Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Great idea. There are several content providers I'm willing to pay for. I think Google's model of an ad supported internet is fundamentally flawed
 
  • Like
Reactions: boston04and07
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.

But here is the thing and as I have highlighted in your post.

It will be the News media Giants who already have the platform to continue to generate income from other mainstream ventures to support and fund their reporting etc, such as Sky News and the WSJ etc.

I doubt my local struggling newspaper will create a paywall App... and that is sort of my point. In the UK, I have a SKY news App which is free to SKY TV subscribers and £4.99 [about $7] if you do not. If I were not a SKY subscriber do you think I would be using the App on a subscription basis...?

I would be interested to find out how many people actually pay for the SKY App outside the TV subscription.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
An Apple Music subscription model might work for news, even provide a much needed revenue stream for news publishers. Do it globally however, rather than market by market.

I find it surprising that News Ltd hasn't already done exactly that yet. I might occasionally want to access The Times, for example, but can't without a subscription that I will not take up for something I might access once a month. A global sub would address that. Similarly the New York Times as a subscription based example of non News Ltd content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
Why not start by making the app available everywhere without changing the phone's region?
 
I was excited about the News App at first, but I think I shall wait until after the election. It's nothing more than a professional looking Facebook with all the garbage in my feed.
 
I doubt my local struggling newspaper will create a paywall App... and that is sort of my point. In the UK, I have a SKY news App which is free to SKY TV subscribers and £4.99 [about $7] if you do not. If I were not a SKY subscriber do you think I would be using the App on a subscription basis...?

I would be interested to find out how many people actually pay for the SKY App outside the TV subscription.

It does not matter so much to me how they are paid, because my point is that the consumer is not confronted with the costs of the press although it concerns or should concern them the most. Today’s mindset seems to be that everything can be paid for by advertising or investors’ money, or that watered down news snippets on blogs are adequate substitutes, as long as the consumer can have it for free. I think that this is a deeply troubling development and it may lead to the point where consumers become less demanding about a the press as a whole.
 
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.
.

This will make the News app worthless unless I can filter out those stories I can't read. If it's just going to be a bunch of links to a paywall, I won't bother. The News app can keep the Stocks app company in my Useless Apps folder...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
It does not matter so much to me how they are paid, because my point is that the consumer is not confronted with the costs of the press although it concerns or should concern them the most. Today’s mindset seems to be that everything can be paid for by advertising or investors’ money, or that watered down news snippets on blogs are adequate substitutes, as long as the consumer can have it for free. I think that this is a deeply troubling development and it may lead to the point where consumers become less demanding about a the press as a whole.

The consumers is always confronted with the cost of the press. Every time I buy a newspaper, watch a TV news channel (BBC UK has a yearly licence fee, others use advertising. SKY, Virgin etc, use both Subscription and Advertising) I am paying. Every time I click online with an ad, I am paying. It all adds up regardless of how much you feel it is worth (or not) in isolation. You can already subscribe to Newspaper App's, these are not new and I used to them when out of the UK. However you can get all the news you want without needing to do so these days. They must therefore be listening to the consumers wants, to keep themselves relevant as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Perhaps you are confused by the online medium and are focusing on that linear vehicle alone to come to the conclusion that the average person thinks and expects it is 'free'? In any case, I do not feel that matters as the vehicle for profit is already multifaceted without the need for Paywall Apps.
 
Momma always said don't put all your eggs in one basket. Listen to Momma Tim.
 

Attachments

  • piechart.png
    piechart.png
    88.8 KB · Views: 100
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.

Huh? I hit paywalls all the time. Always have.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.