I use News, I like it. I use Podcasts, I subscribe to 3 podcasts, it does the job. Health? well, why not? It syncs perfectly with my Apple Watch, although I wish there was a Fitbit like app, the UI that is.
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 May Expand Ways Publishers Can Sell Ads, Enable Micropayments
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This has always puzzled me... The widget has worked since day one. They just block the app from appearing. Absolutely ridiculous.
But that's on par for the course with Apple, with ignoring Canadians... iTunes Radio? Never came north of the border, shut down. Apple Pay took 1.5 years, despite Canada having NFC terminals everywhere, compared to the US.
I agree with the sentiment but just like people are averse to paying up front to keep a site ad free, content providers are averse to limiting ads once restrictions are lifted.
[doublepost=1499297285][/doublepost]
NBC is owned by Comcast. You know, that corporate company that ignores customers complaints, has monopolies in many places and fights to keep it that way, and wants to destroy net neutrality.
CBS is owned by CBS Corporation, which is a conglomeration, but was until recently majority owned by Westinghouse, an industrial manufacturer, and designer of Nuclear Power plants. A very liberal occupation.
ABC is the only one that you might be able to call liberal, as it is owned by Disney. Who just recently lost a lawsuit for trying to enforce price fixing and restricting employee movement in the animation industry. http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/disney-settlement-wage-fixing-anti-poaching-animation-1201975084/
Fox is owned by Murdoch.
Last edited:
They do, it's called payed content. If you want anything on the web you gotta pay it.
This. The New York Times, for instance, looks to be something close to $200 a year for a "digital subscription". But this business model doesn't fit me (regardless of how much it comfortingly reminds them of their physical delivery subscriptions) - I'm not going to sit down and read piles of articles from them - and only them - every day to make that outlay worthwhile, so instead they're currently getting nothing from me.
If I could give them a penny (or a nickel - something in that ballpark) to read a well written/researched article on a topic that interested me right that minute, and do the transaction in a relatively frictionless way (say I give Apple $10 every so often to refill my balance for micro-transactions - kind of like a Starbucks card - and they transfer the penny-or-so when I open the article - which is clearly marked as having a cost - and say I have the NYTimes marked as pre-approved so I don't have to click a "yes, pay" button every time, because I've decided that their articles are not clickbait, making the whole transaction as painless as possible)... I'd be totally happy to pay-as-I-read. À la carte news.
They (the NYT, as one example) could be making 50-cents-or-so a week from me as a casual reader (and presumably from many other casual readers), but they're not going to make $200-a-year upfront from me for a subscription. Same with numerous other sources.
I'm puzzled by all of the comments about 'bias'. I find Apple News to be controlled more by my actual reading history than some outside bogeyman or "mind controller". I do enjoy reading disparate viewpoints from a variety of sources. No reason to be limited to one private bubble sphere when Apple News provides access to so many content providers.
OTOH, the app allows you to not be overwhelmed with providers that don't interest you. There are controls to set/limit/favor sources in the app. In Settings, you can restrict 'For You' stories to those only from sources you specify. (This may be new in the beta.) I do agree that the revised iOS 11 layout does not represent an improvement.
but it's not available in so many countries outside the US?
(on the other hand, I set up my new iPad with the new nearby functionality and then I got News as an app here in Belgium. so maybe iOS 11 is changing a lot)
(on the other hand, I set up my new iPad with the new nearby functionality and then I got News as an app here in Belgium. so maybe iOS 11 is changing a lot)
I hardly use Apple news now, way too liberal. If they start with ads I will delete and never use again.
My issue with Apple News is that you cannot limit the feed to only the sources you specify. I can specify topics all day long or only add certain things but I always get stuff I didn't ask for. I can even use the option to not view from that source but another one from the same source will inevitably show up again. If I'm going to do any micropayments I want to be sure that the app will only show me the sources I choose to follow and not just "add in" things I didn't specify.
Hmmm. Okay, I might run through it to see if I can aggregate sources. That'd be neat, instead of having to pass across a variety of sites. Thanks!
Well, that's the hypocrisy, isn't it? There's plenty of rich lip-service/bandwagon libs. It's easy to be a social benefactor when you're filthy stinking rich.
Just look at Hollywood.Besides, the major networks are hardly the only source of "news" anymore. Now any dillhole with a keyboard can be a "correspondent/reporter", like me!
Why exactly do you care? Some people, at least, find it quite useful, and if you don't like News, don't open the app. I believe you can even delete it now if you'd like. Go for it.
That's a good approach. Only problem is that, while you may think that you're "training" advertisers to serve less obtrusive ads, what's really happening is that you (with the aid of ad-blockers) are engaging them in an arms race as they continue to find ways to circumvent your ad-blockers while you (again, with the aid of ad-blockers) continue to find ways to overcome their circumvention. It's a viscous, never ending battle akin to weed whacking. You (in general, not you specifically) spend all of your time and energy (mostly the ad-blockers, but you do need to continually update the software) whacking down those weeds over and over when they grow back. The real solution is to just pull them up by the root and plant something better in it's place.
[doublepost=1499361928][/doublepost]
I do have some subscriptions but I generally prefer independent media (which I do donate to).
I'm more thinking of a "free at the point of use" sort of scheme similar to how the British pay a license fee to watch BBC with limited advertising.
Your talking about advertisers who don't trust that their product's value speaks for itself and does the hard press.
Speaks to insecurity generally and is a bad way to sell thing unless it is something that is very time sensitive and requires this kind of quick sell : like a movie launch, a concert, an event for example.
Grab your attention is just one part of the role of advertisement, if it doesn't lead to actual sustained sales directly or indirectly it is a failure.
An over the top, in your face, cannot stop ad is by definition, even if it is the best ad that has ever been created, not going to lead to many sales long term.
The best advertisement is the one were the message resonates, the one that connects the product/service to either something the person already thinks about the product/service, or about themselves and then work to create the link is the one that will lead to a sale. Even better those campaigns may lead to long term changes in attitudes that leads to sustained sales.
To do that, your messaging has to be consistent over a long period.
That's the difference between the sales guy on commission that is in your face that you have to shoo a way and doesn't seem to trust that the product's qualities will speak for themselves, and the sales person who will try to know what you want before you even get into the store and then only provide you some a service when you need it, and otherwise leave to appreciate and take in the store/product/service experience by yourself.
I have no illusions that my activities serve to train advertisers. I couldn't care less how my activities affect their actions. I don't say that to sound selfish. I say it with the realization that my individual ad blocker means nothing in the grand scheme. No arms race either. I've been using the same ad blocker for 2 years. Nothing's changed.
As long as advertising, in it's current state, continues to deliver revenue to the parties involved there's not much that's going to change. When the money starts to decrease, site owners will question their ad networks about the type of ads that don't work, advertisers will abandon the types of ads that don't work, and ad networks will only feature ads that generate the clicks.
Where do we come in? At our favorite sites. Our traffic helps determine how much sites can charge for that ad placement. The more eyeballs, the more attractive a site is to advertisers. If your favorite site features disruptive ads, let them know you're not a fan. Let them know you like the content but until they can get their ads under control, you'll employ an ad blocker. Let them know you'd be more than happy to whitelist them if they employed less obtrusive ads. If enough people raise an alarm something might change. Conversely, if the calculus says the ugly ads generate more money than the loss of a few readers... they'll probably keep serving them.
The real solution actually might be to pull them up by the roots and plant something better. Problem is, we are not really a part of that solution unless our displeasure is aggregated and targeted. A mass exodus would raise a few eyebrows. Ones-y, Twos-y, we mean very little.
I think part of the problem is, there isn't just one person/group on the other end of the wire: the guy designing and building the vacuum cleaner isn't the same guy trying to outwit your ad-blocker.
The vacuum cleaner guy wants increased sales, so he contracts with a marketer and/or advertiser, whose goal is not selling vacuum cleaners but rather simply getting people to either view, or click on, an ad, so he can show/tell the vacuum cleaner guy, "see, we got people to see your vacuum cleaner, so you should (continue to) pay us".
The advertiser guy, in turn, is looking for websites (or networks of websites) that have viewers that they can get those ads in front of. If the websites can somehow show that their readers are more likely to spend money, or more closely fit some vacuum cleaner demographic, they like that because they might get more money per view/click, but, again, their goal is getting views, not selling vacuum cleaners. If they can engage in underhanded tactics to get more views/clicks, that may seem entirely worthwhile to the advertiser guy.
The website, in turn, doesn't care about vacuum cleaners, or much about the ad content (unless they get feedback that it annoys their readers so much that it starts lowering the number of visitors), they simply want to make enough off the ads they let through to make the site profitable (sure some of them are hoping for enough revenue to buy a yacht, but likely not most).
Each link in the chain is only concerned with its connections to the immediately adjacent links. The vacuum cleaner guy wants to sell more vacuums to customers, and the website wants to get money while not driving away significant numbers of viewers, but aside from that, none of them are paying much attention to the end user. The advertising guy, in the middle, doesn't have much reason to care about the end user, unless their tactics get so much negative publicity focused on them that the vacuum cleaner guys (and other companies) decide to take their marketing dollars elsewhere. So, we get ... a lot of awful ads.
(All oversimplified of course, and sometimes advertiser guy is several levels of marketer/advertiser/ad-network, and sometimes the ads are carefully designed by the vacuum clearer guy's in-house marketing department.)
I don't mind ads that are an image that links to a website. Put up as many as you like - if I feel the distraction outweighs the value of your site to me, I'll go elsewhere. I do mind, however, reams of unvetted advertiser/ad-network javascript running in my browser.
If Apple can implement a mostly frictionless way to use micro-payments to content providers to bypass ads, I'm all for it.
The ads are there today and are unobtrusive and devoid of malware. I'm ok with those. This implies that Apple is opening the API to use all those *other* ad networks that do all the bad things you've listed. That's what I dislike.
Yes, if say you could buy content by the newspaper (for example) without paying a high transaction fee, that would be interesting. Say, 0.25-50 cents to get a day unlock of news without any publicity (depending on the content provider)
Well, there do seem to be more of those types of advertisers than the "good" advertisers you refer to. In any case, I've never connected to an ad in the way you describe. From my point of view, those types of ads are even more insidious in that they manipulate you (or even con you?) into doing, or buying, something that, at best, is something you don't really need, or will never use. These types of ads make me think of war time propagandists (in any country really) who manipulate people into believing certain falsehoods as facts or necessary acts, only to be proven later both unwise and even cruel. I can count the number of times on one hand I've succumbed to these tactics (oh yeah, I am admitting to having fallen for it) and was left feeling screwed over. Each time, however, I have never again bought from that company. This kind of deception may have short term gain (which is what the reigning economic paradigm is built on), but, over the long haul, creates feeling of distrust and even paranoia in people. And I think we're actually starting to see it manifest, if the current political scene is any indication.
[doublepost=1499883744][/doublepost]
Good for you, I'm glad you're perfectly ok with that sucking sound that is your time being sucked away ads. I personally have no interest in ads and I block all ads everywhere, even on my favorite sites. Anytime I get those "pleas" to be whitelisted, my response is more or less the same: stop wasting my time with your stupid ads and find a revenue model that either makes your website or app free at the point of use or at least affordable to me (the Netflix model if you will, which is not free at the point of use, but is, at least for now, affordable). As far as I'm concerned, if you need ads to survive, then you have probably over-extended your reach.
Incidentally, I view the individual "ones-y, twos-y" as you put it, just as valuable and important as the "aggregated masses." I have no respect for anyone who reduce human beings to consumers, voters, buyers, constituents, or some other form of dehumanizing "number on a ledger." This may be the system we have, but I by no means have to accept it and I actively reject it. As an example, all of those people who want today's tech in a 4" screen form factor (iPhone SE owners) have been sidelined because they are the "ones-y, twos-ys." They very much deserve a phone at least as advanced as the 7, but they don't get one and they never will because they are not part of the "mass aggregate." I got my 6s+ because it is what works for me. The fact that it worked for a whole lot of other people is beside the point. Everyone deserves to have the ability to get a phone that works for them just like everyone deserves to be free of ads if they so choose without paying through the nose for it. Things are expensive enough already as it is.
Btw, you may be tempted to point out that this is just me and I'm one person and my opinion doesn't matter. If you think that, then you've completely missed the point.