200,000 is huge considering the only people who know about it is tech heads who follow Apple. The promotion engine has not been turned up, so expect that to rise over time.
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
You are going to make broad sweeping decorations of victory for Apple for this story? It’s a free trial. Let me know how many people stick with it after the freebie is up.
Clearly “a flop”.
...
...
...
While it lacks the kind of polish I’d expect from Apple, the value is undeniable and it’s already become a part of my routine. Rather than browse for news on multiple sites, I pull up Apple News periodically and see what’s new from all my favourite sources in that one spot. The notifications on my Apple Watch are pretty great too.
I’ve also spent a lot time browsing through magazines like I would a paper mag, page by page, appreciating the graphic layout and even the ads (magazine advertising is truly an art form). I really think that Apple has a chance to revolutionize how we consume digital “print” publishing.
The app needs some work, however. Apple News+ feels bolted on, disconnected from the rest of the app. Certain important features are missing like saving a magazine article to read later like can be done in articles elsewhere in the app. There are also a bunch of bugs with downloaded magazines disappearing and not showing in “My Magazines” unless I actually start reading it.
No, that’s not true. That’s already been refuted by both Apple and publishers. Someone jumped to conclusions because they couldn’t find all the content up front and/or misinterpreted a statement.
I can confirm that all content is there. I still have subscriptions to some of the major magazines and comparing both, I can confirm that everything that is in the print magazine is also in News+
People can have multiple devices, so that’s an inaccurate stat.
It's a lot cheaper than me subscribing to the New Yorker, WSJ, etc. all separately. Kind of a no-brainer.
And that is the key, 1.4B devices - obviously people have multiple ones. With enough offerings, they'll eventually have something of interest to everyone.
* News, $10/month
* Music, $10/month (we don't use it, but some do)
* TV, $??/month
* iTunes purchases, $??/month.
* Apple should purchase Target (or similar) and add a "Prime" equivalent fro $120/year (or whatever Amazon charges now)
If Apple can get an average of $5/month in recurring revenue from each devices that is a huge amount of money. Even 10% of the devices is a huge sum.
I’m sure they will. You’ll be hearing a lot about retention rates and growth for the long run in the same way Apple Music was reported on until people stopped doubting its success.
"This revenue split has been controversial and while many magazines have signed up because Texture worked in a similar way, Apple has been unable to woo major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post.”
So when Texture was doing it things were fine. Now that Apple is running the show that 50% is suddenly evil and outrageous.
So when Texture was doing it things were fine. Now that Apple is running the show that 50% is suddenly evil and outrageous.
Signed up for the one-month trial. Was hoping it could replace my separate WSJ subscription. Alas, it seems most of the business content is buried so deeply as to be frustrating to get to. If I know what to look for I can eventually find it, but even if you drill down into the business & finance section of the WSJ tab a lot of the content that is in my separate app never shows up.
I doubt I'll keep it past the trial period at this point. I was hoping other news sources would join it, but it is looking less and less likely.
I doubt I'll keep it past the trial period at this point. I was hoping other news sources would join it, but it is looking less and less likely.
NYT last reported having 4.3 million subscribers. I see that NYT sub is $8/month
If the NYT was a part of this, how many NYT subscribers would drop NYT sub for this? 2%? 5%?
If Apple is keeping 50% of $9.99 monthly price, how much of the remaining $5 would NYT get between it and the 300 or so other publications? $0.05? $0.10?
If it were evenly distributed, each publication would see ($5.00 ÷ 300) = $0.0167 each month.
If NYT got $0.0167/month x 10 million subscribers, that's $167,000/month in revenue
If NYT got a sweetened deal at $0.05/month x 10 million subscribers, that's $500,000/month in revenue
If NYT got an even sweeter deal at $0.10/month (unlikely) x 10 million subscribers, that's $1,000,000/month in revenue
If NYT lost 2% of subscribers to this, they'd be losing $8 x [4.3 million x 2% = 86,000] = $688,000/month in revenue.
If NYT lost 5% of subscribers to this, they'd be losing $8 x [4.3 million x 5% = 215,000] = $1,720,000/month in revenue.
I'm sure NYT crunched the numbers and realized it wasn't worth it to be a part of this.
Based on what I have read, I believe that it is based on a percentage of views.
As such, I could see why the NYT and WP were not interested as they have been able to cultivate their own subscription bases (I just signed up for both when it was confirmed neither would be part of Apple News+).
I am interested in Apple News+ as I currently subscribe to a number of periodicals that are included and am interested in reading a number of others. So I would probably be at or beyond $120 a year if I subscribed individually, though I admit I prefer reading a physical magazine vs. the digital versions my current subscriptions offer me on my 12.9" iPad Pro.
I’m genuinely surprised that 200K people actually signed up for a pointless service that they’ll rarely ever use.
Apple News + is only available in the USA and Canada at the moment.
I'd say 200.000 is very very good!
So both countries together have about 360 Millionen people. Not all of them use iOS / Mac devices, older people and kids, taking family subscription into account etc. Apple News + is doing very well. Let's see how many it will be after the trial period.
I'd say 200.000 is very very good!
So both countries together have about 360 Millionen people. Not all of them use iOS / Mac devices, older people and kids, taking family subscription into account etc. Apple News + is doing very well. Let's see how many it will be after the trial period.
How is this outdated? A lot of people still buy magazines. Not as much as they used to, probably due to cost and ease of purchase, but there’s still a large market.
Just curious, where else can I get information like Consumer Reports publishes? Or Sports Illustrated? Or read NYT articles without paying?
Yeah, YouTubers do reviews, but are they as unbiased as CR with the same financial backing?
If Apple Music is any indication, about 0.6% will keep the subscription, or 1,200.
Last edited:
Not sure if you have noticed, but more and more news sites are moving behind paid firewalls. They can't stay in business as things currently are. Times change. The transition the music industry had to make is a great example of the direction things are going to head.
True, but with both the NYT and the WP both stating as to why joining the News+ market didn't make economic sense despite Cue's aggressive attempts to get them on board at launch I can't help but think that will be the thinking of many news entities. Gannett, for example, owns a lot of local newspapers in addition to USA Today. They charge $10 each for digital access. I can certainly see them staying off AN+. Tribune Publishing is another obvious missing company that has a major presence in the news industry.
With the shunning on the front-end by the major players it doesn't seem to bode well for future expansion. The critical analysis of the AN+ economic system doesn't give me any more encouragement the major players that would be needed to make the "news" part a success will ever join in.
Much like political topics require 100 posts in order to comment, topics like this should be restricted to adults or people that have learned to read!
But seriously, why do so many people feel so compelled to presume that onky things of interest to them could be of interest to other people.