Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SmartNews the app, is better. And free. Been using it for years (as well as Apple News), but the # of channels you can add in SmartNews is insane. And they have the NYT...
[doublepost=1554264529][/doublepost]
200,000 out of 1 billion iOS devices. Not impressed

don’t make jokes! That’s almost 1/4 of 1 percent!
 
You do realize you can delete the app right or most Apple developed default included apps. Are we complaining for the sake of it.
Of course we realise this and my mistake was not making it clear enough that this point was a secondary clause.

‘Useless to me’ and ‘useless’ are two very different things. It’s like me saying injectable penicillin is useless, simply because I don’t suffer from diabetes.
You're absolutely right and where the goal posts are now to where they started are two very different things!
 
Clearly “a flop”. :rolleyes:

If all those people convert to paying customers, that will be $1M per month split among 300 publications. It's only been 48 hours, but 200,000 subscribers overall is nothing close to what is needed for Apple to continue this service. They need to get to 5M paying subscribers for this to service to be considered minimally successful. NYTimes by itself has over 3M digital-only subscriptions.
 
Clearly “a flop”. :rolleyes:

...
...
...

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 used Next Issue/Texture off and on for many years, and will be quite happy continuing the same off and on pattern with Apple. I do like and appreciate the service personally.

But 200,000 users out the 1 billion iOS users they were bragging about is 0.02%, not a good conversion rate. They're going to pick up more customers but not all 200k will become paying customers. Let's say they end up with 200,000 paying customers. At $10/month each, that's $24 million per year, of which Apple keeps half. $12 million/year. How is that remotely worthwhile for Apple? How can this be anything but a flop? Even if they bring it up to a million paying customers, they're making $60 million/year. That's not even a rounding error on their balance sheet.
 
Actual data meaning "two unnamed sources"? o_O

Maybe I should preface all of my data with "unnamed sources" because that now objectively counts as actual data.

So you think comments from internet trolls saying it was doomed... prior to it even launching.. carry more validity than the off the record sources who provided rough estimates. Okay... at least I know to ignore you now.
 
200,000 out of 1 billion iOS devices. Not impressed
So there are what? Only about 100M iOS users in the US (https://www.statista.com/statistics/232790/forecast-of-apple-users-in-the-us/). Why are you claiming there at 10x that? And then a subscription can be shared across the family as I understand, so you can take what a fifth of that figure.

You do realise this was only launch in one region don't you? Without any advertising campaign?


I think once it starts rolling out it will become popular. And just like it has driven banks to adopt Apple Pay where they didn't as customers would just change their current accounts, I except that large new paper subscriptions will come over at some point, they will not be able to afford to be left out of the platform eventually.
[doublepost=1554269366][/doublepost]
Do you have an idea how much publishers keep of printed magazines? I know the news stands take a 20-40% cut. Now add printing and shipping.
Good point well made!

It's like the millennials have absolutely no idea of value or where costs are. Just like all these comments that news is free, or magazines are old by the time you get them. Wow who would have thought that creating content, investigation a story is an actual job opposed to unboxing on youtube.

It's like some don't think journalist, editors, staff don't need paying to create content. Absolutely amazing.
 
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.

The thing is for this to work for any of the publications, ultimately they need Apple to get 100’s of million subscribers because the 50% left of the subscriptions they get is split between the “300” publishers (or split between more as Apple add more). If you already have 4m subscribers paying $10 to you as an individual publisher, you do the maths on many Apple news subscriptions you would need if you’re now getting a 300th slice of $5 per subscription.(ok I accept it probably isn’t an equal share, but you get my point)

If they don’t get the income, then they won’t be able afford to create the content and then......
 
Clearly “a flop”. :rolleyes:

...
...
...

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.

It absolutely is. It's crap, and when the "free" trial ends, how many subscribers will remain? I have already cancelled/deleted it. If Apple can't implement the features of Texture, then the whole steaming pile of crap needs to go. Crappy interface. Limited access to back issues. Did I mention the really horrible user interface?
 
I don’t get what you mean, or maybe you do not either :)

0.017% ? What in 2 days?

Are you really trying to say anything at all?

So by your logic 365 days in a year we will see 182.5 x 0.017% = 3.1% in one year???

3.1% of 1.2Billion devices is 37,200,000 subscriptions.

Also I thought Apple had 1.4 Billion active devices? But wait. I have about 8 advices in the house.....

Wait, maybe the numbers do speak for themselves. :).

You don’t get a subscription per device (would you buy 8 subscriptions? No of course not). So the 1.4 billion devices out there or ready to benefit the publishes is crap. Add in upto 7 users per subscription (family sharing) and the real potential market is considerably smaller
 
How is access to 300 magazines for $10pm ‘useless’? It might not be well suited to you, but I can’t fathom how you consider it useless?

The user experience is horrid. Many magazines are simply screen-printed images... no way to link to articles, save articles or even jump to articles from the various magazines' ToC. On top of that, Apple is imitating access to back issues... they bought Texture, and didn't even bother implementing their user interface... then they killed it off for this crap? It is pretty much unusuable - the very definition of "useless".
 
The thing is for this to work for any of the publications, ultimately they need Apple to get 100’s of million subscribers because the 50% left of the subscriptions they get is split between the “300” publishers (or split between more as Apple add more). If you already have 4m subscribers paying $10 to you as an individual publisher, you do the maths on many Apple news subscriptions you would need if you’re now getting a 300th slice of $5 per subscription.(ok I accept it probably isn’t an equal share, but you get my point)

If they don’t get the income, then they won’t be able afford to create the content and then......
Yes they also get access to a much larger market. And just like banks with Apple Pay eventually give in, so will these companies and not only that, but do very well out it.

As highlighted before, they don’t get to keep the 100% now. There are a lot of other costs involved.
[doublepost=1554272896][/doublepost]
Agreed. 50% is outrageous.
So how much does it cost you today to get your magazine on the shelf? How much of that retail price are you getting?
 
The New York Times has just over 4 million subscribers. If Apple News+ gets only 10 million subscribers, it's worth if for NYT to sign on.
Payout is depenedend on reading time. Users would have to only read NYT.
 
The thing that really annoys me about :apple:News is that once you read say 10 or so articles & want to get back to the main home screen, how do you do it? Kill the app or go back thru the very same 10 screens you’ve just looked at, I mean whose brilliant idea is this? Comparably it’s a bit like the original scroll wheel iPod without a home button or reading a newspaper/magazine & having to rifle back thru all pages to get back to one. Why has this not been changed yet, is it lack of attention to user experience or what is the point, I’d honestly like to know?!:(
 
If you read the magazines and newspapers it offers then it has the potential to save you a fair few quid, dollars.

nope, not on the long run ... apple is killing the magazines with that offer ... no one will connect with one brand anymore ... it becomes what it already is ... mostly useless information or company ads to trick you in buying some stuff
 
I think the value of the services by themselves is quite disappointing, but if apple could launch a bundle with iCloud storage, Apple TV+, Apple Music , apple arcade , apple news with an option to add apple care for $50 for the whole bundle, i would like it. Or even add a subscription for an upgrade program for iPhones, iPads , macs , etc, these services could be appealing as a bundle. And i think that is where apple is heading.

It is a shame that Netflix and the new Disney platform won’ t be offering subscriptions through Apple TV though. I would have liked one place to have overall insight and control over all my subscriptions.
 
Can someone please help me with this... if it cost $10 and Apple gets $5, how are the 300 publications making money? Wouldn’t each of those 300 publications have to share that remaining $5? What am I missing here? That’s like making nothing. No wonder some major newspapers have not signed on.
 
How is access to 300 magazines for $10pm ‘useless’? It might not be well suited to you, but I can’t fathom how you consider it useless?

I think $10 a month ($14 AUD) is too much compared to what people would want to pay in areas where the local currency has fallen against the USD.

If the Australian dollar was back on parity with the US dollar then the price would be fine if you read a few magazines.
I used to buy a few magazines on zinio then switched to a subscription service on Magster which I always got a discount on so was cheaper than the current $99 AUD per year which is much cheaper than Apples offering but I guess that the quality of the PDFs on Apples service would be much better?

I no longer have a subscription for any magazines.
 
Our household has already found 10+ magazines and read the La Times / WSJ on a regular basis, so I say it’s a winner...
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.