Magazine Publishers Support Apple's 50% Split for Paid Apple News Service

[johngordon]

You're assuming that billions of Apple customers are actually eager to pay for News subscription services. You are likely wrong.

No. The assumption is that getting content in front of that many eyeballs will result in an increase in revenue that makes it worthwhile, that otherwise would not have been generated.

It is a logical fallacy to suggest that X customers need to subscribe.

All that needs to happen is to change 'current subscription revenue' to 'current subscription revenue + X' Where X is the minimum amount the publishers feel would make participating be worth their while.

 

[lartola]

They would be stupid not to support getting a billion devices easy access to their content.

Actually the easy access existed and Apple greedily took it away. When the News app debuted as part of iOS 9 back in 2015, Apple also included an amazing feature: an 'add to News' button (now called 'open in News') in the share sheet in Safari. With that button, one could add any website using RSS feeds as a channel in the News app. Apple, however, restricted the functionality of the button a few months later (starting in iOS 9.3) to only the same content providers already listed as channels within the News app, and thereby ruined the News app.
[doublepost=1550265720][/doublepost]

You're assuming that billions of Apple customers are actually eager to pay for News subscription services. You are likely wrong.

For one, I wouldn't be eager to pay. I'd much prefer that Apple simply restore the functionality they took away from the News app starting in iOS 9.3, just a few months after its debut as part of iOS 9. Namely, the ability to add RSS feeds from any website -any, not just the same ones listed as channels within the News app- using the 'open in News' button (previously 'add to News') found in the Safari share sheet.

 

[FairlyKors]

They would be stupid not to support getting a billion devices easy access to their content.

As if the media landscape isn’t brutally dumbed down as it is.

Think about a rather small (but high quality magazine like the Bee Yorker, et al., forced (by investors) to compete for the “billions” of eyes— instead of its target market, the people who value the high quality content and are willing to support it.

What you suggest as N in Sri e also looks like the ultimate paving flat of anything dating to stand taller than the lowest common denominator that, sadly, defines mass market print journalism today.

 

[benthewraith]

The only problem I have with magazines, whether paper or pdf, are all the ads. There used to be more content than there is now. I don't want to pay to view a bunch of ads in a magazine.

Opened a magazine lately thinking the first page would be the table of contents. It wasn't. The table of contents was like on page 10.

 

[madKIR]

And what do YOU care?

Are you a newspaper/magazine publisher?

If not, then it is of no concern to you.

And why do you care if I care? LOL