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
$10 is a great price point. Publishers need to recognize that a flood of new readers will be a very beneficial thing. Their existing business models (i.e. their own $10+/mo. digital subscriptions) are not jeopardized because a News subscription will likely not mean full access to all articles (i.e. solely restricted to News app;No WSJ iOS/web access etc.).
Apple is in a good position to bring a whole new readership to digital media that would not otherwise subscribe - in turn, these "light" subscribers could potentially discover they like specific news outlets and be swayed into full/direct subscriptions. Based on the article, this seems to be a major point of contention - if Apple does not provide the customer information to the publishers, they have no way of marketing their full subscription options.
I am loving Apple right now. Some amazing products/services in the pipeline.
Apple is in a good position to bring a whole new readership to digital media that would not otherwise subscribe - in turn, these "light" subscribers could potentially discover they like specific news outlets and be swayed into full/direct subscriptions. Based on the article, this seems to be a major point of contention - if Apple does not provide the customer information to the publishers, they have no way of marketing their full subscription options.
I am loving Apple right now. Some amazing products/services in the pipeline.
Of course Apple is having trouble negotiating with news publishers. Apple does not have any leverage to force their terms.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company or a news outlet so they have no real knowledge or understanding how these other companies make money - in fact they don't even care. So in their arrogance, Apple just believes they can bully terms on anyone they deal with, which is not working very well. Apple has gotten their way with software publishers because they dictate the terms of selling on App stores - this has emboldened their arrogance. News publishers can go elsewhere - so they go bye bye.
Apple is a hardware company, not a software company or a news outlet so they have no real knowledge or understanding how these other companies make money - in fact they don't even care. So in their arrogance, Apple just believes they can bully terms on anyone they deal with, which is not working very well. Apple has gotten their way with software publishers because they dictate the terms of selling on App stores - this has emboldened their arrogance. News publishers can go elsewhere - so they go bye bye.
You are forgetting about the cost of customer acquisition which is key for media companies. Apple's leverage is that News is a default app on an install base of hundreds of millions of iPhones...In 2017 alone Apple sold 216 million iPhones.
And of course Apple is both a hardware and software company!
Edit: To be clear, not all of those iPhone users will become paying News subscribers, but they will likely be made aware of the subscription option via Apple (push notification, email, Update notes, etc.) Also, for publishers there is a calculus of additional revenue gained vs. attrition rate (direct subscribers leaving and joining News) - in most cases I think it is safe to assume that there is more to gain than to be lost (WSJ and other subscriber base pales in comparison to the number of iPhone users).
Last edited:
Apple are not going to make much selling a $10 a month news service. People won't pay that.
Also Apple is showing its greed again wanting 50%.
I would be resisting it too if I was a news provider.
Infowars is a multi million dollar news organisation.
They are well respected and even had high profile guests like Trump.
[doublepost=1550051501][/doublepost]
When Mr. Cook visits Rainbow Parades with thousand employees and gives speeches about how important privacy is to him, how it is a basic human right - but a week before sold out a whole country to their facist totalitarian regime that hates homosexuals and even executes them and puts them into labour camps (to build more iPhones, oh the irony).... it is much worse than virtue signalling.
If you can not see that you are in denial.
[doublepost=1550052886][/doublepost]
Internet is the open seas compared to classical MSM Print or TV.
Growing up with old media the internet can be overwhelming. It's like dropping a fish from an aquarium into the middle of the ocean. Now that little fish has to search for his own food, and learn on his own what will eat him and when it's time to bolt. Many can not deal with this responsibility and run back to the MSM for that cozy aquarium and spoon feed food.
I say "virtue signaling" all the time. It's one of my life choices to do so. You are judging me for me life choice, which is exactly what you're criticizing him for... and assuming I'm a racist for some reason. Isn't that the definition of prejudice?
The next big thing, in the form of wearables, is already here. The haters just refuse to see it yet.
Depends. Glasses is a niche and is yet to be seen. Several failed attempts already. Can Apple appeal to the world and NOT solely to their faithful?
The watch market is growing but I still think it is attracting specific types of people in mind. I don’t consider it a big thing because it’s not really a necessity (yet?) compared to phones
What other wearable tech are you thinking of? Socks? Shirts? Jackets? Hats? Wallets?
The conductive fabric used to make the Smart Keyboard practically screams "smart clothing".
It's not that hard to think of an integrated ecosystem of wearables designed to take over the smartphone. For example, the Apple Watch would take on numerous functionalities that would be more convenient to perform on the wrist, such as Siri, Apple Pay, quick interactions with notifications and health-tracking. Smart glasses would be an answer to the desire for larger smartphone displays, while solving the current issue with consuming AR (basically that holding up a smartphone or tablet gets tiring very quickly). AirPods, well, their current popularity pretty much speaks for itself.
The watch can then also form the hub of a multitude of health-tracking wearables that you wear on your body.
All charging at night on your desk via airpower.
I foresee wearables being to the smartphone what the smartphone currently is to the PC.
And I believe that yes, Apple will stand a better chance of having their AR glasses appeal to the world relative to the rest of the competition, thanks to the strength of their brand name, their design-led culture, and the integration of hardware, software and services. Or to put it in another way, Apple is one of the very few companies in the world who gets both design and technology, which makes them better positioned to succeed in the field of wearable technology.
But these are already available. You still need your phone around. The only way Apple Watch will become ubiquitous and not an accessory is if it replaces the phone. Right now it’s a companion
But again this is another accessory. You’re getting closer to becoming Lawnmower Man. I think people will find AR a novelty in the near future. I suspect it will take other companies a period of time to unravel better use cases with AR glasses
And what exactly is that? The smart phone has a large set of feature parities with the PC. Wearables do not. I should say 1 wearable does not. You would have to buy and bring a watch, glasses, a Smart Keyboard, and other “wearables” to replicate the functionality of 1 smartphone.
I believe it's only a matter of time before the Apple Watch gains independence from the iPhone (which would potentially open up its total addressable market to include android smartphone users as well), but even then, you would still want to have your smartphone on you at all times anyways, for the sheer functionality.
Either way, I am not sure how being tied to the phone in any way restricts the utility of the apple watch.
Time will have tell, I guess.
I won't be surprised if Apple already has a prototype in their labs, and is waiting for enough demand (by using iPhones to mainstream AR and in the process expose the limitations and pain points of consuming AR via them) before rolling them out as a consumer product.
I mean, look at those AR demos during WWDC keynotes showing people playing the AR slingshot games. That practically screams for a pair of glasses you can wear on your face all day so you can consume AR without having to hold up your phone or tablet for extended periods of time.
Apple seems to have a knack for timing the market when it comes to this sort of thing.
That's precisely what I said. The Apple Watch, AirPods and AR glasses would replace the phone for certain key functionalities. AR glasses will likely be controlled via hand gestures (Face ID) and Siri. You won't be typing on a Smart Keyboard for your watch or glasses; that's where you default back to your smartphone.
The smartphone hasn't replaced the PC. I still have my 5k iMac for heavy computing tasks, but the smartphone can perform smaller tasks like sending email which is faster than having to switch on my computer.
Greed and not giving in return will hopefully bite them back sooner or later. Grabbing 50% and let others do the work is the new Apple under Timmy.
Grabbing the maximum profits and giving back the minimum. Apple has been doing that since 2012 now.
That’s why their whole lineup is in such a bad state today. Even newly introduced devices giving you the minimum and they charge you the maximum.
Every company has to make profits to invest into their future. Apple is investing the minimum in their future. The sad and stagnant state of the Mac, overpriced iPhones and iPads are proof.
If they charge premium you’ve to give your customer the premium experience. That stopped since 2012.
Judging someone's entire worldview because they use the phrase "virtue signaling", without having met that person, isn't prejudice? Doesn't "prejudice" mean pre-judge? Here's the definition in the Apple dictionary of prejudice:
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"
If it's not prejudice, then it's just phony mind reading.... And virtue signaling.
No **** sherlock? Anyone who produces anything would resist to give half away.. i really hope they show
and give absolutely nothing to this arrogant company who is hallusinating to get half by doing nothing...Apple's history with Apps suggests otherwise. Apple has to let publishers in and anyplace they can get away with it, they restrict freedom of speech to their political correctness standards. There is no reason to believe news is any different.
My point is that you can literally use your iPhone as a substitute for most non complex computer related functions such as email, web browsing, texting, games, etc. You can't do all of this with an Apple Watch, so I am not sure how you can compare the Watch -> Smartphone as Smartphone -> PC.
It's interesting how you were interested in the AR slingshot games. It could just very much be you are the target audience for things like that.
Ok, so you now have to carry 4 things:
1) watch
2) airpods in its accessory case
3) glasses
4) your OG smartphone
Maybe it's a Singaporean thing I am not sure, but you seem to love to simplify solutions by complicating it.
Correct, but that is how I interpret the "Smartphone was to the PC" comment. It's having a capable mobile computer with telephony capabilities.
If you're talking about Alex Jones, it's good they booted that reptile off their platform and everyone should do the same. If you want to see that swill, you should have to dig into the bottom muck of the internet.
It depends on how much additional traffic they get - but this may be somewhere around 10x the traffic to make more money.
Like Netflix, they likely can pick and choose what they expose to try to pull people into a dedicated subscription as well for full access.
But it is likely a very different model than what they traditionally have, so I can imagine there's a lot to sort through.
The truth is in the online age, $20/month is more than most people are willing to pay for access to a single publication.
I am already wearing the Apple Watch and carrying Airpods in my pocket. Since I wear glasses already, having Apple glasses on my face is no extra burden. Plus who doesn’t have a smartphone on them these days.
This setup entails no extra load on me at all.
On a side note, I would certainly welcome such a feature as a consumer.
First, going through Apple means the news companies never get my contact details or credit card numbers. That they don’t get my viewing data sounds like a plus for me as well.
Second, it’s easier to pay 1 fee to Apple, rather than manage multiple subscriptions to numerous outlets.
It’s the whole Netflix argument all over again. I would rather go through iTunes and have all my subscriptions in one place, with Apple playing gatekeeper, than deal separately with individual companies.
I am never going to subscribe to these companies on their own. Opting not to support Apple news simply means their news will never reach me.
Yet when it comes to discussions like this, the focus never seems to focus on the end user. It’s always about now Apple is supposedly trying to earn a quick buck here or there, but not the benefits to the reader.
Could it be because this article is being covered by news outlets who stand to have the most to lose from Apple news being rolled out in its current incarnation?
First, going through Apple means the news companies never get my contact details or credit card numbers. That they don’t get my viewing data sounds like a plus for me as well.
Second, it’s easier to pay 1 fee to Apple, rather than manage multiple subscriptions to numerous outlets.
It’s the whole Netflix argument all over again. I would rather go through iTunes and have all my subscriptions in one place, with Apple playing gatekeeper, than deal separately with individual companies.
I am never going to subscribe to these companies on their own. Opting not to support Apple news simply means their news will never reach me.
Yet when it comes to discussions like this, the focus never seems to focus on the end user. It’s always about now Apple is supposedly trying to earn a quick buck here or there, but not the benefits to the reader.
Could it be because this article is being covered by news outlets who stand to have the most to lose from Apple news being rolled out in its current incarnation?