Facebook and Apple Work Out Deal for Subscription News Purchases in iOS App

[BigMcGuire]

Gathering information is not free, their employee actively work for looking for news, taking photographs and maintaining a website/printers etc.
Eventually truth will be heard, but it may be too late.

Reading paid news is definitely something that my generation and the upcoming ones do not see as a good use of money - I realize I'm generalizing but I don't know anyone who went to high school with me that pays for news. Now, my parents, my grandparents, and a lot of people in the 50-60+ range have newspaper subscriptions and magazine subscriptions.

I used to work for a boss that let me read his old WSJ papers and wow was that fun, but there was no way I could afford the $400/year? that WSJ cost - but I see the value in paid news, so I'm not bashing it at all.

I just don't know anyone that wants to pay for it.

That and every news company I go to is frigging LOADED with advertisements that I can't even focus on reading because every half page scroll there are 20 ads - even in the text. How do people focus and actually read anymore?!

You watch those old television shows and movies (60s or so) and you see them reading a news paper that is 90% print. Now I could see paying for that, in fact, I'd gladly pay for that.

But why in the **** would I pay for something that's 80% advertisement? That's why I personally can't stand to pay for it - even WSJ and Economist have too many ads on their website even if you pay their expensive fees. In the 2003-2009 years I had to stop my magazine subscriptions because even though they were $19.99/year, they became 80-90% advertisements.

I'd definitely re-consider it if they removed ALL ads for paying subscribers.


I'm finding more and more people that I know get their news from youtube channels that talk about current events or what not.

 

[cupcakes2000]

So basically someone will pay to get something that is biased according to their beliefs or ideology, got it.

Yes. Because that’s what I meant /s

I’ll try a different approach.

If you want to read some article carefully reported by a paid journalist, rehashed by some random internet persons weird armchair opinion, then fine. But that is not a good way of learning about current events in a accurate way.

 

[bstpierre]

What you said doesn’t answer my question.. I think you haven’t understood... I can buy a prime subscription on the amazon app directly. However, that subscription doesn’t get counted as an in app purchase. It’s like a product sold on the amazon app. Whereas on the Netflix app, the subscription is counted as an in app subscription.

It’s just that amazon sells it like any other product on their store and not through apples distribution.. but if that’s the case, how come they can sell a subscription but Netflix can’t get away with it?

Another question arises too.. Apple doesn’t take 30% cut if it’s not an in app purchase, amazon sells its own products and acts as an agent website, but Apple doesn’t get a cut.. similarly, Facebook here is acting as an agent, but apple is getting a cut.. why’s that?

 

[fairuz]

As a developer 30% is fine.. They give you all the tools to develop, portals to upload the work you have made, and a store to sell it on.. Suppose you didn't think about all the back end infrastructure involved when you wrote that.

Why not give the choice? If you're an independent dev (as I used to be), it's great. If you're someone like Spotify who already has payment systems in place and is trying to cover large operating expenses, it's totally unwanted and can be seen as an attack.
[doublepost=1518546185][/doublepost]

Correct, but see this.. Amazon has a prime subscription and Netflix has their own subscription. While a prime purchase, essentially is sold as just another product on amazon, Apple doesn’t receive 30%, so then how come Netflix cannot do the same?

You can also sign up for Netflix outside the app, and Apple won't receive 30%. There are some weird App Store restrictions on how you can make users sign up for accounts that I haven't kept up with, but somehow a few services have been stuck having users sign up through the app.

 

[Barry Marshall]

Well at least it will be less crap and fake news that pollutes fb now

 

[nburwell]

No thanks, Facebook. I happily pay $8/month to read NYT on my iPhone and iPad each day and that's all need.

 

[eoblaed]

Have they worked out a deal with Facebook where they finally provide a native resolution app for the 12.9" iPad Pro?

I know the device has only been out 2.5 years, but maybe they can rush one out?

 

[canadianreader]

Well, just because you can read it on the internet, it doesnt mean that somebody did all the research and writing for free. People/companies still need money for publishing news and paying their reporters.

The thing is they all report the same news and most of the time it is free that's why I was wondering why would be people paying for something that already is free on the net.
[doublepost=1518552115][/doublepost]

Those companies need money for their everyday operation. Why would news be free?

It is already free

 

[alexgowers]

Knowing how jilted the echo chamber of news on Facebook is, why would you want to go there for it?

I swear Facebook is for stalkers and extroverts only. Does anyone genuinely use it to be social anymore? Calling, texting and emailing, iMessage, etc etc are all superior to this aging dinosaur ad selling pile of steaming trash.

The iq of the internet populous has sunk to new lows. I preferred when the media was at least puppetted by media moguls and not just regurgitated vlogs, 10 yr old memes or bots.

 

[neutralguy]

Apple wants a bite out of the fake news on Facebook!

 

[macgabe]

Saying Apple isn't providing anything when taking a cut is to misunderstand business.

Everyone takes a cut. When Amazon sells you a Disney film they are taking a cut. When the NYT sells you a story a reporter wrote they are taking a cut. When Facebook shows you a signup for NYT or Amazon they are taking cut, but like Google they get paid by advertisers, not in cash from content providers.

Most businesses in the world take someone else's work and repackage it delivering to a larger public. When a teacher teaches a class they take a lesson from a book, written by someone else, and repeat it to the class. And obviously get paid for doing so. Should the writer of the book be annoyed? No, of course not, they are selling their book to teachers. The school may even sell the book to students and also take a cut.

There are two models for all publishing; advertising and sales/subscription. Facebook and Google place ads beside other people's content and get paid that way - they are not doing this "for free". Apple has little in the way of ads so takes cash upfront.

When Apple sells you a signup for Netflix, who sells you a package of films most of which they didn't make, both Apple and Netflix want a cut. What is Netflix providing to the film maker? It is selling their film to you. What is Apple providing to Netflix? It is selling their service to you.

The Top 10 listings on the App Store and iTunes are very important both to Apple and to publishers. It's pretty obvious that they not only tell you what is good but also incite purchases - just like the NYT bestseller list does.

Getting to be App of the Week, or Recommended for You, or Top 10 or Essentials is like Apple putting your store right in the middle of the High Street on a busy Saturday afternoon. After that, what you do with your footfall is up to you; many small app developers don't know how to deal with a drop off after the initial surge - but that's a different problem entirely.

In addition to this promotional aspect, Apple has built and is continually improving all the platform infrastructure the apps use to deliver their service. When I open my bank app it unlocks with FaceID - the whole ecosystem of the iPhone is necessary to make it possible for the bank to deliver their service to me. And in that case, since it's a free app, Apple is presumably doing it mostly "for free".

 

[makr]

The thing is they all report the same news and most of the time it is free that's why I was wondering why would be people paying for something that already is free on the net.
[doublepost=1518552115][/doublepost]
It is already free

Nope