Over 200,000 People Subscribed to Apple News+ in First 48 Hours After Launch

[Marekul]

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.

This is what I don’t get, the perfect ebook of a magazine would be a website, wouldn’t it?

Or one could say a website is a interactive magazine.
So what’s there to revolutionize?

 

[bbeagle]

Well Apple claim to have created over 300,000 US jobs, so apparently not even those people know or care about News+

The correlation of those makes no sense.

Apple created 300,000+ iOS/app store developers. Why would most of them care about an Apple News announcement?

If you worked at McDonald's, are you up on their latest 2 for $5 deal unless you're a cashier?

 

[szw-mapple fan]

200,000 out of 1 billion iOS devices. Not impressed

You’re forgetting apple news is only in North America and a large number of that 1 billion can’t run iOS 12. Not to mention this is only in the first 48 hours.

 

[Marekul]

[QUOTE="trifid, post: 27250116, member: 573335"
By the way, I think Apple dropped the ball on allowing magazines that look like PDF scans, the experience is pretty bad.

[QUOTE="trifid, post: 27250116, member: 573335"I think Apple should have pioneered a new format for smart devices, and force everyone to adapt it on the new platform to guarantee a consistent and pleasant experience.[/QUOTE]

I did try the IBA format out for some of my own documents, but it was a lot of work compared with just producing an ePUB, and didn't obviously target a large enough user base. It would be worthwhile if you had a lot of customers, the material justified the work, and it lasted a reasonable amount of time.

There already exists a format for smart device, responsive/adaptive layout, multimedia support, interactivity and broad adoption. It’s called a website.

 

[TheSapient]

I've no idea whether these numbers are good or not. But I think it is a mistake to give much consideration to the direct revenue stream this will produce for Apple. I suspect that is not how Apple looks at it. This is to bring people deeper into the Apple ecosystem. It is to add another layer of stress on those who would consider moving out of it.

Even if there are better, or equivalent, solutions for news consumption (and I'm not taking a position on the quality of this service, because I honestly don't know), the thought of having to re-sign up for everything can feel quite daunting.

 

[apolloa]

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

Well lots of people read magazines and newspapers still, and Apple stated no ads in the service.

 

[bbeagle]

Well lots of people read magazines and newspapers still, and Apple stated no ads in the service.

Apple NEVER stated no ads in the service. There are plenty of ads in the Apple News+ service.

Apple stated that there is no ad tracking. Which means, Apple will not track what you're reading to give ads specific to what you're reading.

 

[ipedro]

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.

AppleNews+ isn’t going to be a profitable business in of itself. Like early iTunes, it’s the hardware that it sells that is valuable. News+ will sell a ton of iPads.
[doublepost=1554317280][/doublepost]

This is what I don’t get, the perfect ebook of a magazine would be a website, wouldn’t it?

Or one could say a website is a interactive magazine.
So what’s there to revolutionize?

I disagree. A magazine is more than just its contents. The graphical layout and the linearity of reading a magazine is just as important as the writing and photographs inside.

Apple News+ manages to create a digital version of that experience.

 

[Khedron]

Apple NEVER stated no ads in the service. There are plenty of ads in the Apple News+ service.

Apple stated that there is no ad tracking. Which means, Apple will not track what you're reading to give ads specific to what you're reading.

There is ad-tracking by default, but you can turn it off for 3rd parties (Apple and their partners will still track you):

"Ads that are delivered by Apple’s advertising platform may appear in Apple News and in the App Store. If you do not wish to receive ads targeted to your interests from Apple's advertising platform, you can choose to enable Limit Ad Tracking, which will opt your Apple ID out of receiving such ads regardless of what device you are using. If you enable Limit AdTracking on your mobile device, third-party apps cannot use the Advertising Identifier, a non-personal device identifier, to serve you targeted ads. You may still see ads in the App Store or News based on context like your search query or the channel you are reading. In third-party apps, you may see ads based on other information.

Apple and our partners also use cookies and other technologies to remember personal information when you use our website, online services, and applications... Knowing someone using your computer or device has shopped for a certain product or used a particular service helps us make our advertising and email communications more relevant to your interests."

 

[Ken Magel]

Actually, I think 200,000 is lower than I would have expected. I expect about 1 - 2 million to try News+ before the ned of April and perhaps a quarter of those to keep it beyond the free trial.
[doublepost=1554318444][/doublepost]I think News+ is much better for the IPAD than for the IPHONE. Of course, it still has blemishes that one hopes will be fixed before the end of the year.

 

[Shanghaichica]

AppleNews+ isn’t going to be a profitable business in of itself. Like early iTunes, it’s the hardware that it sells that is valuable. News+ will sell a ton of iPads.
[doublepost=1554317280][/doublepost]

I disagree. A magazine is more than just its contents. The graphical layout and the linearity of reading a magazine is just as important as the writing and photographs inside.

Apple News+ manages to create a digital version of that experience.

Agreed. From what I saw at he keynote (UK so haven’t tried it) it seems as though they’d actually put some thought into how it could be optimised for both and phone and tablet. Rather than just throwing a print magazine on there.

I’ve actually been impressed by the curation of the news app in general. It gives me relevant articles from a wide range of good sources. At first I wondered why they were taking so long to roll it out to the UK but once it came I understood.

I have google news installed on my iPhone and there is a vast difference in the quality, layout and formatting.

 

[Azathoth123]

Agreed. From what I saw at he keynote (UK so haven’t tried it) it seems as though they’d actually put some thought into how it could be optimised for both and phone and tablet. Rather than just throwing a print magazine on there.

I’ve actually been impressed by the curation of the news app in general. It gives me relevant articles from a wide range of good sources. At first I wondered why they were taking so long to roll it out to the UK but once it came I understood.

I have google news installed on my iPhone and there is a vast difference in the quality, layout and formatting.

I like the curation of the News app too, and the magazine layout looks great for iPad.

I’m tempted to try News+. I looked at all 200 offerings and about 25 were of interest to me, and between 15 and 20 I’d probably read at least parts of regularly, so that ‘thins the herd’ a a bit as we say. Worth it? I’m on the fence but may give it a whirl.

Journalism is something that we should all support as best we can in some way. I actually like The Guardian’s model where you give what you want when you want. I believe that they met their last fundraising goal and I helped a little.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Some people here fail to recognize a few things. The NYT wouldn't just get 50% of $9.99. In fact, they would have no guaranteed amount.

The $5 that goes to publishers gets divided up by what the user reads most. So not only would a $15/month customer turn into a max $5/month customer, but if that customer just starts reading a bunch of other stuff because they're bored or something, that $5 begins to shrink.

Imagine a NYT reader starts reading a lot of Nat Geo or Home Designs in their free time. They may have wanted the NYT for mainly a handful of articles that they read each day, but they may find themselves just browsing lots of "picture" books simply because they're bored and it's right in front of them for free. Now that $5 just got eaten into by Nat Geo even though the subscriber wouldn't have normally weighed spending money/time on Nat Geo vs NYT.

Apple News+ simply doesn't make sense for already popular publications with large subscriber bases.
[doublepost=1554299490][/doublepost]

Wrong. The money NYT actually gets depends on what the users read. If those 10 million subscribers start reading a bunch of other free stuff suddenly, that $5 cut goes way way down. You're making a very bad assumption that NYT readers would only read the NYT and absolutely nothing else.

Surely a good incentive to actually create content people want to read and find interesting. Has the potential improve quality for all.

 

[DevNull0]

AppleNews+ isn’t going to be a profitable business in of itself. Like early iTunes, it’s the hardware that it sells that is valuable. News+ will sell a ton of iPads

The entire premise is that there are 1.2 billion iDevices out there that Apple is supposed to be leveraging with new services. 200,000 magazine customers are not going to affect iPad sales. Nor has anybody ever said they're supposed to.

 

[Abazigal]

200,000 in 48 hours is not a benchmark to use for a yearly / quarterly cost analysis.

Neither is it a yardstick to prove a product will fail.

Right now, the arguments for Apple news failing seem to essentially boil down to “well, you can’t prove it’s a success, so you can’t prove that it will not fail.”

 

[jamesrick80]

I cancel when trial ends...thanks

 

[noon11111]

Surely a good incentive to actually create content people want to read and find interesting. Has the potential improve quality for all.

It won't matter because NYT won't be able to create articles about home design, travel, fitness, etc. The problem is this: Apple is attempting to assign revenue based on viewership, whether the user would have ever paid for that or not. A NYT subscriber who would normally never pay for Home Design Magazine may find themselves browsing/reading out of boredom or simply because it's there. It's not that they would ever actually care about spending money on it, but because it's free they will take advantage of it.

Now NYT has to share revenue with a publication that never would have gotten any of that revenue to begin with.

It's also much more likely that NYT readers dabble in random lifestyle magazines than those magazines' users are to read the NYT. The NYT will be a net loser of revenue compared to someone like Nat Geo who can grab just about anyone's attention with cool pictures etc. The NYT is much more niche.

Apple News+ is splitting revenue between publications that have completely different business models and usage. Is looking at pictures in Home Design Magazine for 10 minutes the same as reading a single article in NYT? Are looking at 60 pages of pictures and captions comparable to reading 2 articles? How do you realistically determine the value of time spent in any given publication? They are often presenting completely different types of information that is absorbed in completely different ways.

Apple News+ will never be viable for someone like the NYT and I really do think it will ultimately become devoid of good publications as these problems become apparent to the companies.

 

[Defthand]

It won't matter because NYT won't be able to create articles about home design, travel, fitness, etc. The problem is this: Apple is attempting to assign revenue based on viewership, whether the user would have ever paid for that or not. A NYT subscriber who would normally never pay for Home Design Magazine may find themselves browsing/reading out of boredom or simply because it's there. It's not that they would ever actually care about spending money on it, but because it's free they will take advantage of it.

Now NYT has to share revenue with a publication that never would have gotten any of that revenue to begin with.

It's also much more likely that NYT readers dabble in random lifestyle magazines than those magazines' users are to read the NYT. The NYT will be a net loser of revenue compared to someone like Nat Geo who can grab just about anyone's attention with cool pictures etc. The NYT is much more niche.

Apple News+ is splitting revenue between publications that have completely different business models and usage. Is looking at pictures in Home Design Magazine for 10 minutes the same as reading a single article in NYT? Are looking at 60 pages of pictures and captions comparable to reading 2 articles? How do you realistically determine the value of time spent in any given publication? They are often presenting completely different types of information that is absorbed in completely different ways.

Apple News+ will never be viable for someone like the NYT and I really do think it will ultimately become devoid of good publications as these problems become apparent to the companies.

Excellent considerations. I'll add that longform articles or stories are unpopular on digital devices because those devices are notorious for making their users A.D.D. There's a reason that written content for online consumption has the shortest word count. It's not because readers are pressed for time. Screen junkies are incapable of reading wordy meditations. Look at the testimonies in this thread. No one is willing to subscribe for the pleasure of reading a couple of favorite titles cover to cover. No. Instead they want a smorgasbord of diverse content to bounce through.

 

[DevNull0]

Neither is it a yardstick to prove a product will fail.

Right now, the arguments for Apple news failing seem to essentially boil down to “well, you can’t prove it’s a success, so you can’t prove that it will not fail.”

I agree with you. You can't tell anything with a 48 hour window of paid trials. As a long time off and on user of the service (next issue and then texture) I really like the concept and will continue to subscribe with Apple 3-4 months a year on average. But one really has to wonder what apple's target is here. Time magazine has the largest print readership in the world of a weekly news magazine. In 2012 their circulation was 3 million and by 2017 it was 2 million. Most of the niche magazines in the library have a circulation closer to 50,000.

Even if Apple manages to get 2 million readers, that's still only $120 million a year in revenue for Apple. An insignificant blip that's not worth the time and effort invested, especially since that's not $120 million in profit, they have infrastructure costs, app development, legal and contract issues that will eat into it a lot. They must have already invested a lot of time of their high level people getting this all set up. Their sales on 17" macbook pros were $150 million/year back when they were only $3000 for such a high end model. And Apple killed off that product because the money was just too small an amount to be worth their while. Given the current pricing on MacBooks compared to 2011, it's likely they'd be selling a lot more than $150 million/year worth today.

I wonder how many subscribers Apple feels they need and are expecting to make this worthwhile. When you look at the library, there is a very limited appeal outside of Canada and the US. It's hard to imagine them ever getting subscriber numbers in the millions. And even though I am a happy user of the service, most of the magazines I really like are not available on the service. Scientific American (which I do have a subscription to), Nuts and Volts, Circuit Cellar and MagPi come to mind. I like technology magazines, so I found it kind of pathetic that during the keynote when they show their selection of magazines for "gear heads" they've got a few tech magazines and Golf magazine prominently on the screen.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

It won't matter because NYT won't be able to create articles about home design, travel, fitness, etc. The problem is this: Apple is attempting to assign revenue based on viewership, whether the user would have ever paid for that or not. A NYT subscriber who would normally never pay for Home Design Magazine may find themselves browsing/reading out of boredom or simply because it's there. It's not that they would ever actually care about spending money on it, but because it's free they will take advantage of it.

Now NYT has to share revenue with a publication that never would have gotten any of that revenue to begin with.

It's also much more likely that NYT readers dabble in random lifestyle magazines than those magazines' users are to read the NYT. The NYT will be a net loser of revenue compared to someone like Nat Geo who can grab just about anyone's attention with cool pictures etc. The NYT is much more niche.

Apple News+ is splitting revenue between publications that have completely different business models and usage. Is looking at pictures in Home Design Magazine for 10 minutes the same as reading a single article in NYT? Are looking at 60 pages of pictures and captions comparable to reading 2 articles? How do you realistically determine the value of time spent in any given publication? They are often presenting completely different types of information that is absorbed in completely different ways.

Apple News+ will never be viable for someone like the NYT and I really do think it will ultimately become devoid of good publications as these problems become apparent to the companies.

They will come. Many a bank said the same about Apple Pay. Now they see their revenue disappear as their customers choose competitors. And don’t forget the international markets. The world is a big place.

 

[fredrik9]

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]
So how much does it cost you today to get your magazine on the shelf? How much of that retail price are you getting?

You are missing the point. It is not about what I pay, it is what the journalists and newspapers are paid. And Apple is just the platform, does not deserve 50% of those subs. Maybe 25-30%.

 

[prasand]

Subscribed day one. Even moved over from Flipboard (which I think they should’ve bought) by day two. But honestly, I dislike how everything is separated by subscription / category. I enjoyed being able to see topics mixed in together. I also miss articles being sorted by publishing date. Make no sense why I’m seeing day old articles in 5 day old piles and vice-versa.

In my opinion, I think it needs significant work. Even reading a magazine on an iPhone is horrendous. But access to so many magazines for a low price, will keep me subscribed. I look forward to seeing how it develops.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

You are missing the point. It is not about what I pay, it is what the journalists and newspapers are paid. And Apple is just the platform, does not deserve 50% of those subs. Maybe 25-30%.

And how much to you think the people working at a magazine are getting today after printing, distribution, retail space etc. Do you honestly think that when you pay the money to the newsagents or bookstore or corner shop that they get much more?

And that they'll have the same global reach?

Like my grandmother taught me; I'd rather have a small percentage of a lot, than a big percentage of nothing...

 

[recoil80]

Let's see how many people will pay for the service once the free trial expires. I don't have News+ in my country but I'd have subscribed for the first free month just to try it out. Did the same with Apple Music then I cancelled..

 

[nikaru]

I can do math.

It’s 1 service and 2 days and it’s not even available for everyone. People said the Watch and iPhone were flops too.

I like how you just spoke for 150M people in Germany and France as if you know something.

Hate on.

Yeah, I can speek for 150M people in Germany in France first because the service is not available there, and second because there is not a single French or German newspaper or magazine available in the News+ library. So YES, the French and German could not care less about this service. It is not hating, it is the reality.