Maybe you're right, but it'd be a shame if they caved. I subscribe to both papers' electronic editions and have no intention of signing up for Apple News+, because Apple has shown that it can't be trusted not to stick its nose into content delivered via its services. I don't want news bowdlerized by Apple any more than I want a TV network bowdlerized by Apple.
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 Was Unable to Ink Apple News+ Deals With WaPo and NYT Despite 'Vigorous Courtship'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe you're right, but it'd be a shame if they caved. I subscribe to both papers' electronic editions and have no intention of signing up for Apple News+, because Apple has shown that it can't be trusted not to stick its nose into content delivered via its services. I don't want news bowdlerized by Apple any more than I want a TV network bowdlerized by Apple.
I had been sitting on the fence about getting either a Toronto Star or a Washington Post subscription for my daily news source. I couldn’t commit to paying for both.
I really value the Star’s reporting but their content delivery is terrible — like an old man trying to dress like a teenager. They don’t understand digital.
The Washington Post does both very well and so I was close to pulling the trigger on a subscription.
When Apple News + was announced, the choice became clear. I could get The Star’s excellent reporting in a format designed for iPhone and iPad and I’d also get access to magazines like GQ, Time, Popular Science and National Geographic. No brainer.
So, by opting out, the Washington Post gets nothing from me. It would have been better to get 10% of $9.99 than 0% of $15. They would have absolutely gain new readers and make up for the lower per reader share on increased volume. Hopefully they change their mind as AppleNews+ evolves over time.
I really value the Star’s reporting but their content delivery is terrible — like an old man trying to dress like a teenager. They don’t understand digital.
The Washington Post does both very well and so I was close to pulling the trigger on a subscription.
When Apple News + was announced, the choice became clear. I could get The Star’s excellent reporting in a format designed for iPhone and iPad and I’d also get access to magazines like GQ, Time, Popular Science and National Geographic. No brainer.
So, by opting out, the Washington Post gets nothing from me. It would have been better to get 10% of $9.99 than 0% of $15. They would have absolutely gain new readers and make up for the lower per reader share on increased volume. Hopefully they change their mind as AppleNews+ evolves over time.
Dammit, Charline, you put too many coils on the magazine again! This months issue is on going full Note 7 on people's iPads!
Really? You weren't aware of this until today?
This looks like the right decision for NYT and the Post at this time. Their online subscriptions have apparently gone up substantially in the past couple years and, as a subscriber to both, I think their online service is mostly very good. If they went to Apple News+, of COURSE I'd cancel both subscriptions to consolidate down to just one and then they'd only get a tiny percentage of that. So they made the right decision for their business.
As far as readership goes, that comes down to whether they can be shared and read on social media and they can. There isn't a paywall for either paper until they've tracked that you've read something like 10 articles in a month and that can be bypassed by clearing cookies. So the Times and the Post are still culturally relevant because people can tweet and FB their articles to casual non-subscribing readers.
By contrast, The Wall Street Journal is strictly paywalled so it actually makes sense for them to expand their readership through a bundling service like Apple. The presence of unrestricted Journal articles makes the Apple service kind of interesting to me now, because I've avoided subscribing to WSJ standalone because it's a pricey paper.
If in the future the Times/Post model starts lagging and they'd do better bundled, I'm sure they'll reassess.
As far as readership goes, that comes down to whether they can be shared and read on social media and they can. There isn't a paywall for either paper until they've tracked that you've read something like 10 articles in a month and that can be bypassed by clearing cookies. So the Times and the Post are still culturally relevant because people can tweet and FB their articles to casual non-subscribing readers.
By contrast, The Wall Street Journal is strictly paywalled so it actually makes sense for them to expand their readership through a bundling service like Apple. The presence of unrestricted Journal articles makes the Apple service kind of interesting to me now, because I've avoided subscribing to WSJ standalone because it's a pricey paper.
If in the future the Times/Post model starts lagging and they'd do better bundled, I'm sure they'll reassess.
Why is anyone signing up to this for 50%?
App developers are complaining about 70-30 and Spotify is taking Apple to court over 85-15.
Are they all just desperate? I guess a lot of online news is basically given away free anyway and apple news will prevent ad blockers, so maybe they have nothing to lose.
Still seems insane.
App developers are complaining about 70-30 and Spotify is taking Apple to court over 85-15.
Are they all just desperate? I guess a lot of online news is basically given away free anyway and apple news will prevent ad blockers, so maybe they have nothing to lose.
Still seems insane.
I'm sure they took that into consideration, but another consideration is how many subscribers they'd LOSE to the Apple service if they were on it. They'd lose the 100% of those fees and have them replaced by that 10%. Not a good move.
In any case, if you want to read the Post, you can as long as you keep your cookies clean.
Is this directed towards Apple, NYT/WaPo, or the readers?
Anecdotal as it can be, but the best move I made in recent memory is to switch back to paper delivery (currently WSJ, USA Today, Financial Times) and stop reading online news.
I am trying News+ for magazine reading, but so far I am not that impressed. $10/month is acceptable to read some of those magazines.
That’s *precisely* why people choose to pay for news. News outlets that you pay for are going to have the budget and financial stability to do the hard work of researching facts and hiring excellent writers to convey them. You build a relationship of trust with news you pay for. Free news outlets that rely on ad clicks have very little to lose and serve their advertisers rather than their readers.
"We've been pretty deliberate about saying that the best place you can experience journalism is through a relationship with a news provider. So far for us, that has meant a direct relationship with users. The more we have a relationship with users, the better we think our business will be, and the better the experience that we can provide to them."
Give me a break. Its all about the numbers. And rightly so. Putting it in really simple terms, If the NYT has 50 subscribers and Apple comes to them and says, "We guarantee we will DOUBLE, thats right, double your subscribers if you join us"
Well, the NYT would end up making LESS money then they do now. 50 subscribers @ $15per equals $750
Whereas if they got 100 @ $5........$500. No thanks and again, they are right to say so. Just dont act like you need this close personal relationship with your customers blah blah blah.
Give me a break. Its all about the numbers. And rightly so. Putting it in really simple terms, If the NYT has 50 subscribers and Apple comes to them and says, "We guarantee we will DOUBLE, thats right, double your subscribers if you join us"
Well, the NYT would end up making LESS money then they do now. 50 subscribers @ $15per equals $750
Whereas if they got 100 @ $5........$500. No thanks and again, they are right to say so. Just dont act like you need this close personal relationship with your customers blah blah blah.
I can see why NYT and WaPo declined and they would have lost subscribers to Apple and at the same time get only receive 50%, well maybe but unlikely.
[doublepost=1554147228][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1554147228][/doublepost]
Go ahead. It’s April’s Fool Day and we can use a good laughter. We are all among friends here.
This blows was hoping to to get NYT as its the last hold out so I can get all news in one spot....
Oh the old days prior to Apple Music wish they just bought Pandora, Now TV+ wish they just buy NetFlix and then offer a tier services package iCloud storage, Apple Music and TV with News...
Oh the old days prior to Apple Music wish they just bought Pandora, Now TV+ wish they just buy NetFlix and then offer a tier services package iCloud storage, Apple Music and TV with News...
Wish the Vanity Fair reporters had asked what the hell this meant. What sort of "direct relationship with users" -- tracking -- do these newspapers have? What does it tell them? Why do they need it?
This sounds like websites claiming to use cookies to "optimize the user experience". What nonsense.
Hey, did someone miss my post about "obtuse?"
Besides scattered and unorganized and such in Math it's an angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees.
On a clock face that would be 4:20
Besides scattered and unorganized and such in Math it's an angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees.
On a clock face that would be 4:20
I remember when Apple would have never dropped the ball on a critical high margin accessory like the AirPower. Now we have an Apple that wants to become a media conglomerate and their hardware offerings are getting staler by the hour.
When Apple gets to keep 50% of revenue while providing zero content and Apple won't share reader data with them, who is surprised? What's the incentive?
NYT and WaPo are doing just fine on their own.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscribers.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-digital-subscriptions.html
Well, not much of a loss. The corporate "drama" news cycles they exist on. No loss for a thoughtful American.
I don't suppose you happen to have Amazon Prime? If so, a Washington Post digital subscription is $4 per month.
Glad to see some integrity remains in the real news media.
That’s pretty good but I don’t. I do 80% of my grocery shopping on Amazon but I do it through a subscription so I get free delivery anyway, without spending the $90/year.
Not a big deal. WaPo and NYT makes up their news, usually. If they do 'report' it, they spin it so much it loses the actual meaning to the article.
You're better for this, apple.
You're better for this, apple.