lol this has nothing to do with “Cook”. You should drop that trope.
And YOU can curate your own newsfeed. As far as I know, they allow all legitimate publications. Provide your source for this claim.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Clashing With Publishers Over Subscription News Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And YOU can curate your own newsfeed. As far as I know, they allow all legitimate publications. Provide your source for this claim.
Oh please. The term 'fake news' originally was used for clearly bogus stories, like pizza-gate, or the supposedly faked moon landing.
Now everyone cries 'FAKE NEWS' whenever there's a story that punches holes or points out problems with that persons sacred issue, or politician they like.
For the most part, all this bitching about 'fake news' is an excuse for people to live in their little narrow echo chambers without having to deal with facts that make them uncomfortable.
True. A lot of projection going on from one side. "I think this of everything in terms of how do I gain from it" or "life is a zero sum game, so if someone else benefits I must be losing" or "i do thinks only because i want other people to think better of me." If you think that way, then "standing up for what you believe in" turns into "virtue signaling."
"I don't subscribe to a delivered news paper because I don't like them knowing my home address" said no one ever. Apple is bring nothing to the table, of course news site don't want to agree to this news service.
really? said no one ever? Or is it perhaps a possibility that the reason nobody subscribes to paper home delivery anymore that they were tired of getting reams of junk mail and special offers they weren't interested in?
Personally, when I have a choice of subscribing to something directly or via itunes, I always do it via itunes, because: 1) it's generally much easier to cancel the subscription and 2) i don't get tons of spam crap
This is modern indentured service. Publishers do all the hard work while getting a split share of 50% while Apple get the other 50%. What decent publisher would fall for this?
While I generally agree, I find it disturbing how often even the “quality” press have completely wrong stories I know a fair bit about. I reckon four out of five times it misunderstands what is going on, if not carry absolute falsehoods. I’m not talking about half the time. I mean usually.
The scary thing about that observation is that for stuff I don’t know much about, I <used to> accept the story as true. I have resolved not to do so anymore. My approach to anything a journalist writes is to default to “don’t trust: verify if possible”.
I doubt the 50% number is true, but even if it were, let me fix your statement:
"This is modern indentured servitude. Apple does all the hard work of building a hadrware/software platform and handling distribution while getting a split share of 50%, while the publishers get the other 50%. What decent platform developer would fall for this?"
The problem is you can only curate the content that was already curated by Apple.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hitting Paywalls on "free" sites like Feedly and Flipboard is annoying. Many of the articles use a ClickBait title and the summary is meaningless. Don't mind paying say $10 per month for all of them, but $10 for each is ridiculous. Sources that have good articles will get read more and receive more.
LOL at Apple wanting 50% of the revenue. I can picture Scrooge McDuck Cook counting out the $1 bills - "One for me, one for you, two for me, one for you...oops, my error"
Could it be because perhaps a lot of people, like myself, don't like paying individual sites for access through their paywall? If I did, it would be at most one or two. All news sites rely heavily on ads on their site. But I can't imagine that the proceeds amount to a whole lot from that. 50% of a guaranteed revenue stream could be a lot better than having a significantly smaller market share.
True enough.
But Fake News is also when major publication ignore and don't publish certain facts that go against their political agenda. It used to be that news reporters felt obligated to a least publish a little bit about both sides. That is no longer the case for most major media (both left and right, liberal and conservative).
We'd be much better off, if we could have a dialog based on facts, on both sides. Right now we get mostly propaganda from both sides.
Why do you say this? What are they curating other than the spotlight stories? You're free to add whatever crap channels and topics you want to see.
You might not know that Apple is not a news service; ie with journalists in the field, anchors, editors, producers, etc.
Rather, Apple provides a service to which any news organization can provide news content. With any subscriber being able to select any contributing news organization he/she desires from a range of news organizations.
There is no "virtue signaling" involved.
What would we need Apple's news service for? We've already got the Macrumors Front Page and PRSI. I'm certain that covers everything important. In a fair and impartial manner too. 
I think you would be surprised to know that a lot of industries the people that actually do the "work" only get about 50% of the total revenue, or less. I worked a lot in the courier industry, and the drivers, who did all the "work" get about 50%. Similar in a lot of service industries. But you seem to imply that that is all the "work" that is done. Advertising alone is a huge percent. If I run an ad for my small business on google adwords to generate more business... I pay per click, regardless of how much business it ultimately results in. And there are a lot of other expenses. If any company, be it Apple or another, succeeds in making it work.... they are far from doing "nothing." But its hard to explain all of those backend costs to someone not familiar with it.
While you are correct, what you are missing is that different aggregators can pick and choose what they want to present to the viewer. The best example is the Drudge Report.. He is 100% aggregating news articles. Democrats hate him and Republicans love him. Not all aggregators give the consumer the option of choosing all sources of articles. Some give you a handful of options, some more. Some give you no options... you are presented with only what they want to show you (Like Drudge). Even those that seem to give a fair amount of choices, can still succeed in pushing things in a direction.
On a side note, when he mentioned virtue signaling, I don't think he was referring to their news services. I think he was referring to how Apple always acts as though they are a great, conscientious company... but remains silent on China and other serious topics, in order to not jeopardize their relationship. So their actions speaking louder than their words, so to speak.
One problem with that model would be some part of a subscribers subscription could go to news organisations that campain against that subscriber's interest.
I see both sides to this, while they might loose some subscriptions to people switch, it'll only be iPhone users. Someone like me would never pay for a subscription to any of these new outlets, but I might pay $10 a month for access to all of them. I would think there would be a ton of people in my shoes.
Of course.
Since you're implying Apple would be guilty of that, perhaps you can go to the News App and list some of the sources Apple is censoring. I just checked a few controversial sources; RT, Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge. All available for adding to your personal list.
What would you like to read that Apple doesn't offer?
Actual news organizations don't "campaign" against anything. They report the news.