Wake me when there is customization of news preference and not what Apple employees feels is news that’s force fed to us.
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.
Report Reveals Apple News Brings Publishers Much Higher Traffic But a Lot Less Ad Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple users are probably conditioned to pay for things and not click on ads. Of course Android and Windows as revenue is higher. Just make it so I can tap a button like on Medium with claps. 1 or 5 cents per clap or something
I would GLADLY pay for no ads and I often do on my iOS apps, here on Macrumors, etc... Just pisses me off to no end that I can pay $300/year for WSJ, Economist, NY Times, LA Times, etc... and STILL get ads on their website and this goes for most subscriptions today.
This is exactly right. Either ads and free, or ad-free with a subscription. Can't have it both ways. I apply this for nearly all media I consume. Netflix and HBO get my money because they are ad-free (internal promotion doesn't count). Same applies to written content: if I pay, that means I shouldn't see a single ad.
Pssst...read the above 50 comments thread.
There can't be 50 comments above when your post is #47
And none of your prior posts addressed my question about how you'll find out if a blocked site later reduces or eliminates the annoying ads that got you to block them to begin with. Do you turn off the blocking to check every 6 months or year? People who block a site tend to leave the site permanently blocked; They don't periodically unblock to check the ad annoyance level.
I kind of understand why people use Apple News.
But at the same time, all the news on Apple News is coming from 3rd party sources that have RSS feeds.
Why not figure out what 3rd party sources you like, add their RSS feeds to your Feedly account, and consume it via a RSS reader like Newsify?
[doublepost=1537975140][/doublepost]
Google Analytics & Tag Manager. The analytics are invaluable to those companies.
But at the same time, all the news on Apple News is coming from 3rd party sources that have RSS feeds.
Why not figure out what 3rd party sources you like, add their RSS feeds to your Feedly account, and consume it via a RSS reader like Newsify?
[doublepost=1537975140][/doublepost]
Google Analytics & Tag Manager. The analytics are invaluable to those companies.
Does anyone remember the internet in the late 90's to early 2000's? Remember when you were done Googling those three things you wanted to read about, and you had to click away dozens if not hundreds of popup windows that had manifested while you "surfed" the web?
Things have to change eventually.
Things have to change eventually.
Thanks for the info about Medium! Didn't even know it existed until this post.
If I like the site enough, I would gladly pay for ad-free. Especially since malicious ads are getting more common.
Entitled? That’s like saying I’m “entitled” because I don’t want a guy with store flyers literally laying on the hood of my car and shoving them against the windshield when they could just be stuck to the bulletin board.
Meh.
I was on the fence about ever using Apple News until Apple banned someone for voicing what they considered extremist content - essentially silencing someone's freedom of speech. Granted, they removed the apps from the App Store, but then also later had Siri ignore the smart search via Safari. Who says this won't continue with anything else Apple feels doesn't follow their core values? Why would anyone want to receive news from a company that silences anyone? That choice should be with the user.
I already get this with ATT's free "WatchTV" service which provides you with 35 channels for free. The only news channel provided is CNN - a station more focused on one single topic rather than actual news from around the world.
Throw a frog into boiling water, and it will immediately try to jump out.
Throw a frog into warm water and slowly increase the temperature and it will boil to death.
I hope that our society hasn't become the latter.
I was on the fence about ever using Apple News until Apple banned someone for voicing what they considered extremist content - essentially silencing someone's freedom of speech. Granted, they removed the apps from the App Store, but then also later had Siri ignore the smart search via Safari. Who says this won't continue with anything else Apple feels doesn't follow their core values? Why would anyone want to receive news from a company that silences anyone? That choice should be with the user.
I already get this with ATT's free "WatchTV" service which provides you with 35 channels for free. The only news channel provided is CNN - a station more focused on one single topic rather than actual news from around the world.
Throw a frog into boiling water, and it will immediately try to jump out.
Throw a frog into warm water and slowly increase the temperature and it will boil to death.
I hope that our society hasn't become the latter.
Last edited:
You can customize to a point, but last I saw no one forced you to use Apple News. That’s like complaining that Sydney Morning Herald chooses not to report on the goings on in Omaha.
I almost never go directly to news sites these days. Apple News is perfect, especially after I blocked Pravda... I mean, Fox "News."
I remember the internet from the early '90s and I've never ever gotten hundreds or even close to dozens of pop-up windows on any of my computers.
The only times I've seen a computer with that many pop-ups, it was because it was infected with viruses and adware/spyware or people installed too many browser toolbars.
I heavily used the News app when it first released. I spent a lot of time adding in all my favorite news sources. It was great... then they removed all of the sources I added and didn't allow me to put them back in. Stopped using it.
Exactly.
Exactly.
If you're gonna vote with your wallet, perhaps you should open it and actually pay for that content that isn't free to produce. If people actually paid for things that have real monetary value, maybe they wouldn't need to resort to things like obnoxious ads that get in the way.
I agree but what I dislike is that the VPN gets turned off every 24 hours or so. Seems it’s just a problem of iOS in general from what I’ve read but the local DNS proxy is only good while it remains turned on.
With AdGuard my vpn stays on all the time. There is an option to make it persistent or something like that (kinda hidden).
I’ve been using AdBlock and as long as it is not shifting between WiFi and cellular it seems to stay on but gets flaky when switching connections.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather have some kind of micropayment system in place than have to endure ads. Sometimes I'll read an article that's well-researched, written, edited and photographed and frankly I'd be fine with some kind of easy way to pay a little for it, if it supported the people who made it. I get that adblockers exist, but I just don't see how any of this is a sustainable solution for funding good reporting.
Apple should start an Ad Free subscription for the News app and pay it to the read articles. Just like Apple Music.
Google tried this. I beta tested it for about 4? months before they shut it down and released a public version that was so bad, it never really took off. https://contributor.google.com/v/beta I liked the idea. You could replace the google ads with pictures of anything or a "thank you" - with charts showing where your $ went to on a monthly basis. I thought it was so great.
Apple News would be an excellent platform for this. Show me a little preview of the article, then charge me some reasonable amount through Apple Pay to read it. But they seem all in on the Texture "all you can read" model and I wonder if the publishers are just going to get screwed even more...Google tried this. I beta tested it for about 4? months before they shut it down and released a public version that was so bad, it never really took off. https://contributor.google.com/v/beta I liked the idea. You could replace the google ads with pictures of anything or a "thank you" - with charts showing where your $ went to on a monthly basis. I thought it was so great.
If they offend you so much, you should just not go to the sites. Instead, you take the content and give nothing back. And you're even against paying them for it instead!
Okay. Will do.
No. Because you're not getting anything for it. People who go to a site with adblockers are getting something and can't even be bothered to contribute to the people who make the content for them.
You can see first-hand proof of this using the Opera browser. It shows you the time it takes to load a site with and w/o ads. There is a huge difference. Ad companies have brought this on themselves.
Then I encourage you to not go to sites that load too slowly because of ads. You know, since ads pay for the content you're viewing.