Apple News+: Is it Worth the $9.99 per Month Subscription Price?

[Williesleg]

I'd actually subscribe if they paid me $10/month to use it. They already track everything I do, and ads aplenty, why pay them more?

 

[BD1]

Tried but going to stay with RSS reader. I like Newsify. Most magazines have many/all articles on RSS. No ads. Newsify will also load all content in articles for a small subscription fee. It has a nice Mac reader also. Other RSS readers are good also.

https://newsify.co

 

[Scottsdale]

Can you please tell me where I can get Make Magazine for $2 to $5 per year? That's one that wasn't available on Texture but is on Apple News+. I've subscribed to it in the past and don't now mainly because it's a very expensive magazine. It's one of my favourite things about News+. I also currently pay a lot more than that for subscriptions to Scientific American and Nuts and Volts, which are not available from discount sources.

These cheap magazines are generally very low quality and the discount prices is little more than a scam to get subscription numbers up to look good for advertisers. If the magazines were worthwhile, they wouldn't be giving them away for $2-5/year.

Look on eBay and Amazon for super discounted magazine subscriptions. I used to get the Journal of Accountancy. It cost like $100 annually through the magazine but cost me like $7 at eBay. This was years ago. ESPN and those types of magazines cost $5 or less on eBay. It works. I have done it. I quit reading magazines but I do like Scientific American and National Geographic. I like WSJ. I just wish news was reported factually like it was when I was a kid. Boring news reporter telling the exact facts. Everything is an editorial now with all opinions and subjective statements being reported as though facts.

 

[Tech198]

I don't think Apple News+ is worth the price, considering not everything is optimized for the display.

Shifting Texture users off to Apple News+ ....

(Apple would be very happy about that)

 

[thirteen1031]

Yes to subscribing. But I’m sixtyish, so that probably explains why.

I think we’re all a little too quick (and too conditioned) to dismissing buyers fifty-something and over, as if only those under fifty-something are worthy consumers for digital services. Yes, it behooves any company to upgrade their product for those under 40, as they’ll be using that service for a lot longer than grandpa. But there are a lot of 50+ people out there, and they do want things like this—digital but complete magazines. And a lot of them could be around and using that service for at least the next ten years. Meaning, it’s not necessarily a minus if someone sixtyish likes this product. If there are enough 50+ magazine readers out there that feel as you do, then the service might be able to survive/thrive on them alone, for now, at least.

 

[Jimmy Bubbles]

I find using my brain and the internet to search for news, not have it fed to me.
Isn’t it funny how you can’t even give a star-rating to ’s own News app?

With that being said, I don’t find that high of value in their news feed to pay $10/month.

 

[PictorGuy]

$120/year for mostly magazines? No thank you. I haven't had a magazine subscription since most people where worried about Y2K. Why would I pay that much now for something I'll probably never read - not even in a doctors office.

I'm tired of attempts to bleed me dry through thousands of affordable cuts for access to mediocre content.

 

[jeremiah256]

I run the digital arm of The Spectator, the world’s oldest, longest running and arguably most influential magazine in the English language.

I wrote a few thoughts on this here, if you’re interested:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-apples-new-magazine-news-subscription-service-flop-tom-morgan

I gave you a thumbs up for sharing your article, but I think you’re wrong. I don't think there are very many single news, information, or entertainment sources that can compete with what one can do with the bundle Apple has created. If you are a person who subscribes to any newspaper or magazine, this is a very attractive alternative. Professionals and families can especially benefit from this app.

Wonderfully, professionally curated, single newspapers and magazines (quality) vs me creating a personalized channel devoted to a subject that will draw from hundreds of news sources (quantity) is not a hard decision.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I agree with you mostly. Apple is turning into a services company rather MR forum likes it or not, the time (and the shareholders) will tell whether this is good or not. News+ is just a small part in this, in the scope now as nothing else is live yet *. What will decide whether Apple succeeds with their mission is how TV+ will perform. On one hand Apple has the economic muscles for it, on the other hand history tells us that big corporations can deliver ****** products despite that. Apple Card is a very interesting proposition, I reckon it will primarily compete with Amazon for the wallet of Americans. Also an interesting twist that they partner with Goldman Sachs, virtually non-existent on the retail market. My guess is that it will not be available for everyone, but a rather work as a premium service for people in the upper middle-class and above. <snip>

It’s not really that Apple’s becoming more of a services company, rather less of a hardware-only company. They’ve got more hardware, and in more categories, than ever before (HomePod, AirPods, Apple Watch). But yeah, a lot of forum posters seem to be mostly critical of the expansion of service offerings. They see it as a zero-sum proposition, where any increase in services comes at the expense of a focus on hardware.

Re: the intended target market for the credit card, I think they’ll be able to serve more than just those with excellent credit. Those with lower scores will have lower limits and higher interest rates to offset larger losses due to accounts that go bad. But without all the fees and the 20-30% interest rates that make cards profitable for those with lower credit scores (i .e. higher risk of default), there’s likely going to be a higher minimum score necessary to qualify for the card.

btw the risk of default isn’t really all that correlated with earnings level; there are many lower income account holders who are excellent credit risks, and plenty of high-earning ones who have a poor credit history. If a credit card company just considered annual income in credit/granting decisions, they would quickly go under. In fact, annual income isn’t even a factor in default risk profiling, though it is appropriate/necessary to consider with respect to overall outstanding debt levels and available credit lines.

 

[DevNull0]

Look on eBay and Amazon for super discounted magazine subscriptions. I used to get the Journal of Accountancy. It cost like $100 annually through the magazine but cost me like $7 at eBay. This was years ago. ESPN and those types of magazines cost $5 or less on eBay. It works. I have done it. I quit reading magazines but I do like Scientific American and National Geographic. I like WSJ. I just wish news was reported factually like it was when I was a kid. Boring news reporter telling the exact facts. Everything is an editorial now with all opinions and subjective statements being reported as though facts.

ROFL. I asked you certain magazines I actually read that are on News+. You tell me to look on eBay and Amazon, where they are not available cheaply. The suggest some obscure professional magazine in a totally unrelated field. I guess you're right, News+ is a bust, we should all subscribe to the Journal of Accountancy instead

 

[MaxGravy]

Hi Tim!

 

[PickUrPoison]

I gave you a thumbs up for sharing your article, but I think you’re wrong. I don't think there are very many single news, information, or entertainment sources that can compete with what one can do with the bundle Apple has created. If you are a person who subscribes to any newspaper or magazine, this is a very attractive alternative. Professionals and families can especially benefit from this app.

Wonderfully, professionally curated, single newspapers and magazines (quality) vs me creating a personalized channel devoted to a subject that will draw from hundreds of news sources (quantity) is not a hard decision.

I read the linked article as well, and I didn’t see much evidence to back up the contention that News+ will fail. That said, I think it’s going to be a tough segment to crack. It can still be billion dollar service, but it’s going to be a slow ramp. Of course it’ll never be as popular the TV or Music offerings, but I’m pretty sure Apple is well aware.

I think they’re in it for the long haul; anyone who thinks Apple will pull the plug in a year or two is going to be disappointed. They operated Texture for long enough to understand the dynamics of the financial aspects of the business, and it made sense to them to attempt News+. They should be able to get to maybe 20 million subs eventually, and in any case it will increase the overall value and stickiness of the iOS ecosystem, which is one of their major goals here.

 

[i-John]

Things like these aren’t limited to News+ or Apple in general; there seems to be this annoying-as-**** trend of automation/curation or personalized recommendations that make a UI really difficult for the end user.

It’s hard to anticipate what will show up where, for how long, how to get rid of something, and how to add something in the first place.

Got to agree here. Their Apple Music app is horrible and does not have something that Apple used to be famous for... the user experience. It's not user friendly experience. For music, that is why I went to Spotify.

I think Apple is trying to be everything to everyone, but it has mastered none of it. When it comes to services right now, they are behind others in pretty much them all where they have to compete.
Why Eddie Cue still has a job I will never know. His projects have been horrible over the last few years.

 

[Scottsdale]

ROFL. I asked you certain magazines I actually read that are on News+. You tell me to look on eBay and Amazon, where they are not available cheaply. The suggest some obscure professional magazine in a totally unrelated field. I guess you're right, News+ is a bust, we should all subscribe to the Journal of Accountancy instead

My point was simply the cost savings that are available. Most people think magazine prices are too high, and I was saying most can be found on eBay much cheaper. That’s it! Even an obscure magazine like the one I mentioned can be found and so I would think others could be also.

 

[thirteen1031]

I read the linked article as well, and I didn’t see much evidence to back up the contention that News+ will fail. That said, I think it’s going to be a tough segment to crack. It can still be billion dollar service, but it’s going to be a slow ramp. Of course it’ll never be as popular the TV or Music offerings, but I’m pretty sure Apple is well aware.

Agreed. Apple knows that this isn't TV or Music and won't rake in the cash or make a big splash. But it doesn't have to, and that's why it might do well. Meaning survive and prosper. Which is why I find all these: "EPIC FAIL!" proclamations so...amusing. "NO! OF COURSE NOT!" each reply shouts in answer to whether they’ll subscribe, like a judge slamming down a gavel and condemning someone to death for...jaywalking. It’s as if Apple, in offering this service, has insulted every user; News+ need to die, and teach Apple a lesson!

But News+ is far from an insulting or even bad idea...because it costs Apple very little—meaning even if it does fail, Apple can shrug it off and go onto something else. After all, Apple’s not running any of the magazines, paying writers and photographers and researches and such; and they don't digitize any of the magazines, though I'm sure they've provided those magazines with ways to optimize their digital products if they can (hence those dynamic covers). All Apple pays for is the platform, the App where all these Magazines can offer their wares. If this platform can lure in a number of new readers while keeping the old, the magazines will stay in business, and so will News+.

Could it become a *billion* dollar service? I’m not sure about that, but it could say alive for a good long while and infuse new blood into magazines. And make Apple some money. Apple will, however, need to iron out the kinks in the UI so that magazine readers love it rather than grumble over what it's missing. Do that, and I see no reason why News+ can’t do just fine.

 

[tshrimp]

I doubt I would use it much even if free. For $120/year!!! No thanks.

 

[ctwentytwo]

LOL at people bitching at 10 buck a month, yet Starbucks is like 10 bucks a drink. People just like to complain about anything unless it's not free.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

As expected, new versions of magazines designed after the launch of AppleNews+ take better advantage of its graphical features.

The newest edition of Esquire offers a very rich table of contents page. Editions already in the app when it launched had very non descriptive, text only table of content pages. PDF only magazine editions are pre-AppleNews+.

Predictably, AppleNews+ is only going to get better as publishers start releasing newer versions of their magazines made for ApoleNews+

You don't think Apple offered incentives or their services in an "advisor" role or as "free consultants" to these top-tier magazines (Esquire etc) so they looked good in their presentation a couple of weeks ago?

There's no incentive for any of the lower-tier magazines to make "newer versions of their magazines made for AppleNews+" None, zero, they won't get any more money from Apple so why bother?

 

[SixFooter]

It's going to be a catastrophic failure. Calling it now. Quote me down the road if you'd like.

All this 'curation' and yet the end result is the same as scraping news sites without discernment and regurgitating the content in a scattered UI... I don't feel like they've filtered out the crap which was the supposed original intention/sales pitch of 'curation' in the first place -- they've only enhanced it.

Apple should really stick with hardware.

Services have never been their strength and I dont see this changing that.

Services for Apple are a Fortune 100 company. Seems pretty strong to me.

 

[bhanson1]

I cancelled. Once this service is intuitive maybe I’ll reconsider.

 

[return2sendai]

What is this rhubarb? News is free. Find a decent website. BBC is free. Free app, easily customisable. What’s all this Apple News bunkum about? + what? + your money, that’s what.

More services nonsense, trying to make you pay for what is already available for free. And how many of you suckers will sign up?

Do a Facebook. Walk away from this. Why would anyone want it? Send your own news to Apple. Rubbish.

 

[ctwentytwo]

People posting there are free websites like BBC. LOL. Each publication has it's own unique articles other than just daily news. Again, everyone expects everything to be free nowadays.

 

[pelegri]

$10 a month is nothing. That's a single day of lunch. I live in LA and it's nice to get the LA Times as part of it and WSJ has some good articles too.

I read off of it every day. Worth it for sure.

I am giving it a try. The UI needs work, but some of the magazines are interesting to and so are some of the newspapers (LA Times & WSJ). I wish they got a few more I follow, including foreign newspapers.

 

[prasand]

Having been a Flipboard user for many years, I immediately noticed the difference in the quality of writing between the paid news sources and the free / ad supported ones. It's like the difference between reading the writings of a professional versus a blogger (especially in cases where the writers were a kind of "guest writer" or a person that isn't a true journalist). The depth of research also differed greatly. With journalists it's their job, versus blog type sources that simply pay anyone for submitting articles worth publishing, and the writer is just looking for a buck. There is a significant and evident difference in professionalism and quality. I've seen far too many typos in non-premium sources, reflecting the lack of attention to detail / produce quality, as they instead focus on churning out content and creating traffic.

Flipboard was much easier to read on, get lost in, the experience was pleasant. But Apple news is more enjoyable to read, even if reading on it isn't pleasant. It's also difficult to get lost in, because I'm mostly presented with titles rather than excerpts of the article. Readers are left to make snap judgments based on a title, instead of being able to read a bit of every article that they scroll past. I find myself spending less time reading news on Apple news, and that has increased productivity (I used to spend 2 hours per day on Flipboard).

I'm not flooded by articles on the level of the National Inquirer, or egotistical opinion pieces that didn't matter as "news". If I want opinions, I'll go to forums and youtube (I understand the importance of helping others make informed decisions, but to me, opinions are not news). So in that sense, Apple news is a breath of fresh air (but still a pain to read on). I look forward to improvements, but will Apple really do so and understand that many their design decisions in this case are just bad / wrong? I'm not so sure about that, in fact, I doubt it. It seems more likely that Apple would take the stance of "this is better. They just need time to adjust."

But this comment is an opinion piece, not news.

 

[robertcoogan]

To be fair, most of the negative comments seem to be from people who think they can get the same content and news for free on the web. These are people who probably don't even know how to read a long-form news story. They think they're well informed after reading a 1-parargraph summary that's biased because it's free because it's coming from a source that's paid to influence opinion.

It's true, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think. And if they believe the paid ad-copy they're reading is news, you're not going to change their minds.

What planet do you live on? I only say that because you seem to be really out of touch with reality. And FYI: I actually can (and do) get most of my news content on the web - for free. I also read long form...for free. I donate what I can to NPR and other periodicals that are for free. When I am able to earn more money, then I can donate more money (and yes, I am not just saying that - I actually do). But free is what is available to most, and there is PLENTY of informative and reliable (and free) news out there to educate ourselves on.

I honestly can't tell if you're ignorant or just being being elitist. There is a lot of free, substantive content out there on the Internet for free. Most of these subscriptions (NY Times, The New Yorker, WaPo, etc.) still charge you a subscription fee while STILL showing you annoying ads. I am sure Apple News+ was presented as a solution as you can't use ad blockers on articles read within Apple News or Apple News+. Hence the reason I still read the news in a browser with a good ad blocker.

There is nothing wrong with reading news for free. It doesn't mean you're stupid, it doesn't mean you're less informed, it doesn't mean you're "less." And thanks for taking the time to look down on us (more informed) lower class of people.

And that's a Dorothy Parker quote up there. You might want to give credit to her lest people think you're not being original.
[doublepost=1554651843][/doublepost]

With News+ you get all the benefits of online tracking, advertisements, and monthly payments, with none of the hassle of a physical product you have to keep or share.

Um...how are annoying ads a benefit? Shouldn't they be blocked or at least less intrusive if I am going to pay?
[doublepost=1554652092][/doublepost]

Look on eBay and Amazon for super discounted magazine subscriptions. I used to get the Journal of Accountancy. It cost like $100 annually through the magazine but cost me like $7 at eBay. This was years ago. ESPN and those types of magazines cost $5 or less on eBay. It works. I have done it. I quit reading magazines but I do like Scientific American and National Geographic. I like WSJ. I just wish news was reported factually like it was when I was a kid. Boring news reporter telling the exact facts. Everything is an editorial now with all opinions and subjective statements being reported as though facts.

Where?!?!? This makes me think of I Wanna Fight Mike Tyson. "I ain't lyin', I did it!" XD