Facebook Won't Add News Subscription Service to iOS App Due to Apple's 30% Cut

[MacRumors]

Facebook is planning to introduce a feature that will let publishers sell subscriptions to their news sites directly on Facebook, but subscription purchases won't be available on iOS devices because Apple and Facebook are having trouble working out terms, reports Recode.

The feature will add paywalls to some articles in the Facebook news feed, directing users to the publisher's site to purchase a subscription. Apple wants to take a standard 30 percent cut of any subscription revenue brought in through the Facebook iOS app, while Facebook wants all of the money to go directly to publishers.

Facebook and Apple have reportedly been "discussing the impasse" for several months, and Facebook has decided to go ahead with a version of the feature that will only be available on Android phones. Facebook will be working with publishers like Bild, The Boston Globe, The Economist, Hearst (The Houston Chronicle and The San Francisco Chronicle), La Repubblica, Le Parisien, Spiegel, The Telegraph, tronc (The Baltimore Sun, The Los Angeles Times, and The San Diego Union-Tribune), and The Washington Post.

Through its subscription rules, Apple can take up to 30 percent of subscription revenue from in-app sales, though that number drops after a person has subscribed to a service on an iOS device for more than a year.

News subscription services won't be purchased directly on Facebook, but Apple still considers the feature to be an "in-app" purchase. Google does not plan to take a cut of subscriptions made through the Facebook for Android app.

In a statement to Recode, Facebook said it is "committed to this effort" and "optimistic" that a test will expand to "all mobile platforms" in the near future.

Article Link: Facebook Won't Add News Subscription Service to iOS App Due to Apple's 30% Cut

 

[nutmac]

And nothing of value is lost.

And I prefer Apple News to be the delivery vehicle for such service.

 

[Order_66]

And nothing of value is lost.

And I prefer Apple News to be the delivery vehicle for such service.

Apple news is decent for now but I have a feeling Apple will eventually destroy its credibility with censorship in the future.

 

[Avieshek]

Apple news is decent for now but I have a feeling Apple will eventually destroy its credibility with censorship in the future.

Talk about China..

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Not like most would have paid to read articles on Facebook anyways. Why pay to read things available free elsewhere? This is the concept newspapers that try to require subscriptions don't seem to gather either.

 

[Rogifan]

Not like most would have paid to read articles on Facebook anyways. Why pay to read things available free elsewhere? This is the concept newspapers that try to require subscriptions don't seem to gather either.

You pay if it’s good content you can’t get elsewhere.

Anyway Apple should only get a cut in instances where it’s clear the iOS platform is driving traffic. And they shouldn’t get a recurring cut of monthly subscriptions like Netflix or Spotify. Especially when they’re not hosting content.

 

[CTHarrryH]

Why would anyone believe anything on Facebook (ok maybe from your friends) or buy anything there anyway? It has already been shown that they show false political ads and anything else that someone gives them money for. Apple charge any amount that FB won't agree to.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

(emphasis added) News subscription services won't be purchased directly on Facebook, but Apple still considers the feature to be an "in-app" purchase. Google does not plan to take a cut of revenue.

Editors: Freudian slip, or do you mean Google Play isn't planning to take a cut on Android sales?

 

[RadioGaGa1984]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Razeus]

I'm still shocked Apple doesn't have anti-trust lawsuits by now.

 

[Kaibelf]

Let’s me get this straight. Facebook wants to add the ability to pay for news that is easily gettable anywhere and wants Apple to give them a distribution channel, but since Apple doesn’t work for free they are only going to fleece people on Android. And we are supposed to feel bad about this? Haha

 

[PG(Austin)]

Why would anyone believe anything on Facebook (ok maybe from your friends) or buy anything there anyway? It has already been shown that they show false political ads and anything else that someone gives them money for. Apple charge any amount that FB won't agree to.

I was about to say the same thing, but would add: Please Apple, charge the 30% for every "feature" FB offers. FB is the equivalent to the AirBNB guy placing cameras in the bedroom pointed at the bed.

 

[jclo]

Editors: Freudian slip, or do you mean Google Play isn't planning to take a cut on Android sales?

Google Play will not take a cut of sales made through the Facebook for Android app.

 

[Kaibelf]

I'm still shocked Apple doesn't have anti-trust lawsuits by now.

If you’re shocked then I suspect you don’t understand these laws. Apple doesn’t owe anyone “shelf space” without a fee. Those data centers didn’t get built on unicorn wishes.

 

[Razeus]

If you’re shocked then I suspect you don’t understand these laws. Apple doesn’t owe anyone “shelf space” without a fee. Those data centers didn’t get built on unicorn wishes.

Pretty sure news sites server their news on their own servers. Get a job.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

So Facebook is going to take users data and money?

Ballsy.

 

[fairuz]

I don't get why I'd use the iPhone app instead of just going to https://facebook.com in my browser, especially if it costs me 600MiB...

 

[0098386]

Why would anyone believe anything on Facebook (ok maybe from your friends) or buy anything there anyway? It has already been shown that they show false political ads and anything else that someone gives them money for. Apple charge any amount that FB won't agree to.

Very good point I didn't even consider. Yeah. Facebook have only just recently been shown that a year ago they accepted money for ads promoting fake news stories. If that never happened I believe they'd have a much better chance of getting people to take their news platform idea seriously.

I mean though, it could be pretty good. I'm imagining now an Apple News app that also displays articles behind paywalls, that keeps it all rendered on a single page (no CLICK HERE FOR MORE please)... that could be decent.

 

[coolfactor]

You pay if it’s good content you can’t get elsewhere.

Anyway Apple should only get a cut in instances where it’s clear the iOS platform is driving traffic. And they shouldn’t get a recurring cut of monthly subscriptions like Netflix or Spotify. Especially when they’re not hosting content.

I agree that Apple is overstepping its bounds here. This is content hosted by a third-party, and Apple has no right to dip into those funds.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

If you’re shocked then I suspect you don’t understand these laws. Apple doesn’t owe anyone “shelf space” without a fee. Those data centers didn’t get built on unicorn wishes.

You'd have a valid point if either Facebook or the news company was hosting their data at Apple's data centers, but neither is.

Apple hosts the Facebook app (a whopping 235 MB) and that's all. Facebook wouldn't host it with Apple at all, except Apple refuses to allow developers to distribute apps outside the iOS App Store.

The ONLY reason ANY portion of Apple's infrastructure is involved, is because Apple has set up rules saying that their infrastructure has to be used. And the portion that is used is extraordinary minimal and costs Apple next to nothing to provide, but they think they deserve 30% of everything anyone is paying for iOS Apps (on top of their profits on the hardware, and on top of the money they annually charge developers for the SDK.)

This would be like if a car manufacturer built a toll road and insisted that owners of their cars could only drive on that toll road. It's 100% insane, and it's insane that they haven't been slammed with a massive anti-trust lawsuit for it.

 

[coolfactor]

I don't get why I'd use the iPhone app instead of just going to https://facebook.com in my browser, especially if it costs me 600MiB...

Mobile apps provide an optimized usability experience that can't be delivered as effectively through web technologies on a mobile device. There are ways to emulate the experience, but it still has gotchas.

What annoys me most is when companies take that approach — build a mobile app, but use web technologies for the interface. They are basically trying to keep costs lower by building a single interface that is cross-platform, rather than separate native apps. But it results in a compromised user experience. Banks are largely guilty of this for their apps.

 

[truthertech]

I'm still shocked Apple doesn't have anti-trust lawsuits by now.

And Walmart too. They want to take a 50% cut of most things in order to sell them in their stores. Not fair! And why do I have to pay eBay a cut in order to sell something on their platform? Let's start a petition against Amazon because I am tired of paying them $40 a month plus commissions to sell something on their platform.

 

[collegitdept]

I agree that Apple is overstepping its bounds here. This is content hosted by a third-party, and Apple has no right to dip into those funds.

Anyone that follows me here on MacRumors knows that I'm quite negative on Apple's strategy execution - and especially their [sub-par] management.


That being said, regarding in-app purchase fee - they are absolutely reasonable in charging a cut - as any other company would that considered in-app purchases an important source of revenue.


Last point, this comment I'm replying to and the following:

You'd have a valid point if either Facebook or the news company was hosting their data at Apple's data centers, but neither is.

Apple hosts the Facebook app (a whopping 235 MB) and that's all. Facebook wouldn't host it with Apple at all, except Apple refuses to allow developers to distribute apps outside the iOS App Store.

Is misguided. Apple is charging for the *ACCESS* to their customer base. Not the *hosting* of the content. This is how most businesses operate on a fundamental level. Companies have a customer base, that they protect very dearly - and give it up to other companies freely.

Welcome to the real world @ArtOfWarfare and @coolfactor

 

[Razeus]

And Walmart too. They want to take a 50% cut of most things in order to sell them in their stores. Not fair! And why do I have to pay eBay a cut in order to sell something on their platform? Let's start a petition against Amazon because I am tired of paying them $40 a month plus commissions to sell something on their platform.

Your logic doesn't make sense.

Here's the thing. Apple seems to have no problem hosting the Facebook app for free, even though they bear the cost of hosting on Apple's servers.

But if Facebook wants to start a pay service, the Apple still bears the same cost because Facebook is doing their own hosting to provide the service, not Apple. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. I can see if Facebook want to channel all that info through Apple's servers, but that's not the case.

 

[collegitdept]

And Walmart too. They want to take a 50% cut of most things in order to sell them in their stores. Not fair! And why do I have to pay eBay a cut in order to sell something on their platform? Let's start a petition against Amazon because I am tired of paying them $40 a month plus commissions to sell something on their platform.

This is exactly correct. What most people don't comprehend about business and business models. Companies charge for *access* to their customer base. Hosting is a commodity