Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 13, 2019.
My guess is you have never built or maintained a content distribution network...
Library + Zinio is awesome!
Why, if they are willing to pay 50%, 50% is fair. Why would they "have to" lower it?
--- Post Merged, Feb 13, 2019 ---
You don't seem to understand why a business exists. Tim runs the most successful company in the history of the world. He's hardly running apple into the ground. Total nonsense.
--- Post Merged, Feb 13, 2019 ---
And i thought Qualcomm was the only company who is greedy
True. And it has gotten progressively worse. I don't mind a few ads. But, when there are more ads than substantive content, I take umbrage with that, especially as a subscriber. As of late, I don't subscribe to hardly any anymore, due to that problem.
Offer a ad-free option for a subscriber, and I would be more inclined to pay a little higher price.
You know nothing about business.
Proof: These companies agreed to 50% terms. They get it, you don’t. That’s why you’re sitting there and the executives are in charge of these companies.
Bravo!! Take my money now, i'm reedi.
They probably know that 100% of Ad revenue that will make up for the any potential losses on the subscription.
If Apple can attract millions and drastically increase the subscription, their Ad revenue can only go up.
Keeping 100% of ad and going 50/50 on subs is prob better than 70/30 on ad & subs, if you believe that Apple will increase the eyeballs on your pages.
Do you understand retail? Magazine retail margin is typically 60% or so of the cover price. EVERYTHING that is sold through a retailer has a retail margin, that’s how the retailer gets paid. Same for Revlon products sold through Walmart, or Samsung sold through Best Buy.
Apple is just a new sort of retailer, and they have a much closer relationship to their billion+ devices, and to those devices’ owners’ credit cards, and so magazine and news publishers will likely jump on it.
I hope Apple can get the major newspapers on board. That would be a big selling point.
I don’t know anyone who subscribes to any magizines, and I have never subscribed to any, but at the right price this could be appealing.
That is still a million more subscribers than any of these magazines have now.
50/50 is ...... so..."think different." geez.
Really. If they have their own customers they don’t need Apple and can do it for free as Apple supplies a free app platform for free apps. That doesn’t spoons stingy at all. If they want to “partner with Apple to grow their subscriptions exponentially then Apple gets a cut. It’s really simple.
And what device do they have is so awesome to warrant 50%? And can you imagine the conditions? No boobs, no bad language, nothing that doesn't fit Tim's Disney view of the world. PUKE!
It would be suicide to agree to this all-you-can-eat model. NYT and WaPo have great digital services - those each cost around $10 a month. From this they'd get 1/50th of that, at best. As their existing services are so robust, I don't see a compelling reason for them to acquiesce.
It's not about a particular device. It's about magazine publishers having potential access to 1+ Billion (I believe it's 1.4 Billion, last I heard) Apple customers with credit cards on file, and with Apple providing marketing, servers, billing, etc.
"And can you imagine the conditions? No boobs, no bad language, nothing that doesn't fit Tim's Disney view of the world. "
I haven't found that to be the case with Apple News. I suspect it would be no different.
You clearly missed the entire point of the article.
Like the music industry before iTunes, print media is dying. iTunes quite literally saved the music industry in the early 2000s, making it convenient and affordable for people to buy music. 99¢ per song was a marketing stroke of genius. Music piracy fell off my by a large margin and inevitably descended to a floor represented by those intent on stealing who were never going to pay for music regardless. Buying music became easier and more convenient than piracy and for a fair price that most people paid for it.
The same is coming true for print media. Nobody wants to pay for written content because it’s too expensive having to subscribe to all the newspapers and magazines we might read an article or two on. So journalism has to rely on diminishing advertising returns and as a result, newsrooms are closing at an escalating rate. Enter Apple News: make it affordable to have access to virtually any news or magazine content and make it convenient by not having to choose ahead of time. Far more people will subscribe than would have ever subscribed directly to one or two newspapers or magazines.
Like industry insiders said in the story: its way better to get a smaller percentage of a large number than it is to get a large percentage of a small number. What matters is the actual sum. Apple is giving content creators access to over a billion devices.
Sign me up!
Most folks don't understand how this model works because they forget to take into account the newspapers and magazines sell advertising based on number of readers. The NYTimes has about 2 million subscribers if memory serves correct. Let's say only 10% of current Apple News readers subscribe to the new service and are able to read the NYT. That's 8 million new potential readers of the NYT articles, or a 400% increase in potential readership, enabling the NYT to greatly increase their ad rates, IN ADDITION TO their cut of the subscriber revenue from the new Apple News service.
That's an excellent summary of the past. I remember those times well. And...I think Apple is on to something if they can pull it off.
You couldn't be more misinformed. If you think bringing 90 or so million, and rapidly growing, news readers, along with a billion plus devices, all with Apple News pre installed, to a newspaper or magazine to massively increase the number of readers so they can sell advertising at a much higher rate AND get a cut of the revenue, as well as a platform that does all the billing, IS DOING VERY LITTLE., your irrational hatred of Apple is truly blinding you.
Magazines are what? Monthly or Weekly content?
News are made daily, and the cost of reporting news are much higher than magazine. Why should any decent quality news paper join when they already such revenue stream?
problem/concern is not with Apple's profitability. Concern is where their prime focus is on. Previously they Apple known for their technical enthusiasm, but now, it is shifting towards more novelty..like magazines and news articles.
If they concentrate on Technological innovations along with this Novelty services..thats a Jackpot for investors.
Actually 1.4 billion active devices
900 million iPhones, approx 300 million iPad/iPod Touch, 100 million Macs, about 100m Apple TV/Watch.
Like the publishing exec said, it’s about revenue dollars, not the percentage. If Apple can get 50 million subs ( <4% of 1.3B) that’s $6 billion a year to divvy up. Plus they get to keep 100% of the ad revenue.
How many partners can bring $6 billion/yr to the table? Only one I know of...
They would be fools to not take it. Right now, with their ad model, they probably get ~0 cents per subscriber. With the paywall, they probably have a tiny fraction of the subscribers they could access via Apple.
Is the Apple News app supported on Windows? If not, it would be unattractive for a lot of folks.
--- Post Merged, Feb 13, 2019 ---
Would this be per device or per user?