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.
Publishers Reportedly Struggling to Monetize Privacy-Centric Apple News
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only way to monetise “good journalism” is by expensive subscriptions. There are way too many free, ad supported, junk options out there. This has driven the ad revenue per view way down and is extremely unfavourable for feature length articles.
Either you do something like Buzzfeed or WSJ - earn money on click bait and use spare money to finance investigative journalism. Or you hide yourself behind a paywall and avoid aggregators like plague (The Information, Stratechery, ...). Third option is to get a rich benefactor like The Washington Post.
The old way just can’t work in a world where anybody can publish stuff which will reach more people quicker than you can think of a headline.
You know you are stretching when you bring up Pippin and Ping. And Mac Clones?? Let's stick to the current century.
Moreover, you listed two of Apple's successes. By all estimates, HomePod with just about a year of sales, is already the dominant player by far in the high quality smart speaker market. They weren't designed to compete with the $30 Echo's. And Siri is the most used digital personal assistant in the world and knows the most languages by far. No, Apple hasn't programmed her to fart on command like Alexa can, but you can use a Siri shortcut if you want her to have that "skill."It's also ironic that you mention struggling news outlets that have evidently tried to make it in the new digital world. This sounds like an opportunity for some of them to get more revenue to stay afloat. As one of them recently was quoted, this could be good for the industry as "better to get a smaller percentage of a larger pie, than a larger percentage of a smaller pie, "or in many cases NO PIE."
Finally, this is only going to impact sites that currently have paywalls. As you know from your newspaper days, subscriptions revenue is often a fraction of the advertising revenue. If Apple can drive a lot more eyeballs to articles that were previously behind a paywall, publishers will be able to charge higher advertising rates, so that is something they will be calculating in deciding whether to participate. People forget about banner ads, promoted content, etc., that the publisher gets 100% of relative to Apple.
Last edited:
They'll have to work out the biz side. People aren't going to pay for a subscription and be bombarded with ads anyway.
No, and it doesn't bring you over a billion potential customers, just those who walk by. It doesn't provide the billing service, pay the credit car processing fees, advertise world wide for you. It only spends a few hundred dollars, not billons on developing and maintaining the newsstand platform to sell the newspaper. Other than that, you have a great analogy.
Bingo. Apple’s definition of privacy is: “The data we collect is not personally identifiable.” That is not the definition of privacy. That is the definition of anonymity. Surveillance is surveillance. If I pointed binoculars at a stranger and observed their activities, it is considered spying even if I don’t identify them. However, I can still follow them and learn their habits and interests, and use those details to manipulate their environment.
As it stands right now, there is no subscription service. So it isn't the answer to the current problem for the publishers. They're complaining about lack of ad revenue from Apple News as it's currently operated. Will the subscription service alleviate the problem? Don't know, but I doubt it. Especially if the 50/50 rumor is true.
To each his own.... I use it every day and it regularly surfaces personalized content from sources that I never even knew existed which has led me to often link out to those web sites. I pay for digital news and magazine subscriptions today and I would definitely swap that out for a single monthly fee manageable from my devices.
Last poster shows the problem with current journalism. Namely, news outlets cannot afford to wait any longer than absolutely necessary to post "news" because of the speed of the Internet. As a result, we get numerous stories that report rumors as facts, or that restate what others are saying or that just reinforce the obvious, but perhaps, mistaken interpretation of an event.
I wish Apple would not compete with all the news outlets trying to be as up to date as possible. Instead, I wish APple News contained only articles that had been carefully researched, and thoughtfully considered. Apple News could have a separate channel for up-to-the-minute items that lack this context and reflection. News sources could decide which channel to place each news story they generate into. Apple could monitor and curate the thoughtful channel.
I wish Apple would not compete with all the news outlets trying to be as up to date as possible. Instead, I wish APple News contained only articles that had been carefully researched, and thoughtfully considered. Apple News could have a separate channel for up-to-the-minute items that lack this context and reflection. News sources could decide which channel to place each news story they generate into. Apple could monitor and curate the thoughtful channel.
I was Editor-in-Chief of a magazine (back in the 90s, but probably still relevant), and also was an exec at a book publishing firm. For books, retailers bought books from a distributor at 50% cover, and the distributors bought from wholesalers at 20-30% off that. Print, paper, and binding were about 10% of cover. The small margins were bad enough, but even worse, brick-and-mortar bookstores demanded 90 days to pay their invoices, and also a 90-day full-credit return clause. They basically get to put the book on the shelf and return it for a full refund if it doesn't sell. Consignment, I think that's the correct term.
Our magazine retailers (via one or two large distributers) also took returns, though in most cases the retailer would rip the cover off and return that, so we didn't even get a second chance to sell those copies. Print run projections were a major pain in the ass.
Bottomline is that the publisher in either media sees a very small percentage. Apple is playing the role of both packager and retailer. It's the same argument that ended up in court a few years ago around commission structures and what role Apple itself is playing (agency versus retailer).
Actually... if you pay the price marked on a magazine at a newsstand, about 50% of that goes to the publisher. It's called 100% markup and it's been going on forever.
[doublepost=1551126743][/doublepost]Don't tell me that publishers cannot sell ads unless they are targeted by using cookies or Facebook profiles, etc. That's a straight-up lie.
Just pick up a physical magazine or newspaper and you will see they know how to target their audience pretty well based on the content of the publication.
If Apple News integrates completely with news outlet and has a big enough native amount of outlet and if there is no ads and if it does track and if it all comes in at a decent price, I would be willing to pay.
I prefer not to be tracked and not being served ads on the internet. I dont think i am alone although I dont think most people think like that. I stopped using all of Facebook services and related things. I have quit all of google, but YouTube. I have installed AdBlockers and truies to stop things from tracking me online for a long time now. For me, it all comes down to security has more and more things in the world switch to the online method and that social engineering is a big thing now I try to be extremely careful.
I hear a lot of people saying “well everybody is on Facebook, so I cant quit” or “I Don’t use Facebook, I only use Intragram” or the classic “I have nothing to hide”. Most people are not technologically inclined and every opportunity to create an app or service that does not encroaches on privacy should be done by Apple. If it can make them a few bucks and offers a privacy conscious side then, I support it.
It’s time for people to take back their privacy. Every technologically rehearsed person should promote this.
I prefer not to be tracked and not being served ads on the internet. I dont think i am alone although I dont think most people think like that. I stopped using all of Facebook services and related things. I have quit all of google, but YouTube. I have installed AdBlockers and truies to stop things from tracking me online for a long time now. For me, it all comes down to security has more and more things in the world switch to the online method and that social engineering is a big thing now I try to be extremely careful.
I hear a lot of people saying “well everybody is on Facebook, so I cant quit” or “I Don’t use Facebook, I only use Intragram” or the classic “I have nothing to hide”. Most people are not technologically inclined and every opportunity to create an app or service that does not encroaches on privacy should be done by Apple. If it can make them a few bucks and offers a privacy conscious side then, I support it.
It’s time for people to take back their privacy. Every technologically rehearsed person should promote this.
This was my thinking exactly. Apple News is currently free and "good enough" for some. They're slowly moving towards a pay model which, before you even realize it, will be locked into your apple ecosystem. I'm not a huge fan of Apple Music but at this point it would be more of a hassle for me to stop paying for it (or so i tell myself).
BTW one thing I WOULD like to see is a method of getting local news into this (or into Apple News itself). Currently I have to go to local websites or apps for local news, and they all suck. You can't click an article without being assaulted by poorly generated ads that all but take down your browser entirely, sometimes even before you can hit the Reading Mode button. Just try browsing wpxi.com for an example of what I mean.
That is much more expensive. The reason they sell the data is to have a lower subscription price.
[doublepost=1551129414][/doublepost]
Apple should charge news companies a small flat fee for the Apple News service. Apple is trying to get more money per user and they don't really deserve that kind of arrangement.
The publisher's cut was never the object of the question. The newsstands cut was.
Apple taking fifty percent is a joke. That's like Google/Mozilla taking 50% of every internet purchase done via their browser.
[doublepost=1551135145][/doublepost]
Be sure to turn off recommendations in the settings otherwise you "give Apple permission to collect and store certain data, including but not limited to data about your device activity, location, and usage."
[doublepost=1551135145][/doublepost]
Be sure to turn off recommendations in the settings otherwise you "give Apple permission to collect and store certain data, including but not limited to data about your device activity, location, and usage."
Umm Apple sells products and provide services that people use. You are free to chose these products and services or any of the competing products as ling as you pay for it. Apple is in business to make money not do things for free for your benefit.
I reckon the idea is subtle, or huge whichever direction your coming from
News publication rely on adverting.... the moment their introduced into a 'different world' they go crazy.
You either accept what Apple does, or not. I don't think there is a middle ground to keep both happy, because both want the larger slice of the same pie. Something will have to 'give'. And i don't think Apple will 'split'
News publication rely on adverting.... the moment their introduced into a 'different world' they go crazy.
You either accept what Apple does, or not. I don't think there is a middle ground to keep both happy, because both want the larger slice of the same pie. Something will have to 'give'. And i don't think Apple will 'split'
Last edited:
Yeah, let me guess -- BBC is funded by the tax payers, just like Germany's "ARD", "ZDF", "WDR", "Deutsche Welle" and several other (regional) stations. And still, they show you ads.
And have you ever stopped to think WHY today's journalism has become so crappy? Here's the answer: Because nobody's paying for it anymore. Research like Bernstein and Woodward did it during the Watergate Affair just cannot be done anymore today because of a lack of funding. The guys wouldn't know what to eat during such an exhausting campaign.
So, it's simple: It's our fault that journalism sucks that much nowadays.
[doublepost=1551177397][/doublepost]
Affirmative. Their DNA is in milking:
"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it’s worth – and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago.” -- Steve Jobs
The BBC is funded from the TV License fee but it's is free from advertisements other than trailers for upcoming shows.
May I ask you as an expert: What percentage does the publisher get for one newspaper sold at a kiosk?
“publishers are having trouble selling Apple Newsad inventory directly because of the platform's limited user targeting, which doesn't allow the use of third-party data or IP addresses”
There could be no stronger endorsement for Apple News than this!
Take my money damnit!
There could be no stronger endorsement for Apple News than this!
Take my money damnit!