Personally I don't care what has won an award from some awarding body of indeterminate skill or agenda. I think we all know these awarding bodies have agendas and allegiances.
I don't need anyone else to tell me what I should watch.
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 News+ Head of Business Exits Company After Lackluster Start
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I don't care what has won an award from some awarding body of indeterminate skill or agenda. I think we all know these awarding bodies have agendas and allegiances.
I don't need anyone else to tell me what I should watch.
I get it...I'm just saying the content Apple has made isn't garbage (as many people here were quick to say it was before even watching).
Apple can make/buy good content. It all depends on how far they want to push the service. It's clearly in the early stages.
[automerge]1580923711[/automerge]
It's very related. Eyeballs on Apple screens using iOS can be monetized. They just have to find the right formula. People use Apple News A LOT. Will they pay for it? Maybe, maybe not...but they are going to try it. I don't think News+ has the right formula yet, but they are in a learning phase.
Monetizing services on Apple devices is not going away. It makes way too much sense with the active devices.
So, I'm on the 3 month trial at the moment. My biggest gripe is the ability to download magazines. Sometimes the link is there when I press and hold and sometimes it's not. Then at other times, it downloads automatically. Not really planning on paying after the trial.
I get that Apple is all-in on the service-subscription-ongoing monetisation model just like everybody else. They have how many now? and are likely cooking up more as we speak.
None of them are attractive to me. I wouldn’t buy them if they included all of them for the same price or less than this News+ service. Like they did for Apple Music, they’re giving away a year of Apple TV+ if you buy one of their devices or computers; but unlike Apple Music I won’t even take advantage of a free year: such is my disinterest in it.
And people always conflate Apple’s goal of making money with what’s best for the consumer, but that’s a bogus suggestion, as I’ve said many times.
There are many things I’d like to see Apple do and focus on instead of these services but they may not be as profitable. If Apple can’t get their huge margins and Timmy his huge bonuses, they don’t bother, and that’s unfortunate.
Last edited:
The problem with Apple News+ is that print is a dying format and it's going to be harder and harder for media companies to find resources to convert their products into a legible format for iPhone and iPad. The two platforms are effectively different due to screen size.
If I were that interested in reading stuff on a phone I'd want it in a simplified RSS style format without ads (the main reason for paying for it). A book/magazine like format is potentially suitable for iPad but people have largely fallen out of the habit of reading.
And once again the formatting of magazines means that some work has to be done to optimise the pages for the variety of tablet formats on the market.
Don't forget that Rupert Murdoch couldn't make The Daily work as a newspaper. There's arguably more work to be done to optimise quality magazines for iPad - is Apple's revenue sharing model going to work?
They may well bring in a mega bundle to include Apple Music but it remains to be seen if it will be viewed as value for money.
Apple iCloud isn't as 'professional' as One Drive, Dropbox, or Google Drive - it definitely needs a 'sync now' button. And Apple's free 'office' apps, while good enough, doesn't look like trouble MS Office.
Apple Music is the product that has most chance of working but it has a stiff fight on its hands with Spotify.
AppleTV+ doesn't have a significant back catalogue, and Apple are have either been tardy in getting deals for back catalogue content to plump up the offering or it's been slow in hiring talent and getting original shows made. It's no wonder that AppleTV+ is currently free if you have bought a significant piece of Apple hardware recently. They may have to repeat the offer for another year if they don't have any significant deals in place soon.
I would say that Apple could also indulge in co-productions with companies like the BBC to get shows made to help boost their back catalogue.
One thing which Apple has a decent lead in for legacy reasons is Podcasts. There's huge growth in the sector (Spotify seem to support them) but Apple don't ever seem to have thrown themselves behind the format properly. Very little work needs doing to Podcasts to get them into shape and I think Apple could boost the Music offering by adding exclusive versions of Podcasts to it - ad free versions for example - while still offering links to ad supported versions from the usual outlets.
And what about enhancing the AppleTV+ offering by allowing Youtube style Video channels from curated content creators like iJustine? Include her as part of the AppleTV+ subscription in return for fielding no ads apart from her sponsored reads within the videos.
Podcasts and self published videos are ideal for playback on all Apple devices from iPhone to AppleTV and Mac, little work needs to be done to make them ready, and more importantly people are flocking towards these formats.
Now, having an all-in-one bundle to include some or all of the above has to be priced sensitively given how underdeveloped some of them are.
If I were that interested in reading stuff on a phone I'd want it in a simplified RSS style format without ads (the main reason for paying for it). A book/magazine like format is potentially suitable for iPad but people have largely fallen out of the habit of reading.
And once again the formatting of magazines means that some work has to be done to optimise the pages for the variety of tablet formats on the market.
Don't forget that Rupert Murdoch couldn't make The Daily work as a newspaper. There's arguably more work to be done to optimise quality magazines for iPad - is Apple's revenue sharing model going to work?
They may well bring in a mega bundle to include Apple Music but it remains to be seen if it will be viewed as value for money.
Apple iCloud isn't as 'professional' as One Drive, Dropbox, or Google Drive - it definitely needs a 'sync now' button. And Apple's free 'office' apps, while good enough, doesn't look like trouble MS Office.
Apple Music is the product that has most chance of working but it has a stiff fight on its hands with Spotify.
AppleTV+ doesn't have a significant back catalogue, and Apple are have either been tardy in getting deals for back catalogue content to plump up the offering or it's been slow in hiring talent and getting original shows made. It's no wonder that AppleTV+ is currently free if you have bought a significant piece of Apple hardware recently. They may have to repeat the offer for another year if they don't have any significant deals in place soon.
I would say that Apple could also indulge in co-productions with companies like the BBC to get shows made to help boost their back catalogue.
One thing which Apple has a decent lead in for legacy reasons is Podcasts. There's huge growth in the sector (Spotify seem to support them) but Apple don't ever seem to have thrown themselves behind the format properly. Very little work needs doing to Podcasts to get them into shape and I think Apple could boost the Music offering by adding exclusive versions of Podcasts to it - ad free versions for example - while still offering links to ad supported versions from the usual outlets.
And what about enhancing the AppleTV+ offering by allowing Youtube style Video channels from curated content creators like iJustine? Include her as part of the AppleTV+ subscription in return for fielding no ads apart from her sponsored reads within the videos.
Podcasts and self published videos are ideal for playback on all Apple devices from iPhone to AppleTV and Mac, little work needs to be done to make them ready, and more importantly people are flocking towards these formats.
Now, having an all-in-one bundle to include some or all of the above has to be priced sensitively given how underdeveloped some of them are.
I’m not sure why people always give their anecdotal opinion. No offense, but what you think just doesn't really matter and doesn’t represent the reality. Just look at the numbers.
Apple’s services model and opportunity is not like “everyone else.” It’s a $50B business with 65% margins. This is a Fortune 70 company on its own. The current size and the size of the opportunity is what is so different.
It’s not conflating anything. Business results confirm the strategy. If customers like it, you do well.
What is more common and what you’re doing is conflating the idea that what you want or think is important is what others want. Not true...again, data confirms all strategy.
Did you mean subscribing to all these service for 120/yr? Was it some kind of deal?
That's precisely what Apple News+ is. A collective 'Netflix for Magazines and Newspapers' with certain big names signing up. You probably need an iPad to get the best out of it, but any iOS device should and the News app has been ported to macOS so in theory you should be able to enjoy the Apple News+ content there too.
Your lack of clarity on this is where Apple have also failed in terms of pushing this out to people as a service and it reflects badly on their attempts to popularise it. The problem is, unlike Netflix where providers just hand over video files to them and it's done, Apple News publications start in a variety of formats which aren't optimised for reading on computer screens.
I don't think these publications necessarily put everything on board - some newspapers have left the service and I read somewhere that not every newspaper is putting everything on AppleNews+ (I believe LA Times put more on than WSJ for example) - but a lot of physical print product will be under immense pressure now in the current climate and it's more important than ever that they hold people in power to account.
The idea that people should try and protect the media by purchasing subscriptions is a good one, the price remains high and Apple don't appear to have pushed it as hard as they could have.
And I already said before that most publishers have to work hard to repurpose their content for Apple News+ - they just don't have the resources to achieve that for the revenue they would get from Apple if they want to do something more labour intensive than providing PDF files which might not be ideal to read in anything smaller than an iPad Pro 12.9" for example.
Making AppleTV+ free for buyers of new Apple hardware (right down to the $200 AppleTV) is logical because there's so little original content on there. The pandemic has hardly helped with filming new content but Apple aren't exactly going after old libraries of content at this time.
But where does that leave an pricey Apple News that isn't giving individual publishers too much money due to low subscriptions while forcing news publishers to try and repurpose content built for print onto a web type platform? Many just don't have the resources to do it and Apple don't appear to be helping much.
Sadly AppleNews+ seems to be going the same way as so many Apple ideas before it, quietly pushed to the side before potentially being shown the door like the Valve gaming idea.
And yet while they are flinging money at AppleTV+ because they realise that content needs serious investment I think they are being overly cautious again.
Either buying in libraries of content to enhance the offer or paying for original drama - it's all a bit glacial.
well, it looks like I’m in for a treat. 😀 However, I don’t have the stomach for an analysis on Apple‘s service business, nor did I ask for it. 🐶
Originally, I was only curious about where to get so many subscriptions so cheaply as mentioned in the reply. I looked, at least in Europe, WSJ alone costs me roughly 20€/month. Not particularly cheaper... But, well, like you said, contents may be different. I have subscribed to Apple news+ for some time using it everyday. I think when it becomes my main source of news, I hardly have time or opportunity to find out which particular articles are missing. Besides, there is always more than enough to read.
I’m in mainly for the quality of articles- there actually is a difference between free and paid. This is where Apple news provides value. What I don’t like is I don’t own the right to read these articles. It is like a rent expiring after I unsubscribe. So it still may be beneficial to subscribe to a particular issue in addition.
Well, it's like Netflix. You don't own the stuff you read/watch - you rent it
Some people who buy magazines like to keep them on the shelf for later reference as collectors items. Others recycle or hand over to doctor's/dentist's waiting rooms. It depends on the content I guess.
And of course the price is higher. As you say, if you'd like to purchase a hard copy of the particular issue in question you can buy back issues or subscribe to the print edition.
I’m surprised there is so much criticism of the price in this thread. I think it’s great value and I only regularly read one publication within News+
A digital subscription to The Times (UK) direct from the publisher would cost me £180/year.
But via News+ I can access most if not all the same content for £120/year and also get access to several magazines that I dip into occasionally.
Is access to paid news direct from publisher so much cheaper in the US so as to make $9.99/month seem expensive?
A digital subscription to The Times (UK) direct from the publisher would cost me £180/year.
But via News+ I can access most if not all the same content for £120/year and also get access to several magazines that I dip into occasionally.
Is access to paid news direct from publisher so much cheaper in the US so as to make $9.99/month seem expensive?
Genuine question: Is it all of the Times content? Not every newspaper supplies all their content. A direct sub to the Times (while costlier) would see the newspaper get more money but I can't be sure if they offer everything there either to be fair.
There is also an iOS app for The Times but again I don't now the exact content you get with it.
For example, can you see births, deaths, marriages, and the famous Times Crossword in Apple News+ or the iOS app?
I'm glad that you find the value in the service and are willing to pay though, print journalism is under constant pressure and people should support it if they can - especially with the state of the world at the moment.
Each to their own though, the point of the thread is that it's not the moneymaker that Apple thinks it should be and publishers must cope with the pennies that they get from Apple AND have to repurpose their content to fit the Apple News format.
As I mentioned earlier, it's not like film studios handing over a file for a film to Apple to sell for them. News companies have to constantly convert their content for Apple News+.
For a lot of smaller publishers there just isn't the resource for the small cut that they get because their content management systems likely don't have a convenient 'publish to Apple News' button that will leave the content looking ideal on a digital screen.
From the consumer point of view I don't think there is the awareness of Apple News+ to even form an idea of the value for money proposition. And this lack of traction is where ideas like Apple Connect and Ping (remember them?) go to die - so what's wrong then? 'Overpriced' can't just be a blanket answer. A lot of this is a lack of resource from Apple to keep their ideas alive.
I'll say now that I'm in the 'overpriced' bracket but because I wouldn't be able to find the time to read everything that I'd like - so that's no fault of Apple's that I wouldn't find the value in Apple News +.
I'd be more interested in an Apple Music subscription if there weren't so many horror stories about how it tampers with your pre-existing music library - never mind the lacklustre nature of the Apple Music app which is a part of the dumpster fire OS that is Catalina (haven't upgraded any of my Macs which are still on Mojave). The recent story about doing audio summaries of top stories is interesting though - it's meant for HomePod owners but would make an interesting daily news podcast if Apple invested in that and put that on the Apple Music service to point people back to Apple News +.
I like listening to podcasts and Apple have a massive lead over other providers seemingly by accident. They don't appear to be cultivating that side of things though and they are letting Spotify run away with it. If Apple offered ad-free versions of some successful independent podcasts on Apple Music as part of the deal I'd certainly be interested. And it wouldn't take much editing to get indie podcasts to produce an ad free version for Apple Music.
Their Apple iCloud Drive offering isn't 'pro' enough to allow me to decide what needs to be synced and when with each of my Macs to save space. They are letting Microsoft dominate with their subscription offering with 1Tb of storage plus the world's leading Office solution for £79 retail a year (deals bring that down massively).
Its been many years since I’ve looked at a Print version of The Times so couldnt tell you about equivalence between Print and any of the digital formats.
If purchased direct from The Times, there are two tiers to the digital version. A cheaper tier (£180/year) and a costlier tier (£312/year). The cheaper tier gives access to website and phone app and includes crosswords. The costlier tier additionally gives access to tablet app (which might be a closer reproduction of Print version - not sure) and some other extras like access to archives and subscriber offers.
The Apple News+ version certainly does not get the extras of the direct from publisher costlier tier, but also does not get access to elements of a basic tier like crosswords, videos, or reader comments at end of articles and ability to see articles grouped by day of publication. I haven’t bothered doing a precise comparison but I think it does have all or almost all the articles published on the website, which for me is the most important thing.
Not a section I read but it does have obituaries. Not sure about births and marriages - I can’t see any in News+ at the moment but not something I’d pay attention to and not sure if they’re published daily.