Apple Clashing With Publishers Over Subscription News Service

[Baymowe335]

What do you mean? I can give you 10 good reasons why this is untrue.

To find out why, feel free to register to our subscription service. Number 7 will ASTOUND you.

So much of YouTube is becoming clickbait too, unless you're watching older videos meant for education. Any "content" creators are just competing for clicks, so it's constantly stupid titles and thumbnails.

Videos are also unnecessarily long to extract ad revenue. It just sucks.

I would gladly pay a small fee for a good news service that eliminates ads, clickbait, and ONLY gives me stories I care about. I might even pay for a similar video service...although I don't know how it'd look.

 

[jackietreeh0rn]

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.

//What exactly is Apple bringing to the table

I'm just being frivolous, but I guess Apple could say "we bring the table" ...

 

[yaxomoxay]

What do you mean? I can give you 10 good reasons why this is untrue.

To find out why, feel free to register to our subscription service. Number 7 will ASTOUND you.

This is nothing compared to "See how @keysofanxiety smashes and destroys @yaxomoxay's argument!"
[doublepost=1550008585][/doublepost]

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”.

Yes quality is down in general, even on printed news. However I think that due to the constraints of the physical newspaper and the different typology of customer newspaper editors have to be way more careful on what they put on actual, physical, smelly paper. I also think that the timeframe before something pops up in the news feed and the actual print of the paper functions as a first line of defense from crappy unverified news.

 

[Rogifan]

What publisher in their right mind would sign up for something like this?

 

[gpspad]

So in additional to all the other monthly bills somebody could have.....

$10 Apple Music
$5-6 for iCloud Storage
$10 for Apple News
$12 Netflix
throw in a couple of $3/Month 1password type subscriptions....

then add you
ADT monitoring fee
RING doorbell fees
lets throw in a internet backup services

Not to mention the non free-market, giant monopolies like xfinity, whose internet bills get bigger and bigger every year.

When does the death by a thousand monthly fees end, they really think there is a market for all this.

Do they assume everyone is making $100,000 a year in the tech fields and can write all these off or get them from work?

I love my apple stuff, but won't be shelling out all this money for everything they come out with to make to make for slumping iPhone sales.

how about just are a great product, that is a great value for the money, that everyone loves and dumps the other products for.

 

[keysofanxiety]

This is nothing compared to "See how @keysofanxiety smashes and destroys @yaxomoxay's argument!"

Number 12 will ****ing DISGUST you.

 

[gavroche]

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?

I wasn't implying that. A previous commentor was.

Edit: I was just speaking to what people generally complain about. Those complaints generally apply more so to aggregators that dont let you pick and choose sources (Drudge is most well known example). But note that even Apple News, while they let you pick all the well known sources, can still impact perception... because you can't control how they rank what you see. they have their Top Stories... and Trending Stories. if a site chooses to make some stories prominent and up front and center, and other stories hidden lower down, do you not think that can affect perception?

 

[magicschoolbus]

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.

Until Apple starts treating news sites that they disagree with and you won’t get their news... look at what they did to InfoWars. Now imagine that with your news. Scary. No thanks. Apple has really learned a lot from China

 

[00sjsl]

Actual news organizations don't "campaign" against anything. They report the news.

That being the case there's alot of non news organisations providing content for the News app, at least in the UK. But the point still stands part of the subscription will go to organisations that support BREXIT and/or are hostile to younger demographic groups.

 

[falainber]

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 can't add news sources. If Apple (or Google or whoever) decide which sources they aggregate, some viewpoints are already filtered out before you can apply your preferences. Not the Apple New specific problem. It's the problem with aggregation approach in general.

 

[trusso]

What do you mean? I can give you 10 good reasons why this is untrue.

To find out why, feel free to register to our subscription service. Number 7 will ASTOUND you.

Don't forget to try this one trick before you do!

 

[cmaier]

You can't add news sources. If Apple (or Google or whoever) decide which sources they aggregate, some viewpoints are already filtered out before you can apply your preferences. Not the Apple New specific problem. It's the problem with aggregation approach in general.

Why can’t you add news sources? Of course you can. There are thousands available, and it’s easy for content creators to add their own feed to apple news. I’ve done it with my own lame blog.
[doublepost=1550010503][/doublepost]

Until Apple starts treating news sites that they disagree with and you won’t get their news... look at what they did to InfoWars. Now imagine that with your news. Scary. No thanks. Apple has really learned a lot from China

Infowars is not a news site.

 

[falainber]

Why can’t you add news sources? Of course you can. There are thousands available, and it’s easy for content creators to add their own feed to apple news. I’ve done it with my own lame blog.

News source can add itself (if Apple agrees) but I can't. I can go to any website though. Also the point about Apple being a gatekeeper here still stands.
[doublepost=1550011429][/doublepost]I wonder if Apple will boot other news aggregation services (like Google news) from iOS to promote their own service.
[doublepost=1550011589][/doublepost]

[doublepost=1550010503][/doublepost]
Infowars is not a news site.

Unfortunately, it's hard to say that there are any news sites out there. All news sources push propaganda (but some - like InfoWars - do mostly propaganda)

 

[goobot]

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 would guess that it might work a bit like Apple Music. The articles you click on are the ones getting your money.

 

[snowboarder]

Actual news organizations don't "campaign" against anything. They report the news.

Exactly. Like CNN for example

 

[magicschoolbus]

Why can’t you add news sources? Of course you can. There are thousands available, and it’s easy for content creators to add their own feed to apple news. I’ve done it with my own lame blog.
[doublepost=1550010503][/doublepost]
Infowars is not a news site.

Why can’t you add news sources? Of course you can. There are thousands available, and it’s easy for content creators to add their own feed to apple news. I’ve done it with my own lame blog.
[doublepost=1550010503][/doublepost]
Infowars is not a news site.

Infowars is not a news site but it still got banned on all of apples platforms, which is exactly my point. Just wait until a publication writes a few article that violate apples terms and services and then they are forced to kick them off of the platform. It will happen.. just wait and see. Free speech is under attack and Apple is leading the way.

 

[tennisproha]

Until Apple starts treating news sites that they disagree with and you won’t get their news... look at what they did to InfoWars. Now imagine that with your news. Scary. No thanks. Apple has really learned a lot from China

Infowars isn’t an actual news organization. You know that right? It’s a blog that trolls for attention.

Get your news from legitimate sources, not some hacks. Then you won’t be so scared.
[doublepost=1550013923][/doublepost]

Infowars is not a news site but it still got banned on all of apples platforms, which is exactly my point. Just wait until a publication writes a few article that violate apples terms and services and then they are forced to kick them off of the platform. It will happen.. just wait and see. Free speech is under attack and Apple is leading the way.

That’s not how any of this works. You should stop talking. You don’t understand how news works.

 

[falainber]

//What exactly is Apple bringing to the table

I'm just being frivolous, but I guess Apple could say "we bring the table" ...

To which one may reply - if you need to pay to eat from the table, it's a really bad table.

 

[ITGuy]

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.”

I love you.

 

[ignatius345]

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.

Do you even know what you're talking about? I could very easily customize a "red" or "blue" news feed, or one focusing on whatever issues interests *I* choose on Apple News based on the publications I select to go into the feed. So who's the curator here? The user is.

If you want to create a news feed based on whatever "alternative facts" you want, nobody's stopping you. That's the beauty of the internet and one of the reasons it's nearly impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation these days.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I feel like they need tiers to allow for people like the nyt, wsj etc. more flexibility around their business as they have a usebase already.

 

[satchmo]

Smartphone have reached matured/peaked, and people don't upgrade to new Macs or iPads every year.

Unless, the next big thing is in the 'pipeline', I think the future success of Apple will be determined by how well they do with services like news, music and movies.

 

[AdonisSMU]

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.

I dont know where that came from.

 

[cmaier]

I love you.

Feeling’s mutual, big guy.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I feel like they need tiers to allow for people like the nyt, wsj etc. more flexibility around their business as they have a usebase already.

Or those providers need to decide how valuable their properties are and add things I do not get via News. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and several other new sites that are also available on Apple News, some of which are non-profits, and expect to continue to do so even if I ended up subscribing to Apple News because of the other things they offer: access to events: policy seminars, social events, etc., their full archives for searching, and great stand alone apps. Other new sources that interest me less, have a chance to get some money from me if they are part of Apple News, but are unlikely to get anyting from me otherwise. What they have to decide is if they can generate enough interest from me via Apple News and offer enough extra value to gain me as a regular subscriber, or if they can get enough incremental revenue from have me (and millions of other Apple News subscribers) occasionally reading an article or two to make it worth doing.

If they cannot offer anything other than their articles for which I would otherwise need a direct subscription, being a part of Apple News they need to decide if they will gain more revenue from non-subscribers than they would lose from current subscribers who cancel and read via Apple News.