A music subscription is relevant. A magazine subscription (of any kind) in 2019 is not.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Over 200,000 People Subscribed to Apple News+ in First 48 Hours After Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A music subscription is relevant. A magazine subscription (of any kind) in 2019 is not.
Given that News + contains the majority of the best-selling magazines, I guess magazines aren’t for you then. For people who enjoy magazines, it’s not useless.
Thats correct. I am not a 13 year old girl living in 1990.
I believe Apple is looking to connect with the percentage of Apple users who Appreciates the value of such an offering. They were likely avid readers at one point with tons of paper magazines and newspaper subscriptions, but cancelled them all when they realized they were not home enough to enjoy them, but unwilling to pay for each subscription seperately. If 10 to 15 percent of their base relates to this it’s worth up to 18 Billion a year for this one service. 9 that Apple gets to keep.
They will market these services aggressively.
I wonder how many subscribed to News+ thinking they could cancel their pricier WSJ subscription under the false impression that News+ would give them the same kind of access (it won't)
Last edited:
You’ve effectively nullified the potential for constructive debate.
This subscription has shown me how out of date and irrelevant writing becomes in a digital age. Much of the stuff in magazines I’ve read is weeks old. The other stuff I can access for free on YouTube and other venues.
I’ll also be cancelling as it’s just not very lucrative to me and I think many others will feel the same. They will again try and entice with another free trial just as they did with Apple Music. Only this one isn’t impressive.
I’ll also be cancelling as it’s just not very lucrative to me and I think many others will feel the same. They will again try and entice with another free trial just as they did with Apple Music. Only this one isn’t impressive.
You’ve gotta tell me where you get free GQ, free Time Magazine, free Popular Science, free Vanity Fair, free Rolling Stones, free National Geographic, free Toronto Life...
Probably the same place you get free music, movies and TV shows. Well, not only do I want the convenience of official sources, I want to pay content creators so they can keep creating.
Last edited:
The way Oprah was on stage screaming a "BILLION with a B", 200,000 subscribers during the free trial era doesn't sound promising, that's not even 1%, they'll never lure the holdouts with those numbers and I don't see the numbers getting any better with the younger Apple crowd. Magazines and Print news are dying, free online ad supported news is the future.
The majority of magazines are purchased by adults and completely inappropriate for a 13 year old girl. Plus 13 year old girls generally don’t have money anyway.
The topic in question is relative and not at all debatable really. Im not going to talk you out of spending your money and youre not going to talk me into spending mine. lol
Well some of their content they provide for free to suck you in, but they content they know us valuable is behind a paywall and requires a subscription. I hit one a few times a session. I just resolve to not get any more individual subscriptions.
I fully agree with you. It will be great for some, and not great for others. I just wanted to understand how you could call the service ‘useless’, which it clearly isn’t. Not suitable for you? Sounds like it. There’s a difference there.
I'm in the trial and I like it. I like how it mixes magazine articles into the regular news feed... and checking the News+ section has now become a habit just like the regular News section.
Even better: my fiance is enjoying the fact that she can read tons of magazines all on the same subscription (because of family sharing). This might be one of the biggest selling points: a family with a few kids (the kids magazine selection is pretty good too) can easily make use of what's there for $10 a month.
I don't know if it's going to be a huge moneymaker for Apple in the long-run... but I can definitely see it as one "leg" of a larger services strategy.
Even better: my fiance is enjoying the fact that she can read tons of magazines all on the same subscription (because of family sharing). This might be one of the biggest selling points: a family with a few kids (the kids magazine selection is pretty good too) can easily make use of what's there for $10 a month.
I don't know if it's going to be a huge moneymaker for Apple in the long-run... but I can definitely see it as one "leg" of a larger services strategy.
Depends on what cut of revenue they'd get out of those 10 million subscribers. 50% goes to publishers but there are a lot of publishers so how much of that 50% would be theirs? They'd also lose a sizeable chunk of NYT subscribers. Why would you pay for a separate NYT subscription when you get it through Apple News? I'd think it would have to be in the 50 million subscribers subscribers range for them to budge and offset their loses.
I am curious how Apple splits between publishers. Is it based on percentage of views, value of the publisher or a straight split between all of them?
I don't appreciate the accusation. I do not steal content.. ever. a quick google search will usually turn up the bullet points of any mainstream article.
I too was one of those who subscribed. Assuming it continues to work as advertised, it is a good deal to replace the WSJ subscription - the only thing it seems you don't get is access to the WSJ comments, which is fine with me.
$10/month for the WSJ is less than the WSJ subscription price alone and then you get everything else for "free." Of course if it turns out not to be a good deal it is easy to cancel and go back to a regular subscription.
$10/month for the WSJ is less than the WSJ subscription price alone and then you get everything else for "free." Of course if it turns out not to be a good deal it is easy to cancel and go back to a regular subscription.
And you're suggesting that all 10M Apple News+ subscribers will read the NYT or how many? How much of my $9.99 monthly subscription does NYT actually get? Pennies? Per read or what?
That still would not be worth it to the NYT, they made $700M last year only $100M off their projected target. If they went the Apple News route they'd be giving up half that revenue. This 50% deal is only good for failing companies who may need a life jacket to stay afloat.
Bullet points are not the same thing as magazines.
