I cancelled my WSJ subscription the day the announcement was made. It makes economic sense to me to keep the subscription.
The magazines are just a bonus.
The magazines are just a bonus.
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
Yes it's an amazing value. We're getting almost unlimited rich, insightful, inspirational content all at a low monthly price.
I find this a difficult question to answer. I've always loved magazines but these days (unless I'm flying somewhere) I find so little time to read more than a couple per month. It wouldn't be worth subscribing to a bunch of them individually. So I like the value proposition of being able to pay one monthly fee to peruse a selection of magazines I enjoy.
On the other hand, I want magazines to do well. Journalism is necessary for our democracy. I respect the amount of work that goes into publishing them and recognize their value. I'm actually disheartened by so many commenters here who seem militant in their determination to consume something of value for free. I wonder how magazines can make it with this model.
With that said, being absolved of the burden of having to print and ship a pile of paper to subscribers each month has to be a net positive for magazines, at the same time that I don't think most magazines have really taken advantage of how the technology of, say, the iPad can enhance the experience for their readers. They probably don't have or want to invest the money. As a News+ subscriber I might return to magazines I've not thought about in a while, or I might discover new ones. And I'll be looking at advertising in those magazines, which enhances revenue for those publishers (especially if the ads are coded as such that I can tap an ad and be taken to the advertiser's website).
But what do I do now about magazines like Dwell and New York that I've subscribed to for more than a decade? If I have access to them on News+ it doesn't make much sense for me to be paying for a separate subscription. So that subscription revenue will be downgraded to a smaller stream for them.
I also wonder if the subscription model itself is outdated. I've always hoped that someone could figure out a micro-payment system that would charge readers for what they consume, as opposed to paying for a subscription to publications that I might not even look at certain months. I think newspapers like the NY Times need to exist and I want to support them. But if I only have time to read a couple articles a day I don't feel as though I'm getting my money's worth for a full subscription. You know?
Imagine if gas stations charged us a monthly fee instead by usage by the gallon. A great deal if you drive a lot. But if you only fill up occasionally then you're paying for a lot of value you're not receiving.
On the other hand, I want magazines to do well. Journalism is necessary for our democracy. I respect the amount of work that goes into publishing them and recognize their value. I'm actually disheartened by so many commenters here who seem militant in their determination to consume something of value for free. I wonder how magazines can make it with this model.
With that said, being absolved of the burden of having to print and ship a pile of paper to subscribers each month has to be a net positive for magazines, at the same time that I don't think most magazines have really taken advantage of how the technology of, say, the iPad can enhance the experience for their readers. They probably don't have or want to invest the money. As a News+ subscriber I might return to magazines I've not thought about in a while, or I might discover new ones. And I'll be looking at advertising in those magazines, which enhances revenue for those publishers (especially if the ads are coded as such that I can tap an ad and be taken to the advertiser's website).
But what do I do now about magazines like Dwell and New York that I've subscribed to for more than a decade? If I have access to them on News+ it doesn't make much sense for me to be paying for a separate subscription. So that subscription revenue will be downgraded to a smaller stream for them.
I also wonder if the subscription model itself is outdated. I've always hoped that someone could figure out a micro-payment system that would charge readers for what they consume, as opposed to paying for a subscription to publications that I might not even look at certain months. I think newspapers like the NY Times need to exist and I want to support them. But if I only have time to read a couple articles a day I don't feel as though I'm getting my money's worth for a full subscription. You know?
Imagine if gas stations charged us a monthly fee instead by usage by the gallon. A great deal if you drive a lot. But if you only fill up occasionally then you're paying for a lot of value you're not receiving.
Nope.
I either want to pay less for the same stuff I got now, or want to pay the same for better content with better accessibility and simplification.
Apple News + does neither for me. While I was happy to see the magazines that I do still subscribe to were available, I get them at such reduced rates anyway and they don’t expire at anytime time soon to make it worth it. For example I just re-upped with Car and Driver for 4 years for $12 total. I did the same for Motortrend last year.
I either want to pay less for the same stuff I got now, or want to pay the same for better content with better accessibility and simplification.
Apple News + does neither for me. While I was happy to see the magazines that I do still subscribe to were available, I get them at such reduced rates anyway and they don’t expire at anytime time soon to make it worth it. For example I just re-upped with Car and Driver for 4 years for $12 total. I did the same for Motortrend last year.
The only subscription service I would be interested in is for engineering and scientific peer reviewed journals and those are so expensive that it is just easier to go to the local university library.
The NYT and WAPO made a good business decision not to go with Apple.. Like the music that apple sells, they, like the musicians, will only get pennies on the dollar....
There might be a use for something like this but Apple is going about it the wrong way. Apple should be attempting to allow bloggers to monetize their sites. If the money went to the bloggers I like, and I saw no ads, and there was a nice layout, I'd pay $10 / month. The idea I'd pay money to read stuff from bubble-dwelling 100 IQ J-school majors whose family connections got them the job - ha!
The bigger question is, is Apple News+ worth it to publications. Remember Apple gets half of the $9.99. That only leaves less than $5 to be divided among 300 (and growing?) publications. Each publication would be earning almost nothing per subscriber. Even less as more are added. Is that a sustainable model?
I signed up for the trial, but I'm definitely cutting it when it ends. I pay to subscribe to the New Yorker and prefer to have it in print anyway -- trying to cut down screen time in general. As for the rest... I don't know if I see myself reading THAT much magazine stuff. I've got a pile of books a mile high to catch up on anyway, and, well, there aren't enough hours in the day to do justice to all the stuff that Apple News+ subscription comes with.
No, why would it be worth it?
Just get a RSS reader like Feedly and be done with it. You can get access to magazines, news, tech, blogs, and all sorts of things out there without being locked to a set of 300 specific pieces of content.
I think of News+ as targeting the uninformed.
Just get a RSS reader like Feedly and be done with it. You can get access to magazines, news, tech, blogs, and all sorts of things out there without being locked to a set of 300 specific pieces of content.
I think of News+ as targeting the uninformed.
I have no problem paying the $10 a month - but what a horrible interface - I am really going to miss Texture - it was so simple to read and find stuff and to keep back issues. I think I am going to write Tim a letter.
I want Texture back.
I want Texture back.
Check out Kanopy too! I installed the app on my Apple TV and get to watch I think 10 movies or videos a month from my local library -- all free.
I have found Apple News somewhat frustrating. I live and work internationally and like news on a number of areas of the world. Apple work hard to do the same local market segmentation that the media industry has long practiced, previously bringing us such hugely frustrating cunning stunts such as making DVD players regionally bound. And books that you can't buy if you live in a different country. This de-internationalisation might suit rural Missouri, or the sheep farmers in Woop Woop, but it really is out of tune with the modern world. Strike 1
I am interested in strategic issues and the stories behind the stories, not the wowser click-bait. Unfortunately I feel there is a bias away from serious and analytical and towards entertaining and fashionable. I could get this sort of news from FaceBook, if I had the patience to actually use my membership. Strike 2
Finally, I pay a lot to Apple every month for a variety of services. I can't think of any number low enough as a subscription price to increase that in order to "benefit" from news of this quality and usefulness. Strike 3
Yes, I'm sure that the various media negotiators, who have been dealing with Apple, all see dollar signs in on-line subscriptions. This to make up for their dying circulation of physical media and crashing advertisement revenue. Unfortunately, screwing a higher fee out of Apple is not the same as getting more money from punters like me.
This really is not an example of "Think Different", and this news media service is no way going to disrupt the overall news market. In reality this is one of those occasional clunky ideas that Apple has that dies pretty quickly. Like their attempts at a social media aspect to iTunes/Apple Music. Nice try but no biscuit
I am interested in strategic issues and the stories behind the stories, not the wowser click-bait. Unfortunately I feel there is a bias away from serious and analytical and towards entertaining and fashionable. I could get this sort of news from FaceBook, if I had the patience to actually use my membership. Strike 2
Finally, I pay a lot to Apple every month for a variety of services. I can't think of any number low enough as a subscription price to increase that in order to "benefit" from news of this quality and usefulness. Strike 3
Yes, I'm sure that the various media negotiators, who have been dealing with Apple, all see dollar signs in on-line subscriptions. This to make up for their dying circulation of physical media and crashing advertisement revenue. Unfortunately, screwing a higher fee out of Apple is not the same as getting more money from punters like me.
This really is not an example of "Think Different", and this news media service is no way going to disrupt the overall news market. In reality this is one of those occasional clunky ideas that Apple has that dies pretty quickly. Like their attempts at a social media aspect to iTunes/Apple Music. Nice try but no biscuit
Last edited:
Is that because they are not powered by Google or Failbook that are tracking every single thing that you are doing to the point where it is bloody hell creepy.
(BTW, you nailed the point about Bieber. That made my day in the office!!)
A year from now, no one, not even Apple will even be talking about it.
Not interested myself.
I have my paper subscription to the New Yorker and Nat Geo and news I read for free online. There's just nothing in this for me.
I'm not subscribed to Apple Music either, but it makes a lot more sense to me. This I can't see working out. But I guess we will see.
I have my paper subscription to the New Yorker and Nat Geo and news I read for free online. There's just nothing in this for me.
I'm not subscribed to Apple Music either, but it makes a lot more sense to me. This I can't see working out. But I guess we will see.
