Sidebar Sidebar
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'

ipedro said:
It would have been better to get 10% of $9.99 than 0% of $15.
Click to expand...

it's not 10% of $10, apple takes 50% and shares the rest will all read mags so it's $5 total, and in average, I bet mags would have a share of 5% (or 2.5% of the total 100%). That means the NYT would have to get over 40 readers to get the same money they currently get with 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota and Nintendo64
I'm glad some publishers are still printing on paper. It's not easy rolling up an iPad and swatting your dog on the nose with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5105973
ipedro said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are aware that subscribing thru Apple news only gets you Apple curated articles right, they are not required to post all news thru that avenue, you may still need to visit the publishers website or subscribe to get all their content
 
I pay $6 every 4 weeks for NY Times Digital. They're a little out of touch sometimes but overall have great content IMO. Plus I get crossword puzzles too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota
Apple News+ is a great deal just for WSJ alone. i have no interest in political journalism of NYT but their food and travel are top notch.

I not sure if the business model works for the magazines, there is a potential of large scale exodus of current subscribers.
 
Last edited:
GuruZac said:
No big loss. Does anyone actually take either rag serious anymore?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes. That's why the Apple layer made no sense for them. NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune are still the mainstay news sources in the U.S. Most newspapers these days carry only syndicated news from sources like AP as well as the above newspapers. Though I no longer subscribe to pulp newspapers, I do subscribe to NYT online - it's highly reliable original reporting, and they appear to sell enough online subscriptions to find no need to pipe through Apple. I'm surprised WSJ went for it. I currently also subscribe to the premium content from Wired and Ars Technica. Wired is only $5/year, Ars is $25/year, and NYT $15/month. It would make no sense for someone like me to buy into the Apple $38/month offering. Other than my current subscriptions, I can get everything else via the free webzines like Alternet, Intercept, MSNBC, CNN, and the like, though they mostly source from newspapers like NYT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, heffsf and Gasu E.
Fozziebear71 said:
In the current culture in "news" these days, I find it amazing that people will be willing to pay a monthly fee for "news" from any "news" outlet. Whether it's these two newspapers or AppleNews as an aggregator. I guess we'll see how successful Apple will be.
Click to expand...
If you want RELIABLE news you subscribe to the "blue chip" news sources. If you want the latest gossip or propaganda and rants, go for the freebees. I have in the past even donated a bit to MacRumors, as I find it to be a relatively unbiased (campared to "9-to-5 Mac" or Apple marketing news sources) source of news and feedback on Apple's products. If Apple truly does kill the Mac, or farm it out to some subsidiary, this forum and "9-to-5 Mac" may need to either do a name change, or disassociate from Apple at some point.
[doublepost=1554157846][/doublepost]
snoonw said:
new york times makes 800-900mil from subscrptions and that amount has been growing.
on chrome u can read nyt for free
Click to expand...
You can read a limited number of articles per month from the NYT website if you don't subscribe. Then you are cut off. If you have friends who are subscribers, they can post NYT articles on FB or send links to you via email for you to read. I forget what the limit is, but if you don't log in to the NYT website, you will be warned that you have accessed "x" of your limit as a non-subscriber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota and Gasu E.
coolfactor said:
In terms of taking things "seriously"... :p

I don't blame these publications. If they are successfully collecting $10-15 directly from subscribers, then it doesn't make sense for them to drop down to $4-5 under a deal with Apple. But the tides will change when their current subscriber base stops paying for a single-publication subscription. Apple News+ brings news from across many publications, which seems like a far more level playing field than getting all of your news from one source. They won't be able to hold out for long.
Click to expand...

Maybe Apple won’t hold on for long with their news service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota and Gasu E.
Intellectua1 said:
You are aware that subscribing thru Apple news only gets you Apple curated articles right, they are not required to post all news thru that avenue, you may still need to visit the publishers website or subscribe to get all their content
Click to expand...

You are aware that your information is based on rumours that were eventually refuted by both Apple and publishers, right?
 
lparsons21 said:
Yeah, NY Times over 4 million subscribers
Washington Post over a million.

Yeah, not many readers at all
Click to expand...

Now if the NYTimes is really charging $15 per user per month (although most people on this thread are paying far far less) the NYTimes would earn $60million per month on 4 million subscribers.

I truly believe Apple thinks this will be as popular as Apple Music, which has 56 million subscribers. I don't think it will be, but if they can get to about 50%, or 25 million users that would be $250 million dollars a month. Divide in half that is $125million. Let's say that half is divided evenly between 500 content providers? That is $250,000 per month per content provider. A far cry from $60million.

Now, if they could get to 56m and if there are only 300 content providers? That is almost a million dollars per content provider, per month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, Nintendo64 and dokindo
coolfactor said:
In terms of taking things "seriously"... :p

I don't blame these publications. If they are successfully collecting $10-15 directly from subscribers, then it doesn't make sense for them to drop down to $4-5 under a deal with Apple. But the tides will change when their current subscriber base stops paying for a single-publication subscription. Apple News+ brings news from across many publications, which seems like a far more level playing field than getting all of your news from one source. They won't be able to hold out for long.
Click to expand...
As to getting news from only "one source", that really depends upon the source. Publications like NYT and WaPo have an amazingly diverse set of offerings on a daily basis, though yes, their editorial sections tend to reflect the opinions of their chief editors and their respective boards of directors. NYT tends to be slightly left of center (though center is a rather right leaning target these days), but even that doesn't prevent their presenting a bit of balance. For every Paul Krugman there is also a David Brooks. Additionally, NYT also delivers great criticism and reporting on the Arts and Entertainment fields, from music of all genres, dance, theater, books/literature, and visual arts. It is a great newspaper and I (and apparently a lot of others) find the publication worth a $15 online subscription.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota, jeremiah256, clauzzz203 and 1 other person
curtvaughan said:
You can read a limited number of articles per month from the NYT website if you don't subscribe. Then you are cut off. If you have friends who are subscribers, they can post NYT articles on FB or send links to you via email for you to read. I forget what the limit is, but if you don't log in to the NYT website, you will be warned that you have accessed "x" of your limit as a non-subscriber.
Click to expand...


On iPhone or iPad, just use a browser that clears cookies every time you exit(kill) the app, or use safari or chrome incognito mode and exit browser (by killing the app via app switcher) every time you are warned you’re approaching or exceeded the number of articles allowed. u can read unlimited number of articles this way. clearing cookies manually is another more task intensive option for safari or chrome
 
snoonw said:
new york times makes 800-900mil from subscrptions and that amount has been growing.
on chrome u can read nyt for free
Click to expand...

Oh, I hadn't seen this before and I looked it up and it's true! There is no way then that they would join Apple in this - why was Eddie wasting so much of his time. That guy needs to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mendota
kazmac said:
WaPo...um, is it too much to spell out Washington Post?

At any rate, now that I know what WaPo is, not interested in these or Apple News+.
Click to expand...

Um, no, it's not that big a deal to not spell it out. WaPo is a frequently used abbreviation for the paper. Most people who keep up with news would recognize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heffsf and freedomlinux
Intellectua1 said:
You are aware that subscribing thru Apple news only gets you Apple curated articles right, they are not required to post all news thru that avenue, you may still need to visit the publishers website or subscribe to get all their content
Click to expand...
Is this true for the pay version of Apple News? I know it is true for the freebee Apple News now available on both iOS and MacOS, but I thought the pay version was supposed to deliver all content for the sources included.
 
Fozziebear71 said:
In the current culture in "news" these days, I find it amazing that people will be willing to pay a monthly fee for "news" from any "news" outlet. Whether it's these two newspapers or AppleNews as an aggregator. I guess we'll see how successful Apple will be.
Click to expand...

Especially when so much "news" is Fake News or dressed-up press releases.
 
davidwes said:
Now if the NYTimes is really charging $15 per user per month (although most people on this thread are paying far far less) the NYTimes would earn $60million per month on 4 million subscribers.

I truly believe Apple thinks this will be as popular as Apple Music, which has 56 million subscribers. I don't think it will be, but if they can get to about 50%, or 25 million users that would be $250 million dollars a month. Divide in half that is $125million. Let's say that half is divided evenly between 500 content providers? That is $250,000 per month per content provider. A far cry from $60million.

Now, if they could get to 56m and if there are only 300 content providers? That is almost a million dollars per content provider, per month.
Click to expand...
I also think the success of Apple News and other such news conduits will depend upon which age groups are targeted. Younger generations of people appear to not care so much about traditional news outlets - corroborated a bit by posts on this forum - whereas folks over 40 seem to still value news delivered by top notch newspaper publishers. That would seem to imply that disgruntled long time Mac users still would prefer subscribing to NYT or WaPo directly rather than go through Apple to get to the source, while the younger generation - who tend not to care about Macs, desktops, and laptops in general, would be attracted to mobile delivery from Apple. Just speculation.
 
You know it’s pretty bad when Jason Snell hopes a redesign of the app is coming at WWDC. Perhaps they need to bring someone in to do the negotiating like they did with the TB content. Eddy Cue is out of his league here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back