Perhaps it is the data-mining they won’t give up.
YOU and ME - that’s the real “news” these days - how we respond to the click bait articles, that might be too valuable to give up
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
Perhaps it is the data-mining they won’t give up.
YOU and ME - that’s the real “news” these days - how we respond to the click bait articles, that might be too valuable to give up
Yes but it’s not always just about what is right or good. It’s also about $$$. So there is some conflict here
[doublepost=1554186179][/doublepost]
To me what you say comes across as “McDonald’s and Burger King and White Castle are the foundations of a well balanced diet”.
There’s a reason for people making negative noise about the media these days, so hopefully more people will look closer at the problem.
[doublepost=1554186677][/doublepost]
Well Stated.
I agree that the data/tracking is a factor here. It’s a bit of a dirty factor I’d say.
As for subscribers, Apple will have more than 20 Million in months, not years, I’m thinking.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its all a balancing act. You either get few high paying consumers or lots of low paying consumers. Apple was giving them a tonne of the latter. WSJ was smart. NYT & WaPo are the ones who will suffer in the long run.
This is exactly what I think. There are so many free news aggregators and sites that I'm not sure how long this paid service will last.
I don't see where Apple is going to expand and how.
At $9.99 price is aggressive, but still only worth it if you read at least 3 of those magasines already or have WSJ as your daily newspaper (and don't care about the limited archive).
The whole system will rely on Apples revenue sharing and that "everyone" accepts it. They cannot do exclusive deals, such as higher cut for WSJ than NYT (if they ever join). The question than remains, will they be able to keep the prices low and keep and expand their user base? I have my doubts...
At $9.99 price is aggressive, but still only worth it if you read at least 3 of those magasines already or have WSJ as your daily newspaper (and don't care about the limited archive).
The whole system will rely on Apples revenue sharing and that "everyone" accepts it. They cannot do exclusive deals, such as higher cut for WSJ than NYT (if they ever join). The question than remains, will they be able to keep the prices low and keep and expand their user base? I have my doubts...
I’m currently finding the app very pushy with magazines I have absolutely no interest in. I’m following two dozen magazines and channels. Once you’ve finished showing me the news I explicitly told you I want to see, yeah pitch Vogue and Texas Monthly.
And that is probably a factor with NYT and WaPo. I can understand not wanting to share screen space in an app that has to serve multiple masters.
And that is probably a factor with NYT and WaPo. I can understand not wanting to share screen space in an app that has to serve multiple masters.
Trying to imagine Eddy "wooing" someone is both hilarious and kind of disturbing
Apple has been trying to similar stuff with revenue sharing and limited access to customer data with the news industry for years now, ever since the first iPad. They didn't do much better when Steve was negotiating either.
The absence of the NYT and WaPo makes the service more appealing IMO.
Wouldn't want it for free... even if they paid me 40$
Yeah very anecdotal
I don't get the magazine thing at all... like what would be a modern version of a magazine? A scanned PDF of the print version? Or maybe... just maybe... a website? Apple thinks its a scanned PDF...
source:https://www.statista.com/statistics/183422/paid-circulation-of-us-daily-newspapers-since-1975/
[doublepost=1554199665][/doublepost]
It's not like MSM is dying and replaced with tweets and facebook.
Countless of bloggers, independent journalists, youtubers or streamers, a huge booming alternative media speak otherwise.
People love diverse and unfiltered information.
The MSM dinosaurs with their recycled press agency conten, ideologized and manipulative reporting and zero investigative journalism look boring and bland compared to what the internet has to offer.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love to know why they justify that 50% cut in front of all those publishers who do most of the work.
And how on earth do Apple expect them to survive after joining this Apple news club...
(Ignore that Apple user base figures, don't forget Apple news is only available in a handful of region)
Seems pretty high of a risk for publishers, some what suicidal for publishers that already have a decent online subscription service running.
And how on earth do Apple expect them to survive after joining this Apple news club...
(Ignore that Apple user base figures, don't forget Apple news is only available in a handful of region)
Seems pretty high of a risk for publishers, some what suicidal for publishers that already have a decent online subscription service running.
If it was just 50% they probably would think about it. They would get a fraction of those 5$.
What a deal! Lose at least 50%, probably 75% or more, of your revenue, have no control on anything.
Apple would have to multiply their readership tenfold.
For magazines nobody reads or is willing to buy this makes a lot more sense.
Yup, I know it's a challenge with News and TV specifically, but I think they could have better representation than Eddy.
I like to think of it as paying to support the continued creation of the news you want to see, rather than paying for news itself.
For Apple News, I think the main selling point is convenience and ease of accessibility. I might not be willing to subscribe to a single news outlet because I know I am not going to read every single article they put up, so a monthly subscription to that one company doesn't seem like a very good deal. With Apple News, I get to mix and match news from various sources without having to be burdened by multiple subscriptions.
The NYT and Wapo were smart not to take Apple's deal. Unless Apple News blows up there is nothing there for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the NYT were included with Apple News+ I would be on board in an instant.
I disagree but we'll see how it comes out. NYT, WaPo and WSJ all have fervent subscribers who are willing to pay a bit more for the expanded content. I don't think WSJ is cover-to-cover on Apple News. I like being able to search the Times and see the whole paper. I think if Apple loosens up a bit on their take they may get them yet.
Moderator Note:
Quite a few posts discussing the political leanings of the mentioned media outlets have been removed. If you would like to discuss that topic, please create a thread in the Politics, Religion, and Social Issues forum where that topic belongs. Thank you
Quite a few posts discussing the political leanings of the mentioned media outlets have been removed. If you would like to discuss that topic, please create a thread in the Politics, Religion, and Social Issues forum where that topic belongs. Thank you
The main reason I think the Washington Post held out is because you can find dirt cheap online only subscriptions straight from them. If you're an Amazon Prime subscriber, you can add a Washington Post sub for $3.99/month. And that gives you access via their app as well as the website, on any device you want.
Once or twice a month my wife buys “In Touch” Hollywood gossip magazine at the grocery store. 10 bucks for a family is a good price for all.
I subscribe to the Times and the Post because I want to support them. I've been reading the Times since my grandfather taught me how to fold the paper for reading on a crowded subway train. I'm trying out the trial subscription to Apple News, but I'm not sure if I'll continue it past the trial period. The design of the app isn't up to Apple standards. For example, if you scroll through the list of News+ magazines, you can't seem to follow a magazine directly from that list. Instead, you need to do a search for the magazine by name and then follow it from the search results. Also, even if you follow a magazine, some will show recent issues and some will just display a summary of some of the content. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the app, but there seems to be a lack of consistency.
I subscribe to the Times on my own, but I can see the value in joining Apple News in the long run for a lot of publishers. What people here fail to realize is, you're joining a service that has over a billion people at its fingertips. At some point, the paid paper circulation will die off and so will some not wanting to fork over $15 for access to the website.