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+: Is it Worth the $9.99 per Month Subscription Price?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely not.
1. Apple buys out a competitor, then produces its own inferior version.
2. Apple should have not killed off Texture, which was a perfect news app.
3. Apple's free news app has notifications will show stories that disappear/are replaced before I have the chance to read them.
Another article which nicely sums up everything that's wrong with Apple News +: http://fortune.com/2019/04/06/apple-news-plus-magazines-subscription/
Personally, I like Flipboard for free news.
I hope Apple News + has the same reaction as Maps, because neither was well thought out and terribly implemented.
1. Apple buys out a competitor, then produces its own inferior version.
2. Apple should have not killed off Texture, which was a perfect news app.
3. Apple's free news app has notifications will show stories that disappear/are replaced before I have the chance to read them.
Another article which nicely sums up everything that's wrong with Apple News +: http://fortune.com/2019/04/06/apple-news-plus-magazines-subscription/
Personally, I like Flipboard for free news.
I hope Apple News + has the same reaction as Maps, because neither was well thought out and terribly implemented.
Last edited:
An ironic condemnation, considering that Apple maps is enjoying widespread usage on ios devices due to it being the preinstalled default.
An ironic condemnation, considering that Apple maps is enjoying widespread usage on ios devices due to it being the preinstalled default.
I meant the original reaction to Apple Maps, upon its launch. It was not well thought out, nor well received.
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/apple-maps-app/
Not for the masses maybe only for hardcore news enthusiasts and for people that work in news and entertainment. For it to be worth it they need to integrate iBooks book lending so that I can read iBooks for free with the subscription similar to Kindle Unlimited from Amazon.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2019/4/8/why-apple-is-getting-into-original-content
Take by Aboveavalon as to why Apple is getting into original content.
The value add here is essentially curation. And I am willing to wager that enough of Apple's users will value this enough to subscribe to said services.
Take by Aboveavalon as to why Apple is getting into original content.
The value add here is essentially curation. And I am willing to wager that enough of Apple's users will value this enough to subscribe to said services.
Yes. I have had Texture for a couple of years and love it. The amount of content is expansive. From Nat Geo to Motor Trend. Any single magazine in the library would be $5 at B&N. Sure, you can find the content in a google search, but it simply is not the same. Not to mention, the content creators should be paid IMO. This age of not thinking anything should be paid for is disturbing. As if everyone deserves free music, movies, publications etc. People happily drop $4 or more for 50 cents of coffee, but don’t want to pay for access to a library of news and periodicals. Most people here seem to expect to be paid for their own work, but don’t want to pay anyone else for theirs.
Not to me! Of course I keep up with what is occurring in our local area and the world, I receive a news paper, when something interesting is occurring I will turn on the TV for a short period of time, then quickly get my fill. Purchasing another subscription is not worth it. Now, that said if it cost $1.00 to $2.00 a month, maybe I would give it a go, see how it performs, however call it $10.00 a month not a ice cube’s chance in hades.
Despite its name, Apple News+ is currently a lot less about news than it is about magazines. If you’re not a magazine reader, and you’re not interested in accessing the Wall Street Journal, AN+ will likely hold little appeal.
But how do you find the articles you want to read in the first place? Today’s “news” is no longer journalism, it’s become opinions masquerading as news—and it’s based upon a fairly small number of primary sources (that actually do the hard work for everybody else).
So if news or high quality topical magazines like the New Yorker are important to you (and I’m not saying they should be) then you’re going to want direct access. Otherwise somebody else is curating your content for you and they are incentivized in ways that do NOT produce quality or consistency.
Having access to the entire issue (and back issues) of a magazine that you frequently read is worth anywhere from $5 to $14 per month per magazine—and that’s not counting the 100’s of searchable back issues. So it doesn’t take more than 1 or 2 magazines to already make Apple News Plus (which I liked a lot better as “Texture,” for magazines anyway) to make it worth your while financially. But I get that not everyone likes reading magazines or newspapers—and for them maybe Apple News Plus doesn’t make financial sense.
But it’s good to have access to a legitimate primary news source if you’re going to read any news at all. The NYT has a $4/month deal that can be sniffed out, and to me that’s a really small price to pay for access to *actual reporting done by reporters who’re held to the highest standards.* What you get for free you end up paying for (usually in the form of dumpy, ranty, shouty trash like Buzzfeed News)...and you simply can’t form any opinions about the world based on garbage like that.
[doublepost=1555218652][/doublepost]
On a tablet “PDFs” are excellent, but it seems that’s too much to ask of the flick, swipe and click, always-on-the-verge-of-bored, ADD riddled smartphone user. If it’s not free, fast and instantly rewarding it’s TMI. And that’s a bit WTF.
I have a feeling the average age of people who actually read anything with a word count of 3,000 or higher (or heaven forbid, a book) is going up. But... maybe the “cellphone as an appendage to the process of experiencing life” crowd never were, or never would’ve been “true readers” anyway. There... glass half full.
But how do you find the articles you want to read in the first place? Today’s “news” is no longer journalism, it’s become opinions masquerading as news—and it’s based upon a fairly small number of primary sources (that actually do the hard work for everybody else).
So if news or high quality topical magazines like the New Yorker are important to you (and I’m not saying they should be) then you’re going to want direct access. Otherwise somebody else is curating your content for you and they are incentivized in ways that do NOT produce quality or consistency.
Having access to the entire issue (and back issues) of a magazine that you frequently read is worth anywhere from $5 to $14 per month per magazine—and that’s not counting the 100’s of searchable back issues. So it doesn’t take more than 1 or 2 magazines to already make Apple News Plus (which I liked a lot better as “Texture,” for magazines anyway) to make it worth your while financially. But I get that not everyone likes reading magazines or newspapers—and for them maybe Apple News Plus doesn’t make financial sense.
But it’s good to have access to a legitimate primary news source if you’re going to read any news at all. The NYT has a $4/month deal that can be sniffed out, and to me that’s a really small price to pay for access to *actual reporting done by reporters who’re held to the highest standards.* What you get for free you end up paying for (usually in the form of dumpy, ranty, shouty trash like Buzzfeed News)...and you simply can’t form any opinions about the world based on garbage like that.
[doublepost=1555218652][/doublepost]
On a tablet “PDFs” are excellent, but it seems that’s too much to ask of the flick, swipe and click, always-on-the-verge-of-bored, ADD riddled smartphone user. If it’s not free, fast and instantly rewarding it’s TMI. And that’s a bit WTF.
I have a feeling the average age of people who actually read anything with a word count of 3,000 or higher (or heaven forbid, a book) is going up. But... maybe the “cellphone as an appendage to the process of experiencing life” crowd never were, or never would’ve been “true readers” anyway. There... glass half full.
Today’s mainstream news is same as yesterday’s. What you misunderstand is that it’s not news that is dying, it’s the main stream media. Bringing same MSM junk to computers and make it better searchable is not going to help them a bit. They are up against millions of independent bloggers, alternative media channels, real investigative journalists that never had a chance before distribution of information was democratized with the internet.
Print and MSM is not dying because people stopped caring and play games on their mobile all day long. It is dying because people find much more diverse, higher quality and independent reporting in alternative media.
We also have to pay tax on digital purchases (at least in Ontario now) so it's closer to $15.
In every case I’ve ever seen “alternative media” means opinions, and more often than not, extremely misleading. Apple News Plus gives you access to top shelf, real journalism for a fee that’s lower than what a lot of people, myself included, used to pay. I have people that send me links all the time to “alternative sources.” They aren’t dumb people, but somehow their insanely gullible. A well written 3-4 page article in the New Yorker can take months or research, editing and fact checking to write—and if it’s a topic I’m interested in, I’ll read that every single time over some BS opinion posing as new on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any “alternative source,” because what they’re publishing isn’t actually journalism. Even big outlets do very, very little journalism anymore, and normally it’s talking head screaming matches. You don’t learn anything from that.
Sounds like the New Yorker has to put a lot of effort to entice you to read their article. Not only does it have to be factual but the topic has to appeal to you.
If I were a publisher, I’d consider you not my target audience in News+ since I am getting paid by views + time spent.
The point of News+ is to primarily enable publishers to reach an audience. If the “quality” content still doesn’t drive, then maybe people just aren’t interested in that content
I was a subscriber to Texture before Apple bought it. So not a lot of choice in switching...
Plus, who reads articles they don’t want to read? Apple News isn’t my only subscription, I have the NYT, the Economist, plus books—and I’m not a retired dude or student with time for it all. So, I guess I go out on a limb and pick articles that appeal to me.
(I really don’t care if I’m not ANP’s “target demo” because what all it’s recommended to me are things like Fox News “Stories,” Buzzfeed’s garbage, CNN’s BREAKING F—-ING NEWS!!!” B.S., and gossip about the “Royal’s upcoming wedding shower.” Whatever Apple News is trying to be I want none of it, just the periodicals I’m paying for. And can’t figure out what I do reads with a couple years of my reading history? A.I. is killin’ it!)
If you get a link to some website, the source should be the least of your concern. you can fact check almost everything in seconds and attack their claims based on research, not based on trust you put into a crew of a few handful of editors. How often does old media produce anything that even even remotely resembles investigative journalism. Is it really your friends who are the gullible? I mean do they send you flat earth links? And is that what you qualify as alternative media?
You see - old media is not up against a bunch of new and flashy online sites. It is up against the internet as a whole. And that means exponentially increasing, free and unfiltered flow of information.
What do you think will bring one closer to the truth, the Internet, where everyone has a voice and everyone is subjected to diverse criticism, opinions and fact checking? Or a world where a bunch of multi national corporations have a bunch of low paid employees editing and curating information for the general populace.
The majority has already decided.
For me, it is worth the money for at least the summer...when I am out lounging in the backyard a lot more often.
When I was on Texture, they were charging $15 for the same content that Apple is providing for $10. They had a regular and premium subscription.
I know some content in magazines is available online. I would rather have it all available quickly in one app than needing to spend time hunting it down.
When I was on Texture, they were charging $15 for the same content that Apple is providing for $10. They had a regular and premium subscription.
I know some content in magazines is available online. I would rather have it all available quickly in one app than needing to spend time hunting it down.
You’re confusing things and twisting conclusions. I doubt we’re that far off regarding our opinions regarding transparency and free speech. But, take the Norte Dame cathedral fire. You’re right, anyone can share an opinion, and even the uneducated can visit Wikipedia and brush up on facts—but who went there, interview the primary sources that *everyone else* is using, who took the photos that *everyone else* is using? Who is doing the boring work of following up on press releases, fact checking, coordinating the vast interworkings that go on behind the scenes, that, surprise, *everyone else* makes use of one way or another. The answer to all these questions comes in the form of (boring) news corporations, especially the AP, and frumpy, dusty journalists that work for the NYT or the WSJ or the WP or pick you left/right bias, but make sure it actually does work.
I have zero respect for the quality of articles I get from “alternative sources” because they have, with a 100% success rate, proven to be con artists or conspiracy theorists or operative of another country’s intelligence service (RT for example). But just to make sure we don’t differ on the definition of “alternative sources” why don’t you list a few of your favorite? I’ve listed more than a few new sources I think are legit.
Maybe I *am* being closed-minded? I’m more than happy to have my eyes opened. Where can I find journalism being done, the freedom of information being unleashed by the power of a globally connect citizenry? (Remember, commentary isn’t “news,” it’s opinion, which everyone knows is like an aśśhole.)
Enlighten me please. (And I don’t say that sarcastically.)
Well after playing with it since day one I just don’t think the service is for me. Of the magazines I already subscribe to I feel I’m not getting all the content I get in the paper physical magazines. I could be wrong. I have not done a side by side, page by page comparison.
While I’ve completely abandoned physical books for Kindle and iPad reading the new service just isn’t doing it for me I. regards to magazines that I normally read. Having said that the “new to me” magazines are not very interesting.
I suppose this should not be surprising to me in that magazine racks at local books stores don’t do much better. Somehow, I thought the Apple News + offerings would at least exceed the magazine racks at a pharmacy. As of this writing it has not.
I’ll revisit the service in the months to Come hoping I find it better suits my interests.
