Apple Was Unable to Ink Apple News+ Deals With WaPo and NYT Despite 'Vigorous Courtship'

[PickUrPoison]

Wouldn't want it for free... even if they paid me 40$

Did you read the article? Subscribers who pay $40/month to the Wall Street Journal are corporations and wealthy individuals. $40/month is nothing to them, and they’ll keep paying it even if they drop $9.99/month on Apple News+.

That’s the whole point—they joined AN+ because it won’t affect the subscriber revenue they’re currently pulling in.

 

[Coconut Bean]

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.

The problem is that the massively reduced income per reader they get won't be offset by the new users. This service will simply not increase the influx of money significantly, just put some of it in Apples pocket. Kind of unfair if you ask me. It might put pressure on services to decrease the prices to be able to compete though.

I do actually think that the pay per magazine/newspaper is better with some free views on others is a better model. Audible kind of model.

 

[beermode]

Wow, just wow. You do realize that their current offerings are more or less free. 50% of of even 10 cents is better than nothing.

NYT and WaPo have their own subscriptions. If they caved into Apple, readers would ditch the direct subscriptions and adopt Apple News, leading to a drop in revenue.
Why is this hard to comprehend?

 

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
As for subscribers, Apple will have more than 20 Million in months, not years, I’m thinking.

I don’t know; a lot of people would rather just see their own world view reinforced by an echo chamber of clickbait-driven bloggers with Twitter-sourced propaganda rather than read fact-based news from actual journalists

But I sure hope so. If they do, it’ll be the magazines that draw them in, there’s just not much new there (yet), but it’s a start.

 

[FriendlyPanda]

NYT and WaPo have their own subscriptions. If they caved into Apple, readers would ditch the direct subscriptions and adopt Apple News, leading to a drop in revenue.
Why is this hard to comprehend?

Makes sense to me.

If Apple News+ takes off and becomes a smart business decision for them, I'm sure they'll have the option to join in at a later date.

 

[BuddyTronic]

I don’t know; a lot of people would rather just see their own world view reinforced by an echo chamber of clickbait-driven bloggers with Twitter-sourced propaganda rather than read fact-based news from actual journalists

But I sure hope so. If they do, it’ll be the magazines that draw them in, there’s just not much new there (yet), but it’s a start.

Exactly right - world view has a lot to do with what news people want to read. People read what they like, and that’s just human nature

 

[unclemax]

I wish Apple came up with some algorithm for their Music, News, and upcoming streaming service subscriptions where the monthly fee is capped at a flat rate of, say, $9.99, and then you're charged that or less depending on your usage. Say, if I go on News+ and read one paywalled article every other day, I don't see how it's worth ten bucks per month.

 

[nikaru]

There were record companies who held out on streaming too. They'll come around eventually.

The problem here is Apple inability to convince some of the biggest newspapers and magainez to joint which is a shame, especially considering Apple influence and money. They should have negotiated better but obiviously if the distributer of your product is asking for 50% cut of all sales, I understand why many finally decided to say "No, ****** no"
[doublepost=1554290569][/doublepost]

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.

Ofc, better to read the news from 4chan and online newslets with questionable sources and jurnalistic practice.
[doublepost=1554290921][/doublepost]

I wish Apple came up with some algorithm for their Music, News, and upcoming streaming service subscriptions where the monthly fee is capped at a flat rate of, say, $9.99, and then you're charged that or less depending on your usage. Say, if I go on News+ and read one paywalled article every other day, I don't see how it's worth ten bucks per month.

Its like some restaurantes charging you for every bite instead of the whole hamburger. It doesnt make any sense. Obivously, this services is for people who read newspapers or magazines on daily basis. One fixed price is far better to sell than different bundles, price tiers and on demand distribution with capped fee. 10$ is less than two standard magazines or 5 newspaper per month. The problem is the content and the number of markets in which is available.
[doublepost=1554291636][/doublepost]

NYT and WaPo have their own subscriptions. If they caved into Apple, readers would ditch the direct subscriptions and adopt Apple News, leading to a drop in revenue.
Why is this hard to comprehend?

Or the consumer will stop paying 19,99$ for WaPo subscription and would instead decide to pay 9,99$ in order to have 100 different newspapers at the tip of its finger. Dont know how the remuneration algorythm of Apple works but if a newspaper is getting fixed fee for every Apple News+ subscriber regardless of the fact if they actually read your paper, it could make sense from economic perspective. What is better, getting 19,99$ from 100 people or getting 0,10$ from 1 million?

 

[DoctorTech]

You can subscribe to RSS feeds. Instead of letting someone else curate it for you, you can curate it yourself. I’ve read most of my news this way.

Thanks for mentioning this. I have been aware of RSS feeds but I have never tried them out. I will look into those. The "curation" of news was my biggest reservation about Apple News / Apple News+

 

[ipponrg]

Thanks for mentioning this. I have been aware of RSS feeds but I have never tried them out. I will look into those. The "curation" of news was my biggest reservation about Apple News / Apple News+

Check out Feedly. I use it for the web. For iOS I use Newsify which can consume Feedly RSS feeds

 

[GDF]

No big loss. Could care less about those newspapers...

 

[EdT]

Or at least you hope that’s what happens. But what if it doesn’t?

Then he’s no worse off than he was before he found out about this. If it works he’s ahead of the game and if it doesn’t work he has the same choices he had 2 weeks ago.

 

[Mendota]

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...

Apple will never be allowed to buy Netflix. And thank God for that.

 

[cmaier]

Apple will never be allowed to buy Netflix. And thank God for that.

Let me guess - some sort of incorrect theory about how antitrust laws work?

 

[Mendota]

Let me guess - some sort of incorrect theory about how antitrust laws work?

It is not a matter of antitrust. Netflix will not sell to Apple and Apple cannot afford it. Netflix value is growing and Reed has no intention of selling.

And yes, thank God for that. The last thing I want is Apple's censorship of programming. I may not like everything on Netflix, but I can decide for myself.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/12/its-too-late-for-apple-to-buy-netflix-commentary.html

 

[unclemax]

Its like some restaurantes charging you for every bite instead of the whole hamburger. It doesnt make any sense. Obivously, this services is for people who read newspapers or magazines on daily basis. One fixed price is far better to sell than different bundles, price tiers and on demand distribution with capped fee. 10$ is less than two standard magazines or 5 newspaper per month. The problem is the content and the number of markets in which is available.

What doesn't make any sense is how you managed to twist the restaurant analogy and use it against my argument. Subscription services now is exactly like some restaurant charging you a flat monthly fee to eat one burger per day. If you are happy with buying 30.5 burgers for X dollars then everything is fine, however if you decide that you only want to have burger every other day, or 10 days per month, or 5 days per month etc then your only other option is paying same X dollars for the four course + wine "deluxe" burger meal ("buying an album") every time.