Apple doing something and not informing those who have a vested interest? It can't be!
Where does it say that Apple did not inform anyone? Publishers have access to the same betas as developers, months ahead of the official release.
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.
Some Publishers Concerned About Apple News+ Intercepting Traffic From Websites in iOS 14
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where does it say that Apple did not inform anyone? Publishers have access to the same betas as developers, months ahead of the official release.
First, these are Apple News links, not links to the publisher's website.
Second, the links are for people who subscribe to Apple News+, and therefore the publishers are already receiving revenue.
Third, if someone subscribes to Apple News+, their expectation is to be able to read articles in the Apple News+, not on some crappy spam-filled website.
Finally, if someone subscribes to Apple News+, those articles are only available on Apple News+. Subscribing to Apple News+ does not give you access behind paywalls outside of Apple News.
This is much ado about nothing, like pretty much anything these days.
[automerge]1597338890[/automerge]
There is no issue. Just the standard illogical rants from people who don't read and learn the facts before commenting.
I noticed you completely ignored the response to Google’s AMP rollout. Is that really a rubric or your own confirmation bias and/or distorted reality at work there?
Also, readers should also be concerned about this, if whatever publishers they enjoy end up closing shop because their revenue sag even further because of what's happening here.
Last edited:
In the first sentence of the story. I am concerned about your comprehension today. Two instances where you are quite confused.
exactly. going a bit further with ad revenue and what companies do, i hate it when i google search for a website and google puts the company's website (that i want to click) pass through an ad clicking site and not taking me directly to the company's website.
IE: i search for home depot canada tools.
- first return is what i'm looking for but the link is https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSE... googleadservices.com/soasindfahashldfahhlf some google ad revenue site.
- second return is https://www.homedepot.ca/en/home/categories/tools.html
Apple's intent is to give the end user a better experience, and yes a lot of newspaper websites are just a bad experience with intrusive ads all over the place (this is before we talk about the user tracking cookies). They may well be discouraging the end users but the New York Times appears to have left the Apple News+ orbit because the revenue share isn't worth it. That is entirely in Apple's purview.
If Apple passed on more money to the news companies they might look on Apple News with more interest but I'll guess that it's difficult for news organisations to repurpose or optimise content for Apple News+. If it costs more to do right than it brings in for revenue for each news organisation then they are inevitably going to head towards the exit door, especially with the current trajectory of media companies in the modern age.
I believe there's an argument for Apple to do more to help the old media organisations - specifically news sector - make more of the Apple News+ platform.
What if Apple paid to create export modules for popular newspaper/magazine content management systems? That still wouldn't catch all the folks who run with unsuitable/ancient software and there's still going to be a number of companies that still need to employ someone to co-ordinate the exports - and is the revenue share enough to cover the costs of a newspaper whereas a magazine can just consider dumping PDFs of the pages out? That won't be ideal either.
Apple simply have to pay more or more big names will leave Apple News+ and it'll become like other Apple ventures - something that died on the the vine due to lack of interest and investment as the momentum dries up.
As it stands, as more companies exit AppleNews+ it becomes a worse deal for subscribers - not exactly enticing people to stay - look at the magazines that are going under this year such as Q - the music magazine (and they were a launch title for AppleNews+).
Apple is one of the big players in Podcasts for historical reasons - for example - but are they doing enough to keep themselves at the top table today or could they be overtaken by the likes of Spotify, Google, and maybe Amazon? Simply speaking, if you have to run to keep up with the pack and Apple are just resting on their laurels because a certain segment isn't bringing in enough revenue they'll become an also-ran.
Apple's USP ought to major on lack of tracking/cookies/ads/a better user experience. Removing the ads will attract a cost and users need to be aware of that, but the right balance of costs needs to be found.
If Apple passed on more money to the news companies they might look on Apple News with more interest but I'll guess that it's difficult for news organisations to repurpose or optimise content for Apple News+. If it costs more to do right than it brings in for revenue for each news organisation then they are inevitably going to head towards the exit door, especially with the current trajectory of media companies in the modern age.
I believe there's an argument for Apple to do more to help the old media organisations - specifically news sector - make more of the Apple News+ platform.
What if Apple paid to create export modules for popular newspaper/magazine content management systems? That still wouldn't catch all the folks who run with unsuitable/ancient software and there's still going to be a number of companies that still need to employ someone to co-ordinate the exports - and is the revenue share enough to cover the costs of a newspaper whereas a magazine can just consider dumping PDFs of the pages out? That won't be ideal either.
Apple simply have to pay more or more big names will leave Apple News+ and it'll become like other Apple ventures - something that died on the the vine due to lack of interest and investment as the momentum dries up.
As it stands, as more companies exit AppleNews+ it becomes a worse deal for subscribers - not exactly enticing people to stay - look at the magazines that are going under this year such as Q - the music magazine (and they were a launch title for AppleNews+).
Apple is one of the big players in Podcasts for historical reasons - for example - but are they doing enough to keep themselves at the top table today or could they be overtaken by the likes of Spotify, Google, and maybe Amazon? Simply speaking, if you have to run to keep up with the pack and Apple are just resting on their laurels because a certain segment isn't bringing in enough revenue they'll become an also-ran.
Apple's USP ought to major on lack of tracking/cookies/ads/a better user experience. Removing the ads will attract a cost and users need to be aware of that, but the right balance of costs needs to be found.
Gotta luv Apples manifest destiny to control as much digital real estate (and also business) as the government will allow...and then some. This is as Apple as Apple gets. A company can’t defy gravity forever though. Eventually the apples will fall DOWN instead of UP. haha 😆
@PTLove and @Apple_Employee Perhaps I should had referred to the right Google product, AMP, instead of the name Google News.
Not that Wikipedia is a source of truth but it reminds us “(AMP) was originally created by Google as a competitor to Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News” and “AMP is Google's attempt to lock publishers into its ecosystem. AMP has also been linked to Google's attempt to deprecate URLs so that users will not be able to immediately see whether they are viewing a webpage on the open Web or an AMP page that is hosted on Google's servers.”
The above description sounds awfully familiar with Apple News+ to me.
Not that Wikipedia is a source of truth but it reminds us “(AMP) was originally created by Google as a competitor to Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News” and “AMP is Google's attempt to lock publishers into its ecosystem. AMP has also been linked to Google's attempt to deprecate URLs so that users will not be able to immediately see whether they are viewing a webpage on the open Web or an AMP page that is hosted on Google's servers.”
The above description sounds awfully familiar with Apple News+ to me.
If I understand this correctly, it only applies to Apple News+ subscribers, and for links/articles available through Apple News+ subscriptions. And, Apple News+ pays publishers by the article view, so, the publishers are still getting compensated. I don't know if the payout is better than that from ads on their website, but either way, this seems to be an attempt to (1) make the user experience better (News+ undoubtedly is a nicer experience than a website) and to (2) keep paying the publishers.
It's not an all or nothing situation. It's very easy to whitelist sites you consciously want to load ads on, but leave the blocker in place for others.
Problems for publishers are problems for readers, if they value having anything better than generic "content".
I loathe the current ad- and tracker-supported model as much as anyone, but the problem of how to keep publishing alive is very real.
I found this a really fascinating dive into the issue, specifically concerning local news, which is in decline: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcast...uebased-newspaper-business-model-on-the-media
A lot of the interest in newspapers has been from the people who - rather than turn to the sports pages or read the front page headlines - go directly to the births, marriages, and deaths first and foremost. Imagine how social media now replaces the newspapers in allowing people to announce their own happy/sad news without having to pay high eye watering prices to go in a century old publication of record which basically everyone used to read 50-60 years ago.
It's 'free' but the price is your private data is being used, of course.
It's safe to say that these old media companies grew fat on the proceeds of revenues from classified ads - it's this sector which used to make newspapers their money.
In the UK Autotrader started taking car ads from newspapers while Rightmove (property sales aggregator) is now the site of choice for UK house sales and Craiglist, eBay etc took the miscellaneous sales.
It's decimated the UK classified ad market - the internet was rubbished for years by dinosaur old media owners since the original dot com bust in the 2000s but the speed and convenience of people going on line exclusively on their phones has put the local press over the last decade on its knees.
The big social modern media companies have the advertising dollar largely sewn up, and the 'loss-making' side of the operation - news, politics, features, and sport journalist - is struggling as a consequence.
It's the advertising side of newspapers that used to pay for the journalism side - the cover price of local papers never could cover that and the job cuts in the news room have contributed to a reduction in oversight and holding people to account for the kind of wrong-doing in governance that would have made big headlines.
You could argue that bad actors are now using social media - where everyone is now - to further twist the knife and reduce trust in what's left of local journalism - newspapers are now generally read by significantly older folks - older than baby boomers in a lot of cases - who buy out of habit or because they cannot figure out how to use a phone or PC (or see the screen).
Younger people (under 70s) are used to getting everything for free - look at the number of people who are complaining about stuff behind a paywall, or having folks doing screen grabs or copy and pastes of paywall articles.
And this leads us back to newspapers who are cutting staff now - their decline has been accelerated by this year's events which have prevented people from going out and buying a printed newspaper. The cost of paper is rising, printing your own paper becomes more expensive as you have to centralise to presses from big groups who are glad to have revenue. Advertisers know that the demographic reading the printed copy isn't great compared to the data and younger demographics that social media networks can offer.
My own comment on AppleNews+ as a 'Netflix'* of news and magazines is going to be flawed. Lots of choice, not everything is going to suit everybody, but I get the feeling that the revenue isn't really got enough for the companies who need to repurpose their content to suit Apple's app.
In the end if you want trusted local news without ads and tracking you'll have to pay for it, and it won't be cheap (especially if you want to avoid having staff full of inexperienced college graduates regurgitating press releases for a job) but social media networks have to take an interest because within 10-20 years people won't be posting text from local newspapers.
We'll be left with local and national social media groups run by partisan, untrained, people who share hearsay and lies - and those people will be trusted by their 'friends' in these groups. That's the horrifying future post-newspapers and one that should concern right-minded people.
Apple aren't going to be buying a title like the Washington Post like Jeff Bezos has - it's not their MO to buy media like that - but if they are interested in bringing people on board to Apple News+ they could do a lot more to make it less costly for these struggling newspapers to get their content on Apple News+. They could certainly help cut costs for smaller papers who aren't even on the service - never mind the big national titles who are considering pulling out.
Podcasts is a small but growing segment, one that news organisations have dabbled in over the years without knowledge of how to properly monetise it. Rather than getting involved in byzantine software manipulation to get written articles to look good on a small screen Apple should consider offering money to host ad-free versions of news podcasts and put that out in an enhanced AppleNews+ interface rather than as part of the Apple Music subscription. It might also suit the visually impaired audience which would be another win for Apple and could then tie into something that Siri or the HomePod speaker could be used to play out.
If there's an ad supported version of that podcast it could then be allowed in the main Apple News interface. I for one would certainly subscribe to Apple News+ to listen to ad-free podcasts.
* The rise of Netflix is a topic for another day but you can see how they caught the likes of Blockbuster out. That in itself is a microcosm of what is happening to newspapers.
It's 'free' but the price is your private data is being used, of course.
It's safe to say that these old media companies grew fat on the proceeds of revenues from classified ads - it's this sector which used to make newspapers their money.
In the UK Autotrader started taking car ads from newspapers while Rightmove (property sales aggregator) is now the site of choice for UK house sales and Craiglist, eBay etc took the miscellaneous sales.
It's decimated the UK classified ad market - the internet was rubbished for years by dinosaur old media owners since the original dot com bust in the 2000s but the speed and convenience of people going on line exclusively on their phones has put the local press over the last decade on its knees.
The big social modern media companies have the advertising dollar largely sewn up, and the 'loss-making' side of the operation - news, politics, features, and sport journalist - is struggling as a consequence.
It's the advertising side of newspapers that used to pay for the journalism side - the cover price of local papers never could cover that and the job cuts in the news room have contributed to a reduction in oversight and holding people to account for the kind of wrong-doing in governance that would have made big headlines.
You could argue that bad actors are now using social media - where everyone is now - to further twist the knife and reduce trust in what's left of local journalism - newspapers are now generally read by significantly older folks - older than baby boomers in a lot of cases - who buy out of habit or because they cannot figure out how to use a phone or PC (or see the screen).
Younger people (under 70s) are used to getting everything for free - look at the number of people who are complaining about stuff behind a paywall, or having folks doing screen grabs or copy and pastes of paywall articles.
And this leads us back to newspapers who are cutting staff now - their decline has been accelerated by this year's events which have prevented people from going out and buying a printed newspaper. The cost of paper is rising, printing your own paper becomes more expensive as you have to centralise to presses from big groups who are glad to have revenue. Advertisers know that the demographic reading the printed copy isn't great compared to the data and younger demographics that social media networks can offer.
My own comment on AppleNews+ as a 'Netflix'* of news and magazines is going to be flawed. Lots of choice, not everything is going to suit everybody, but I get the feeling that the revenue isn't really got enough for the companies who need to repurpose their content to suit Apple's app.
In the end if you want trusted local news without ads and tracking you'll have to pay for it, and it won't be cheap (especially if you want to avoid having staff full of inexperienced college graduates regurgitating press releases for a job) but social media networks have to take an interest because within 10-20 years people won't be posting text from local newspapers.
We'll be left with local and national social media groups run by partisan, untrained, people who share hearsay and lies - and those people will be trusted by their 'friends' in these groups. That's the horrifying future post-newspapers and one that should concern right-minded people.
Apple aren't going to be buying a title like the Washington Post like Jeff Bezos has - it's not their MO to buy media like that - but if they are interested in bringing people on board to Apple News+ they could do a lot more to make it less costly for these struggling newspapers to get their content on Apple News+. They could certainly help cut costs for smaller papers who aren't even on the service - never mind the big national titles who are considering pulling out.
Podcasts is a small but growing segment, one that news organisations have dabbled in over the years without knowledge of how to properly monetise it. Rather than getting involved in byzantine software manipulation to get written articles to look good on a small screen Apple should consider offering money to host ad-free versions of news podcasts and put that out in an enhanced AppleNews+ interface rather than as part of the Apple Music subscription. It might also suit the visually impaired audience which would be another win for Apple and could then tie into something that Siri or the HomePod speaker could be used to play out.
If there's an ad supported version of that podcast it could then be allowed in the main Apple News interface. I for one would certainly subscribe to Apple News+ to listen to ad-free podcasts.
* The rise of Netflix is a topic for another day but you can see how they caught the likes of Blockbuster out. That in itself is a microcosm of what is happening to newspapers.
Honestly, I'd like the option for me to:
Drop articles that are linked to a news company that chose to upload an excerpt (outside of News+). I'm livid at seeing this with NY Times and others. Just rude.
Drop pop-ups and links for ads.
Just honestly WHO clicks on Ads at all or how often a day, per website or per article that they read?!?! Seriously?
This notion that company's pay others to feature an ad on their content in the assumption someone will click on it is just a waste. It's better to place extremely relevant ads (not from cookies tracking) - based on the content being served. Such as:
Article about home workouts = diet plan ads, personal trainer ads, protein and meal replacement ads (locally preferred based on IP for region), SoloFlex/BowFlex/Peleton home gyms/weights etc.
Many of these 'bully' cries are from greedy company's that actually do the very SAME crap their pointing the finger at Apple for - ahem Epic Games (their license agreement with Unreal Engine for example).
I think when you get as BIG as Apple is and the highlight of their 'Services' revenue getting VERY large for income in the last 1.5yrs ... THAT's when they become the bully. You'll notice that ONLY company's that make products that are services really are complaining. Notice that prior to the Apple's services revenue 1.5yrs ago this was NOT a 'thing"?? Hmm.
Epic makes games ... many are software and Digital content and with all SW companies have seen a HUGE rise in sales (games and social media marketing) since lockdowns early 2020. Physical game media will end in about 4yrs after this last generation of consoles ; with Nintendo being the only exception.
Apple doesn't initiate those actions on your behalf.
For example, if iOS were consumer-friendly it wouldn't harass people by periodically trying to force them to turn on dictation when they compose text messages via the keypad. It would, at bare minimum, only do it once. If repeating the ad is seen as somehow necessary then there should be a way to turn the "reminder" off. There would also be the ability to turn off other aggressive "features", like so-called autocorrect that changes things without permission.
The iOS 13 "upgrade" notices were more like ultimatums, too.
Harassment in operating systems is done so people will conform to the will of the corporation. (When things are automated, for instance, and there is no method of turning them off it's not about what the customer wants and needs; it's about what the corporation wants and needs.)
And when that fails, sometimes users will find that the corporation changed their computer anyway. One of the favored tactics is to "accidentally" revert settings. Another is to download things in the background and then try to force them on people with a very very hard sell. Microsoft's Windows 10 antics are legendary. It even has the computer restart when people are in the middle of work to install one of its intentionally opaque "updates". Oops... it looks like you're not writing a letter (in Windows 7 anymore). Presto! You're now on Windows 10.
A third tactic is to break the settings stealthily so there is the illusion of user agency. Go ahead, click it and change it. It won't actually do anything, though. Microsoft did this with Windows 10 Enterprise when it stealthily "deprecated" the ability of a set of administrative tools from working while leaving the interface in place — which was particularly aggressive considering the cost of an enterprise license.
Last edited: