Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,249
16,089



Apple is having trouble negotiating financial terms with publishers for its planned subscription news service, reports The Wall Street Journal.

Said to be like "Netflix for news," the planned subscription news service is designed to let users read unlimited content from participating publishers for one monthly fee, set at about $10 per month.

macosmojaveapplenews-800x460.jpg

Major publishers are said to be resisting Apple's proposed revenue split, which would provide Apple with half of the revenue from the service. The other half of the revenue would be split among publishers "according to the amount of time users spend engaged with their articles."

Apple does not want to provide credit card information or email addresses to publishers, details that news sites use to create customer databases and market their products.

The New York Times and the Washington Post, two major publications with paywalls and subscription offerings, have not inked deals with Apple because of concerns over the terms at the current time. The Wall Street Journal reportedly also has concerns, but its conversations with Apple have been described as "productive."

Most sites charge $9.99 or more per month for access to their articles. The New York Times prices its basic subscriptions at $15 per month, while The Washington Post charges $10 per month and The Wall Street Journal charges $39 per month. Providing subscriptions through Apple could cause current subscribers to swap over, leading to lower revenue.

All three sites already offer some content on Apple News and are allowed to offer up subscriptions. News organizations are able to keep 70 percent of subscription fees for the first year for customers who sign up for Apple News, while Apple keeps 30 percent. After a year, Apple's cut drops to 15 percent.

Apple is planning to launch the subscription news service later this year as a paid option in the Apple News app. Other rumors have suggested that Apple is also planning to provide access to a number of popular magazines for $9.99 per month as it incorporates its Texture acquisition into Apple News.

It's possible that the one $9.99 per month fee would include access to both news content and magazines, though these could also be separate payments.

With the news service, and a planned television service that's also coming in 2019, Apple is aiming to boost its overall services revenue. With flagging iPhone sales, services has become an increasingly important category for Apple, allowing the company to generate revenue from its huge active install base.

Apple has discussed bundling its news service with iCloud storage tiers and its television service, so an all-in-one package from Apple could be on the horizon.

Article Link: Apple Clashing With Publishers Over Subscription News Service
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors demi-god
Mar 3, 2010
6,142
31,482
Texas
I am very disappointed by what online news has become - independently of the politics. 99% is clickbait, with preliminary, unverified, information and very little insights. I honestly prefer to spend $40 to $60/month for the home delivery of two or three printed newspapers (Financial Times, WSJ, local paper). I found out that I am way more informed than the average person and have a better understanding of what's relevant or not. (printed papers have to save space, while online media has to produce more!). And I am way less stressed!
Bottom line: I don't think I'd pay for this service, and news organization should provide better news.
 
Comment

calzon65

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2008
935
3,541
How fast information dissemination continues to change and the arm wrestling as to who holds the ultimate power.
 
Comment

falainber

macrumors 68030
Mar 16, 2016
2,632
3,066
Wild West
So, Apple wants to aggregate a bunch of news services which each charge $10 per month. Apple also wants the combined subscription to cost $10 and $5 from it would go to Apple. I think it makes perfect sense. Apple services future is very bright.
 
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Penryn
Jul 25, 2007
24,136
30,407
California
I can't trust anything Apple puts out for news - their bias has been shown by their CEO's virtue signaling while they remain silent on human rights issues in China and censor their apps and services in other countries.

Anyone who uses the term “virtue signaling” really means “i want to judge people based on immutable characteristics or life choices that are none of my business.”
 
Comment

tennisproha

macrumors 65816
Jun 24, 2011
1,362
872
Texas
I can't trust anything Apple puts out for news - their bias has been shown by their CEO's virtue signaling while they remain silent on human rights issues in China and censor their apps and services in other countries.
Apple doesn’t “put [anything] out for news”. They don’t have their own editorial. That’s not how news works. This is just aggregation.
 
Comment

TheIguana

macrumors 6502a
Sep 26, 2004
663
421
Canada
Why 50% when the standard is 30% on Apple's App Store? What exactly is Apple bringing to the table other than eyeballs? That may be important for smaller print shops, but its unlikely to entice large shops like the NYT, WP or WSJ. Even then, the majority of news people care about is local, so most people will already have good brand identification of their local newspaper/reporting organization.
 
Comment

Deelron

macrumors regular
Jan 30, 2009
235
113
Just throwing it out there, my Washington Post subscription through Amazon is $3.99 a month, $10-$15 a month sounds reasonable for an aggregate service (if the creators got the lion's share of the revenue).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomMcIn
Comment

nt5672

macrumors 68020
Jun 30, 2007
2,366
5,102
Apple doesn’t “put [anything] out for news”. They don’t have their own editorial. That’s not how news works. This is just aggregation.

You mean a curated and thereby politically correct aggregation. Curated by the fact that Apple will not offer the service to certain publications that do not fit Cook's idea of "right for the world", no matter how much fake news they publish.
 
Comment

lunarworks

macrumors 68000
Jun 17, 2003
1,972
5,210
Toronto, Canada
Anyone who uses the term “virtue signaling” really means “i want to judge people based on immutable characteristics or life choices that are none of my business.”
Or alternatively, it's used by people who see sincerity as an alien concept. "Why would you support a cause unless your agenda is to gain something from it?"
 
Comment

jarman92

macrumors 6502a
Nov 13, 2014
885
2,312
So, Apple wants to aggregate a bunch of news services which each charge $10 per month. Apple also wants the combined subscription to cost $10 and $5 from it would go to Apple. I think it makes perfect sense. Apple services future is very bright.

Makes sense for Apple, sure. But it makes no sense for publishers. Why should Apple get HALF the revenue when the publishers provide 100% of the content?

Apple is really getting gross with this constant nickel-and-dime approach. They’re supposed to be a step above everyone else but they’re sucking up every cent they can and then sitting on mountains of cash, which they refuse to use for productive things like acquisitions and R&D.
 
Comment

Wags

macrumors 68000
Mar 5, 2006
1,677
1,177
Nebraska, USA
Interesting model. Publishers could get revenue that would have never received because individuals might have never signed up. What would they loose from current subscriptions that might change. Could see it getting wild with articles just meant to drive clicks.
 
Comment

Apple_Robert

macrumors Penryn
Sep 21, 2012
28,413
35,895
In the middle of several books.
Why 50% when the standard is 30% on Apple's App Store? What exactly is Apple bringing to the table other than eyeballs? That may be important for smaller print shops, but its unlikely to entice large shops like the NYT, WP or WSJ. Even then, the majority of news people care about is local, so most people will already have good brand identification of their local newspaper/reporting organization.
Apple is bringing a potentially large user base.

I like that Apple won't allow the services access to user subscription information.
 
Comment

centauratlas

macrumors 65816
Jan 29, 2003
1,458
2,544
Florida
Apple could upend the news market with a simple objective news service. Purchase a paper and have people report news, and news only. Stop with the opinion, guesses and the other BS. Keep the personal opinions out of it.

Nancy Pelosi said: "X, Y, Z"
Donald Trump said: "A,B,C"

with links to the CSPAN transcripts.

MSFT announced $X earnings, stated D,E,F,
APPL announced $Y earnings, stated G,H,I.

Whatever the facts are without the interpretation.

Set the standard for actual news, not opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jmausmuc
Comment

mdriftmeyer

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2004
3,377
1,108
Pacific Northwest
You mean a curated and thereby politically correct aggregation. Curated by the fact that Apple will not offer the service to certain publications that do not fit Cook's idea of "right for the world", no matter how much fake news they publish.

We, the consumer, curate it. I curate what publications I want to read from News all the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.