the bad plug-ins, and have the rest installed, with Quicksilver running happily again.

As a point of reference, the plug-ins that appear to cause me trouble were:
- Airport Module
- Services Menu
- Text Manipulations (not 100 percent certain about this one)
- Image Manipulations (not 100 percent certain about this one)
- Any interface modules seem to be causing issues as well

The downside is, you may lose some level of functionality (if you were even using that particular plug-in) from Quicksilver. The upside is that you’ll still be able to run Quicksilver, if somewhat pared-down in capability. In my case, I didn’t lose anything I’d been using regularly. In the event that you have actually lost something of use to you, you can either downgrade back to OS 10.5.8 (probably not realistic), or wait on Google QSB to get up to speed, as I have seen some great strides on that application in a short period of time.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

The MobileMe trial began to seem like it was going to go on forever, since Apple kept tacking on more time to make up for having released a half-baked service to begin with. Sadly, not so. My own trial term recently came to an end, but by the time it did, I’d become fairly dependent on the service, so I quietly acquiesced while Apple charged my credit card for the full subscription.

Some others did not go so quietly, and promptly canceled their account rather than be caught paying. The result? All of their data not only no longer synced, it no longer existed. Part of the downfall of storing info in the cloud is that when you stop paying for said cloud, it has a very short memory. What had happened was that users who’d forgotten to disable sync in their devices’ settings had indeed synced. With their information gone from the MobileMe servers, what replaced it was blank information. Long story short, sync with nothing and you end up with nothing.

It looks like the only way to recover the data is to pay for a full year’s subscription, and then cancel said subscription. Alternatively, you can just remember to turn off MobileMe syncing before canceling your account, if you haven’t already done so.

I’m conflicted as to who’s to blame here, but I’d say Apple should probably have made people more aware that this sort of thing might happen if they didn’t continue their MobileMe subscription or at least disabled the ability to sync to the account. A perfect time to do so would’ve been in those reminder emails they send out shortly before your trial subscription runs out. As a cautionary tale, the whole mess is a good reminder that the cloud is not yet the be all and end all of computing.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks