Hints of Magazine Subscription Service Spotted in Apple News in iOS 12.2 Beta

[MacRumors]

Apple is rumored to be working on a subscription-based service that will be offered in the Apple News app, and hints of that service were discovered in the iOS 12.2 beta.

Apple in 2018 acquired subscription-based digital magazine app Texture, leading to rumors suggesting Apple would develop a subscription-based news and magazine service.

Apple appears to be testing such a service internally based on images found in iOS 12.2 by 9to5Mac. A hidden landing page indicates Apple is going to call the service "Apple News Magazines," with customers able to subscribe in the Apple News app.

Billing appears to be handled through iTunes, much like Apple Music, and there are also reportedly hints of a "bundle subscription," suggesting rumors that Apple will develop an all-in-one subscription option for TV, Apple Music, and magazines could be accurate.

The interface for Apple News Magazines is similar in design to Texture. Texture, which is still available via the App Store, provides access to over 200 popular magazines like People, The New Yorker, Time, National Geographic, Shape, Newsweek, and more, all for a $9.99 per month fee.

Apple News Magazines could work similarly, though rumors have suggested it will also include news subscription options, and pricing is unclear. In September, Apple was rumored to be aiming to get major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times to join its subscription service.

Late 2018 rumors indicated that Apple would launch its subscription news and magazine service in spring 2019, which could line up with the launch date of iOS 12.2. Apple has also held a March event for the last several years, and if such a service is in the works for spring 2019, a March event would be an ideal time to unveil it.

Early 2019 is also the prospective launch date for Apple's rumored TV streaming service, so it's quite possible both this news service and the TV service will be announced at the same time.

Article Link: Hints of Magazine Subscription Service Spotted in Apple News in iOS 12.2 Beta

 

[riverfreak]

Let’s hope the subscriptions aren’t just to PDFs like Texture. Reading a PDF on a mobile device wasn’t worth the low price of the Texture subscription. Far better to have a dedicated app with responsive formatting.

 

[dasams]

I love my Texture subscription for the value. I download over a dozen mags a month and all for $9.99

 

[rmoliv]

Let me anticipate this... It'll be available only in the U.S., UK, Australia and, now, Canada as well?

 

[dannyyankou]

If they charge the same $9.99 price, I can see this being something a lot of people sign up for. My mom has tons of magazine subscriptions.

 

[nt5672]

Bet it's only a few magazines, that are authorized by Apple as politically correct. Most magazines won't want to be part of the Apple machine because of Apple's tax. This will be IMO just another poorly implemented Apple service to keep Wall Street happy and giddy. Do these Wall Street types actually use any Apple hardware?

 

[Diane B]

I was wondering what they will do with newspaper or news sites subscriptions. I read a number of newspaper articles from a variety of news sources through Apple News (subscribe to 2 so don’t hit the wall for those), also tech and photography sites and blogs. Magazines don’t interest me much—maybe Atlantic or New Yorker but can usually read what i want from twitter links without hitting the wall. I do sub to Apple Music so will just wait and weigh against what I pay and read now.

 

[itsmilo]

The news app is just too overwhelming like I don’t even know where to start reading so I end up not reading anything at all

 

[anshuvorty]

Looks more and more likely that a March event is on the cards this year folks (with live streaming!, unlike last year's Edu-focused event, with no live streaming). This, along with the leak of the iPad/iPad Mini 5 rumors, makes for a good 1-hour event at least.

 

[ipedro]

I subscribed to Texture last month and all this time, I keep thinking: what’s the catch? The number of high quality magazines feels too good to be true for $9.99. I paid that much for just GQ and Popular Science.

This model is really the future of “print” subscriptions. Newspapers and magazines will more than make up the lower prices per subscriber in volume. Like Apple Music, people are willing to pay a reasonable monthly subscription if it’s simple to subscribe and takes away the burden of having to choose which content to pay for.

Many of the people who pay for Apple Music today are those who pirated music because it was the easiest way to get all the content you wanted and there was no reasonably priced legal way to do it. Nobody was going to purchase thousands of dollars to get all the albums they wanted but they’ll pay $9.99 to get open access to all music. I’m expecting the same to be true for print media.

 

[tothemoonsands]

All-in-one with TV, Music, and Magazines sounds amazing. IMO, Individual plan should be no more than $19.99/month and Family plan should be no more than $24.99-$29.99/month.

 

[charlituna]

All-in-one with TV, Music, and Magazines sounds amazing. IMO, Individual plan should be no more than $19.99/month and Family plan should be no more than $24.99-$29.99/month.

You are hilarious. There is no way that Apple would do such a system for only $19.99 and then up to six folks for $29.99. Try more like maybe $29.99 for one and $99.99 for a family

 

[npmacuser5]

I am waiting for Magazines to begin having more articles then ads. Especially paying for them electronically. Somewhat understand the printed pricing. Fixed costs for printing and distribution. Ads are not going totally away. Would be nice if one could read an article without 10 pages of ads between beginning and end.

 

[tothemoonsands]

You are hilarious. There is no way that Apple would do such a system for only $19.99 and then up to six folks for $29.99. Try more like maybe $29.99 for one and $99.99 for a family

$99.99/month would be steep, considering that Apple Music family plan charges only $4.99/month more than the individual plan. I agree that my prices may be a bit optimistic. On the other hand though, Apple has a lot of competition. Also, their TV offerings of original content is already included in Apple Music, they just aren't marketing it separately. So if it is just current Apple Music ($9.99-14.99) + Texture ($10), then that gets back to that $19.99/mo for individual and $24.99/mo for family. (And of course, if it is a full fledged TV service, then that equation is changed...substantially!)

 

[ipedro]

The news app is just too overwhelming like I don’t even know where to start reading so I end up not reading anything at all

I think the correct way to consume Apple News is to replace your browser with the News app. I personally consume more than an entire newspaper’s worth of content browsing websites daily on Safari. I’ll be replacing my browsing routine with news and magazines that I subscribe to in Apple News.

 

[Nevis8]

Over here at n the UK we have Readly, a magazine subscription app that has 100s of premium magazine with a great UI. To be honest it’s marketing dept has been asleep for some years, few people seem to have heard of it, but I’d be pissed if any Apple offering saw the end of it. Still, Spotify seems to have survived so here’s hoping.

 

[ipedro]

I am waiting for Magazines to begin having more articles then ads. Especially paying for them electronically. Somewhat understand the printed pricing. Fixed costs for printing and distribution. Ads are not going totally away. Would be nice if one could read an article without 10 pages of ads between beginning and end.

Some media organizations are finding that fewer but higher priced ads are the way forward. It results in higher quality ads that are relevant to the user which improves the experience overall for the user and a better return for the advertiser.

I’ll be honest, I actually subscribe to GQ for the ads first, the actual content second. Ads on GQ are beautifully produced. I wouldn’t want them to go away.

 

[jmh600cbr]

I’d like to see a bundle that includes music, tv and magazines for $20-30 a month for a family. My wife and I would get it for sure.

 

[CarlJ]

The news app is just too overwhelming like I don’t even know where to start reading so I end up not reading anything at all

Actually, I usually look at it (or start looking at it) from the today widget - slide over from the home screen (or notifications screen), get 4-ish headlines of the day's top stories. See if any new countries have declared war on each other, that kind of thing. If something particularly catches my eye, I tap on it to see more, then often skim a few related/nearby articles. It's not an app I sit down to use, like a word processor or some such, just a way to dip in and see a bit of what's up in the world.

 

[Abazigal]

Come to Singapore and you have yourself a subscriber.

 

[0388631]

I subscribed to Texture last month and all this time, I keep thinking: what’s the catch? The number of high quality magazines feels too good to be true for $9.99. I paid that much for just GQ and Popular Science.

This model is really the future of “print” subscriptions. Newspapers and magazines will more than make up the lower prices per subscriber in volume. Like Apple Music, people are willing to pay a reasonable monthly subscription if it’s simple to subscribe and takes away the burden of having to choose which content to pay for.

The catch is that it isn't a viable model. If you recall, Oyster was a similar service that got snatched up by Google and shutdown later. Apple bought Texture last year for a mystery sum. The goal of these types of companies is to get bought out. Lala was a very cheap alternative years ago until it was snapped up by Apple and shut down a month or two later.

 

[truthertech]

Bet it's only a few magazines, that are authorized by Apple as politically correct. Most magazines won't want to be part of the Apple machine because of Apple's tax. This will be IMO just another poorly implemented Apple service to keep Wall Street happy and giddy. Do these Wall Street types actually use any Apple hardware?

LOL. Better stay out of the prediction business. Apple already has 100’s of magazines signed up through its Texture app.

 

[truthertech]

The catch is that it isn't a viable model. If you recall, Oyster was a similar service that got snatched up by Google and shutdown later. Apple bought Texture last year for a mystery sum. The goal of these types of companies is to get bought out. Lala was a very cheap alternative years ago until it was snapped up by Apple and shut down a month or two later.

Bad analogy. Oyster was a book subscription business, totally dependent on income from subscriptions. Texture was successful in getting over 200 of the top magazines to sign up because they make most of their income from ads, not subscriptions. Participating in Texture only increased eyeballs for advertisers and brought in some subscription income on top.

What's killed magazines is print distribution. Digital distribution with its zero marginal distribution cost is what will save magazines, (and newspapers). Apple has the best overall distribution network in the world and it's massiveness, e.g., they already have hundreds of millions following news, along with the iPad being the best magazine reader ever, will only increase Magazine's advertising dollars by a huge increase in number of people exposed to their ads, without incurring any additional expense. And Apple users are the most sought after by advertisers because of their income and purchasing habits.

Finally, Google didn't buy Oyster and shut it down later. Oyster had a piddly 100,000 subscribers, when in 2014 Amazon decided to launch a competing subscription books service. Oops! Amazon’s service worked with its Kindle devices, while Oyster did not. Amazon’s subscription service quickly had an estimated two million subscribers. Surprise, a year later Oyster sold it's IP assets to Google, announcing that it was shutting down.

 

[0388631]

Bad analogy. Oyster was a book subscription business, totally dependent on income from subscriptions.

Both tiered subscription and the ability to purchase, actually.

Texture was successful in getting over 200 of the top magazines to sign up because they make most of their income from ads, not subscriptions. Participating in Texture only increased eyeballs for advertisers and brought in some subscription income on top.

Texture spent years getting there.

Apple's massive distribution network, e.g., they already have hundreds of millions following news, along with the iPad being the best magazine reader ever, will only increase their advertising dollars by number of people exposed to their ads, without incurring any additional expense.

You just explained my initial reasoning. There's a reason services like these are often bought and shut down, integrated or kept alive and then shut down later on.

And Apple users are the most sought after by advertisers because of their income and purchasing habits.

Won't argue with this. However, I'd prefer to see a demographics breakdown than rely on a commonly held belief.

Finally, Google didn't buy Oyster and shut it down later. Oyster had a piddly 100,000 subscribers

Just repeating what I said? Google bought Oyster for their tech, expertise and employees. And is there any article mentioning 100,000 users apart from their Wiki page where that figure has no reference.

when in 2014 Amazon decided to launch a competing subscription books service. Oops!

Kindle Unlimited? KU is very different than what Oyster offered. KU seems to have a lot of riff-raff (self published crap). I take a look at what's available every so often. Most of it is women's romance. There's very little Big 5 material. Prime Reading is the service (included in Prime) you should use as a comparison.

Amazon’s service worked with its Kindle devices, while Oyster did not.

True, but it did support iOS and Android devices including the Kindle Fire line, which were skinned Androids.

Amazon’s subscription service quickly had an estimated two million subscribers.

That's because Amazon offered a deal at first to get people onto KU. They still do it from time to time. But as I said, the quality of books under KU is nothing close to a professionally published novel by a publisher.

Surprise, a year later Oyster sold it's IP assets to Google, announcing that it was shutting down.

Oyster had been looking for a buyer long before then.


Scribd has nearly 1M users paying a monthly fee of $8.99 to get access to books and magazines. According to them, they have nearly 100M users accessing and using their site each month. Again we can go back to Amazon's KU program, but the reality is Scribd offers actual books, not dross written by someone and it not having gone through an editor or publisher. If it isn't women's romance, it's novels from Amazon's own publishing houses. Which doesn't count since they're still not a big 5 publisher as each house is a separate entity, and it costs them nothing.

 

[truthertech]

Both tiered subscription and the ability to purchase, actually.

Texture spent years getting there.
You just explained my initial reasoning. There's a reason services like these are often bought and shut down, integrated or kept alive and then shut down later on.
Won't argue with this. However, I'd prefer to see a demographics breakdown than rely on a commonly held belief.


Just repeating what I said? Google bought Oyster for their tech, expertise and employees. And is there any article mentioning 100,000 users apart from their Wiki page where that figure has no reference.
Kindle Unlimited? KU is very different than what Oyster offered. KU seems to have a lot of riff-raff (self published crap). I take a look at what's available every so often. Most of it is women's romance. There's very little Big 5 material. Prime Reading is the service (included in Prime) you should use as a comparison.


True, but it did support iOS and Android devices including the Kindle Fire line, which were skinned Androids.
That's because Amazon offered a deal at first to get people onto KU. They still do it from time to time. But as I said, the quality of books under KU is nothing close to a professionally published novel by a publisher.
Oyster had been looking for a buyer long before then.


Scribd has nearly 1M users paying a monthly fee of $8.99 to get access to books and magazines. According to them, they have nearly 100M users accessing and using their site each month. Again we can go back to Amazon's KU program, but the reality is Scribd offers actual books, not dross written by someone and it not having gone through an editor or publisher. If it isn't women's romance, it's novels from Amazon's own publishing houses. Which doesn't count since they're still not a big 5 publisher as each house is a separate entity, and it costs them nothing.

Oyster's all too common fate of running up against the Amazon behemoth wasn't the main point. Instead, Your point was that monthly subscription services aren't " a viable model," and that Oyster's failure with e-book subscriptions was proof. I simply wanted to point out that Oyster was not analogous to Texture in any meaningful way, (including your implication that Google bought it, and shut it down later because Google couldn't make it work when Oyster announced it was selling just it's IP assets to Google and shutting down).

Increasing magazine and newspaper distribution, while allowing them to not only keep but increase their advertising revenue, and now Apple's apparent plan to massively increase that distribution, is a very different model from Oyster's failed model. Doesn't mean Apple will be successful, but Oyster's failure is not instructive. It's also very different when a company like Amazon or Apple can leverage a service, such as magazines, with its ecosystem. Oyster was a one trick pony, living off its share of the monthly subscription. Apple and Amazon don't have to make any money off of their services as long as they enhance the overall value of their services.

It's for another forum, but this is why most people are overvaluing Netflix, which is actually in a very precarious position. Netflix is competing against an ever growing number of massive companies that have multiple sources of income in an industry that is largely becoming commoditized in the sense that there is nothing "unique" in what any of them are doing and there is lots of good to great content; so consumers are going to be very price sensitive going forward. As they are all competing for the same group of actors, directors and producers, the costs are skyrocketing, but they are constrained from raising prices to keep up with those rising costs. Netflix is in the worse position in that type of environment.