Apple to Add Support for Subscription Content in Apple News App

[MacRumors]

Apple is planning to add subscription content from publishers with paywalls to its Apple News app, reports Reuters. This will allow sites that require subscriptions or memberships to view content to have more control over who reads their articles, but it will also introduce barriers for readers.

All content on Apple News is available for free with the existing model, but with support for subscriptions, publishers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal could limit the number of free articles Apple News users can access before requiring them to subscribe.

With no support for subscription content, publishers are limited on how they can make money through Apple News. Existing subscriber-only sites currently share their articles for free or offer only an excerpt, directing readers to a website to read the full content. Publishers are said to be unhappy with the information Apple provides them about readers, so this paywall compromise could soothe relationships and give publishers new ways to gain potential subscribers.

"Ensuring subscription mechanisms in our off-platform distribution partnerships is critical," said Katie Vanneck-Smith, chief customer officer of Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones is working with Apple and others to take advantage of new platforms, she added. She declined to comment on the specifics of conversations with Apple.

Apple's decision to allow subscription content in the Apple News app may not be popular with Apple News readers, but it's a feature that will allow Apple to differentiate itself from other news platforms that don't offer paid content to attract publishers.

Introduced in September, Apple News is said to have somewhere around 40 million users, but it is not clear if that number reflects people who use the Apple News app on a regular basis or those who have accessed the app at one point or another. It's also not clear if that number is accurate - Apple recently announced that it has been underestimating the number of Apple News readers and providing incorrect usage statistics to publishers.

Article Link: Apple to Add Support for Subscription Content in Apple News App

 

[MCroft]

I think it's fine, as long as I can choose to opt-out.

And it's not true that "All content on Apple News is available for free with the existing model". Every single WSJ article is a 3 paragraph advertisement for a story, without the complete deal. I've had to train myself to look at the source and not to bother with their ad-for-news instead of actual-news 'articles'. Let them go behind the paywall and rot there alone.

 

[ck2875]

As long as Apple doesn't show me click-bait previews of News articles in the swipe-left search page, and then surprise me with a paywall once I click on it.

 

[bpeeps]

So basically News(Stand), minus the skeuomorphism.

 

[LCPepper]

How is the cut for Apple going to work? Usually that's been a bit of a point of contention for companies...

 

[jeffe]

I think Googles newstand app allows subscriptions
And I think you get to read up to 10 articles per month without a subscription. Hopefully Apples implementation will be similar.

 

[69Mustang]

That sound you hear is just another nail being pounded into the coffin of Apple News.
/makes more room in junk folder on iPad

 

[bushido]

yay even more clutter to this App

 

[sunapple]

News App? What News App?
- People outside of the US, UK and Australia

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I'd be willing to pay some small monthly fee ($5-$10) to access all of the news websites with paywalls, but I'm not paying a monthly fee for an individual website.

Whenever I find a news article with a paywall, I just search around for the same information on free websites. Your loss, WSJ.

 

[nezr]

Hope this come sooner than later. Tim Cook on removing pre-installed Apple apps:

“This is a more complex issue than it first appears,” he says. “There are some apps that are linked to something else on the iPhone. If they were to be removed they might cause issues elsewhere on the phone. There are other apps that aren’t like that. So over time, I think with the ones that aren’t like that, we’ll figure out a way [for you to remove them].”

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-ceo-preinstalled-apps/#ixzz3yNnE2bGy

 

[HiRez]

Well, it was fun using this beta app while it lasted.

 

[boston04and07]

Fantastic. Many news sources that I like (such as the NYT and WSJ) already have a de facto paywall in Apple News, as they publish only a few articles a day there and direct users to their individual apps to read their full content. Which, of course, you need a subscription to do. This would allow me to at least access all the news sources I read without having to switch back and forth between apps.

Now if they'd only release a News app for OS X, I'd be happy!

 

[Popeye206]

Here comes the comments.... "I'm not paying for X"... "Apple tax" (referring to their cut)... "it has to be everything or I'm not buying"... etc....

Guys... read the article... it's just saying Apple is adding the ability for publishers who have subscription content to feed it to their users through Apple News App... it does not mean that you'll pay Apple for the subscription, it will be that if you have a subscription to a publication, they will be able to show you content in the News App. A nice feature for people who actually will pay for news they like.

 

[KALLT]

Basically what Flipboard has been doing for years.

 

[alexgowers]

I think it's fine, as long as I can choose to opt-out.

And it's not true that "All content on Apple News is available for free with the existing model". Every single WSJ article is a 3 paragraph advertisement for a story, without the complete deal. I've had to train myself to look at the source and not to bother with their ad-for-news instead of actual-news 'articles'. Let them go behind the paywall and rot there alone.

Yep adverts have now taken human form and it's impossible to tell the difference, even the adverts don't know they're adverts!

I feel like if apple is curating content and asking for paywalls, there should be no sponsored content/PR. Surely adverts used to be better when they were exactly that on the same page as real journalism.

I suppose i have to rely on youtubers to get my news at least i know they are only selling their own t-shirts or plugging their own content networks but actually doing some research into stories before blanket vomiting them out into the world.

Damn i'm so jaded.

 

[Kaibelf]

I'd be willing to pay some small monthly fee ($5-$10) to access all of the news websites with paywalls, but I'm not paying a monthly fee for an individual website.

Whenever I find a news article with a paywall, I just search around for the same information on free websites. Your loss, WSJ.

Translation: Gimme free stuff. I shouldn't ever pay for things.

 

[AppleMark]

Never going to pay for News.

News is something News organisations want you to know about first, to keep them relevant. If somebody is selling it, somebody else will give it away for free.

I can access any newspaper website on my laptop / desktop for free and read articles current and historic. I can also do that for free on any iOS Device.

 

[69Mustang]

Translation: Gimme free stuff. I shouldn't ever pay for things.

"I'd be willing to pay some small monthly fee ($5-$10) to access all of the news websites with paywalls..."
Translation: AoW would be willing to pay a small fee. Says so right there in his quote.

 

[Thunderhawks]

That sound you hear is just another nail being pounded into the coffin of Apple News.
/makes more room in junk folder on iPad

Yes. This.
Opened once and not even remotely interested in news.
As I get older ("not wiser") I decided that it is mostly unimportant to know who killed who, who got an award etc.etc.
Also, can't support any of the sports ,millionaires worrying about games results.

Add politics and religion and there isn't much important stuff left.

The pressure to be informed is only in peoples heads. Why clog up my brain with news I can't do anything about?
It's very easy to say to somebody: I didn't follow that or just say I am an ignorant SOB.

Whatever I want to know I just google when I REALLY want to know something.

Now Apple, if we could just get a mechanism other than creating graveyard folders to remove/hide unwanted apps (Hint: Game Center) that would be a nice iOS update.

Better yet, make that an app. Would shoot to # 1 in 20 minutes!

 

[69Mustang]

...Now Apple, if we could just get a mechanism other than creating graveyard folders to remove/hide unwanted apps (Hint: Game Center) that would be a nice iOS update.

Better yet, make that an app. Would shoot to # 1 in 20 minutes!

If Tim makes good on his statement of eventually letting people choose defaults and delete apps things would be a lot better. Whatever the technical hurdles, let 'em be leaped.

 

[AppleMark]

Translation: Gimme free stuff. I shouldn't ever pay for things.

Not completely true. All News websites, even MR generate revenue from adverts on their sites. Same as when you have to sit through a 10 second advert on some News websites to access the video, or Youtube.

So they are already being paid IMO.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Translation: Gimme free stuff. I shouldn't ever pay for things.

You do a very poor job translating. I clearly expressed willingness to pay.

I am not willing to pay for things that I can readily get for free elsewhere, though. Dozens of organizations will report on the same story for free. I see no reason to pay for for WSJ's version, particularly not at the insane prices they want to charge.

 

[macduke]

That's precisely what Apple News needs: more barriers. Good job guys, we've cracked the code!

 

[KALLT]

Not completely true. All news websites, even MR generate revenue from adverts on their sites. Same as when you have to sit through a 10 second advert on some news websites to access the video, or Youtube.

So they are already being paid IMO.

Of course they generate revenue, but the consumer has no idea. To them everything is free as the true costs are hidden from them and quality or effort is under appreciated. Good in-depth coverage is expensive and won’t be paid by advertising alone. Big newspapers can still do this, because they outsource a lot to press agencies and pay a part of the bills with advertising, but definitely not everything.