The New York Times Announces Closure of News Curation App 'NYT Now'

[MacRumors]

The New York Times has announced that its curated news app, NYT Now [Direct Link], will officially shut down and no longer be available to download from the week of August 29. The app was originally announced in early 2014 as a way to provide readers with a cheaper alternative to the digital subscription service offered by the company, coming in at $8 per month, "roughly half the price of the least expensive digital subscription."

NYT Now was said to be an attempt by the New York Times to offset dips in revenue from its traditional printed newspaper circulation. The goal was to present a less expensive subscription model, with news focused and curated for each specific user, and attract people who might not otherwise subscribe due to the ease-of-access inherent in mobile apps. Unfortunately, "the app never quite took off," and NYT Now transitioned to a freemium model last year in an attempt to expand its audience.

Kinsey Wilson, the executive vice president for product and technology, said the decision to do away with NYT Now was driven in part by a shift in how the company thinks about broadening its audience. The Times, with the help of its audience development team, now looks more to third-party platforms like Facebook and Twitter to expand its reach among younger readers.

"That gave us a different ability to tap into younger audiences and to provide exposure to a much, much wider audience," Mr. Wilson said.

The app was said to have peaked in May 2015 with 334,000 total unique users in one month but, in the last three months, it only managed to acquire 257,000 total unique users. Many of NYT Now's features will be folded into the company's main mobile app, NYTimes [Direct Link], "including morning and evening news briefings, bullet-point lists and a more conversational tone."

The editors of NYT Now have written a brief note about the app's shuttering, including the specific locations users can find its various features in other apps. For readers who keep the NYT Now app on their iOS or Android device, it will officially cease being updated in September.

Apps like Apple News, which offer users a wide breadth of news stories from an expansive list of various publishers, are also likely to contribute to a slight loss of subscribers for single-publisher apps. Apple News is even getting a feature in iOS 10 that will support paid subscription models from sites like The Wall Street Journal, curating premium content right alongside free stories from other publishers.

Article Link: The New York Times Announces Closure of News Curation App 'NYT Now'

 

[smacrumon]

What was the point of launching it if it was only going to be killed later down the track?
#AbandonedWare

 

[S.B.G]

Not that I used the app, but is there any harm in them continuing its use? I can't see that it has any ongoing costs to keep running per se, except feeding it stories, which might even be automated. They're still getting 257K unique users in 3 months and that's still pretty good - I think.

 

[Solomani]

I actually like Apple News. It's a good clean model. You choose only the news channels you want (e.g. NYT, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Reuters, ESPN, etc).

 

[scaredpoet]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I am NOT a fan of having a zillion apps from the same source all doing different things. If a news source wants to keep me as a subscriber, they need to make accessing the news simple and streamlined. Ready access through the news aggregators (Apple News, Flipboard, etc.) and one dedicated app, with the sections I want. That's it!

NY Times currently has 9 iPhone apps and 5 iPad apps, all for content that could probably be served just fine from their main app. Most people, I think, are just just going to install ONE app and call it a day, and anything else will be garnering niches and small numbers at best. So there really shouldn't be any surprise here.

 

[dwman]

I actually found the app pretty useful as it didn't require a paid subscription which is pretty expensive. Guess I'll be using Apple News or Feedly from now on.

 

[Porco]

'NYT Now' now 'NYT Then'.

 

[nt5672]

Fortunately I do not need any NYTimes apps. I try really hard to limit my exposure to propaganda. While the Times does occasionally have an honest and truthful news story, most times they just repeat political dogma, bias, and propaganda. It will not hurt my feelings if they go bankrupt. Anytime where one political party can do no harm and the other political party can do no right, is the time that know you are reading propaganda. If you pay attention you know that both parties are harming most middle class and lower. No different than the news in a country ruled by a 2-bit dictator.

 

[Zorn]

I actually found the app pretty useful as it didn't require a paid subscription which is pretty expensive. Guess I'll be using Apple News or Feedly from now on.

I'm in the same boat. I really like some of the stories the Times has, but the prices they want to charge are off the wall insanity. $20 a month for digital?!!? There's too many sources for free news to even momentarily consider an outrageous price like that. There's a big problem when that's the same price that I can practically get a streaming cable subscription to via Sling.

 

[BruiserBear]

Fortunately I do not need any NYTimes apps. I try really hard to limit my exposure to propaganda. While the Times does occasionally have an honest and truthful news story, most times they just repeat political dogma, bias, and propaganda. It will not hurt my feelings if they go bankrupt. Anytime where one political party can do no harm and the other political party can do no right, is the time that know you are reading propaganda. If you pay attention you know that both parties are harming most middle class and lower. No different than the news in a country ruled by a 2-bit dictator.

Let me guess, Fox News is only honest news channel. lol

 

[lilabila]

Fortunately I do not need any NYTimes apps. I try really hard to limit my exposure to propaganda. While the Times does occasionally have an honest and truthful news story, most times they just repeat political dogma, bias, and propaganda. It will not hurt my feelings if they go bankrupt. Anytime where one political party can do no harm and the other political party can do no right, is the time that know you are reading propaganda. If you pay attention you know that both parties are harming most middle class and lower. No different than the news in a country ruled by a 2-bit dictator.

What a great response and way to live! It always feels encouraging reading common sense.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

People still read the New York Times?

 

[crsh1976]

Not that I used the app, but is there any harm in them continuing its use? I can't see that it has any ongoing costs to keep running per se, except feeding it stories, which might even be automated. They're still getting 257K unique users in 3 months and that's still pretty good - I think.

Maintenance to keep it running on newer OS versions and devices requires some devs and testers, even a barebone team is a budget in itself and I'm guessing they're taking the easier route by trashing the app altogether..

 

[Bob Sanders]

Let me guess, Fox News is only honest news channel. lol

You should probably read the post again. The poster seems to strongly oppose both parties, a clearly correct position in today's political climate.

 

[DaveTheRave]

Apps like Apple News, which offer users a wide breadth of news stories from an expansive list of various publishers, are also likely to contribute to a slight loss of subscribers for single-publisher apps.

I think a much more believable reason is the NYT's pricing policy. Lower the price and make it all access, regardless of platform (web or iPhone or tablet). If you're a subscriber, you're a subscriber and it shouldn't matter which device you use to read it. Same thing goes for the Wall Street Journal.

 

[C DM]

What was the point of launching it if it was only going to be killed later down the track?
#AbandonedWare

Is that a serious question?

 

[nt5672]

Let me guess, Fox News is only honest news channel. lol

Are you kidding me? Fox news is all about creating conflict, they'll let any idiot on and not even challenge their lies. Bill O'Reilly has to be the most self serving pompous ?????, I've seen on TV, will maybe with the exception of Bob Costas. So no, not Fox News.

 

[dampfnudel]

People still read the New York Times?

Mostly people over the age of 50 in my experience.

 

[unobtainium]

People still read the New York Times?

lol wut

NYT is one of the last remaining sources of serious journalism. For example, the entire latest issue of NYT Magazine, which was devoted to the unraveling of the Middle East.

 

[appledefenceforce]

I actually like Apple News. It's a good clean model. You choose only the news channels you want (e.g. NYT, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Reuters, ESPN, etc).

Can't wait for most people to use Apple News on iOS 10. I'm blown away as to how much more improved Apple News and Apple Music are in iOS 10.

 

[crfowler]

Fortunately I do not need any NYTimes apps. I try really hard to limit my exposure to propaganda. While the Times does occasionally have an honest and truthful news story, most times they just repeat political dogma, bias, and propaganda. It will not hurt my feelings if they go bankrupt. Anytime where one political party can do no harm and the other political party can do no right, is the time that know you are reading propaganda. If you pay attention you know that both parties are harming most middle class and lower. No different than the news in a country ruled by a 2-bit dictator.

The New York times is regarded by most as one of the most trusted news sources out there. They're one of the more traditional news outlets that still likes to report, rather than rant. I don't think there is any newspaper that doesn't offer complete Non-political bias... there never has been. At least when publish articles on political candidates, for example, they site sources and provide facts.....which are often repeated and sited by other news outlets.

 

[nt5672]

The New York times is regarded by most as one of the most trusted news sources out there. They're one of the more traditional news outlets that still likes to report, rather than rant. I don't think there is any newspaper that doesn't offer complete Non-political bias... there never has been. At least when publish articles on political candidates, for example, they site sources and provide facts.....which are often repeated and sited by other news outlets.

Every time I have tried to read the NYTimes I was able to spot the phony facts immediately. They have you fooled and so good for them, but they are one of the most biased reporting organizations in the major media. Go trace down the facts they provide. Then go trace down the facts they did not provide. They are smoke and mirrors, well made of course, but smoke and mirrors just the same.

The NYTimes are in bed with the politicians and either print democrat propaganda day in and day out or fail to print opposing news. They sometimes hold Republicans feet to the fire (good for them again), but let democrats run free with no substantial restrictions or criticisms. If you think the lack of substantial criticisms of Democrats is because there are no substantial criticisms, then you are the problem that America is facing. We are being fleeced by both political parties and the NYTimes just sits by and watches or stirs up hate for Republicans.

We have a women running for President that the NYTimes wants elected in spite of the fact that she is a law breaking tyrant with significant ties to Muslims. Most people don't know this, but ObamaCare is just a slight refactoring of HillaryCare from the Mr. Clintons administration. I know, because I know people that were involved. When you know the truth about some things, because of involvement, then you see immediately how biased the NYTimes is.

To quote The Guardian, 2012, Aug 29th, "This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing: of the standard role played by establishment (referred to earlier as NYTimes) journalists and the corruption that pervades it. Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper ("nothing to worry about"). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic."

They goes on to say, "The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails (obtained by the freedom of information act) read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis."

And goes on to say, "The most obvious example of this is the paper's complicity with propagating war-fueling falsehoods to justify the attack on Iraq – though, in that instance, it was hardly alone. Just last month, it was revealed that the NYT routinely gives veto power to Obama campaign officials over the quotes from those officials the paper is allowed to publish – a practice barred by other outlets (but not the NYT) both prior to that revelation and subsequent to it."

And goes on to say, "Worse, the paper frequently conceals vital information of public interest at the direction of the government, as it did when it learned of George Bush's illegal eavesdropping program in mid 2004 but concealed it for more than a year at the direction of the White House, until Bush was safely re-elected; as it did when it complied with government directives to conceal the CIA employment of Raymond Davis, captured by Pakistan, even as President Obama falsely described him as "our diplomat in Pakistan" and as the NYT reported the president's statement without noting that it was false; and as it did with its disclosure of numerous WikiLeaks releases, for which the paper, as former executive editor Bill Keller proudly boasted, took direction from the government regarding what should and should not be published."

These are just a few quick things that blast a big hole in your position. Please wake up.

 

[crfowler]

Every time I have tried to read the NYTimes I was able to spot the phony facts immediately. They have you fooled and so good for them, but they are one of the most biased reporting organizations in the major media. Go trace down the facts they provide. Then go trace down the facts they did not provide. They are smoke and mirrors, well made of course, but smoke and mirrors just the same.

The NYTimes are in bed with the politicians and either print democrat propaganda day in and day out or fail to print opposing news. They sometimes hold Republicans feet to the fire (good for them again), but let democrats run free with no substantial restrictions or criticisms. If you think the lack of substantial criticisms of Democrats is because there are no substantial criticisms, then you are the problem that America is facing. We are being fleeced by both political parties and the NYTimes just sits by and watches or stirs up hate for Republicans.

We have a women running for President that the NYTimes wants elected in spite of the fact that she is a law breaking tyrant with significant ties to Muslims. Most people don't know this, but ObamaCare is just a slight refactoring of HillaryCare from the Mr. Clintons administration. I know, because I know people that were involved. When you know the truth about some things, because of involvement, then you see immediately how biased the NYTimes is.

To quote The Guardian, 2012, Aug 29th, "This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing: of the standard role played by establishment (referred to earlier as NYTimes) journalists and the corruption that pervades it. Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper ("nothing to worry about"). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic."

They goes on to say, "The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails (obtained by the freedom of information act) read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis."

And goes on to say, "The most obvious example of this is the paper's complicity with propagating war-fueling falsehoods to justify the attack on Iraq – though, in that instance, it was hardly alone. Just last month, it was revealed that the NYT routinely gives veto power to Obama campaign officials over the quotes from those officials the paper is allowed to publish – a practice barred by other outlets (but not the NYT) both prior to that revelation and subsequent to it."

And goes on to say, "Worse, the paper frequently conceals vital information of public interest at the direction of the government, as it did when it learned of George Bush's illegal eavesdropping program in mid 2004 but concealed it for more than a year at the direction of the White House, until Bush was safely re-elected; as it did when it complied with government directives to conceal the CIA employment of Raymond Davis, captured by Pakistan, even as President Obama falsely described him as "our diplomat in Pakistan" and as the NYT reported the president's statement without noting that it was false; and as it did with its disclosure of numerous WikiLeaks releases, for which the paper, as former executive editor Bill Keller proudly boasted, took direction from the government regarding what should and should not be published."

These are just a few quick things that blast a big hole in your position. Please wake up.

[doublepost=1471877972][/doublepost]Thank you for taking the time to respond. You are basing your argument on one, competing media outlet. The Guardian and NYT have been going back and forth at each other's articles for years. They also have a history of trading editors and top journalists. I always take news paper articles with a grain of salt because, as I mentioned, they all have a certain political bias to one side or the other. But your suggestion that nothing that the NYT publishes is true, and basically on the same level as a tabloid is a little far fetched.

 

[nt5672]

[doublepost=1471877972][/doublepost]Thank you for taking the time to respond. You are basing your argument on one, competing media outlet. The Guardian and NYT have been going back and forth at each other's articles for years. They also have a history of trading editors and top journalists. I always take news paper articles with a grain of salt because, as I mentioned, they all have a certain political bias to one side or the other. But your suggestion that nothing that the NYT publishes is true, and basically on the same level as a tabloid is a little far fetched.

Read the article, it was the first one that came up in the search. I don't have any affection for The Guardian and don't hold them in any special esteem. It contains the copies of emails obtained by freedom of information act that support their article. I would not say nothing is true in the NYTImes, they publish true stuff on Republicans, but not very often on Democrats. Sure the Democrats sometimes are so bad, they have to publish something, but without the vim and vigor of an entity the founding fathers thought they could rely on to keep the government honest. I would rather pay for a tabloid than the NYTimes. The few times they print something truthful is not worth the cost of the paper.