Wall Street Journal is the only reason to subscribe to Apple News.
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.
Wall Street Journal Sticking With Apple News Because It Brings 'Genuinely Different Audience'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reading some of the comments in here makes me want to subscribe to WSJ. Didn’t know there was a platform that was unbiased.
[automerge]1597284614[/automerge]
I read Apple news every morning on my iPad and so do tons of other people.
[automerge]1597284614[/automerge]
I read Apple news every morning on my iPad and so do tons of other people.
Huge fan of WSJ. One of the last few great places to actually pay for news. Very glad they're sticking with Apple News.
For those of you with WSJ subscriptions - a great read from WSJ themselves about their health and subscriber level: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-report-to-our-readers-11597188647 - their direction is very encouraging.
And yes, very expensive but it is worth it. Been reading WSJ for years.
For those of you with WSJ subscriptions - a great read from WSJ themselves about their health and subscriber level: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-report-to-our-readers-11597188647 - their direction is very encouraging.
And yes, very expensive but it is worth it. Been reading WSJ for years.
This MIGHT make a difference in me finally getting News+, but right now, it is still woefully weak on the newspapers and mags I'd actually read.
If you want to know just how crap the Apple News app is, consider this: the WSJ app has supported dark mode for months, but reading a WSJ article in News still shows in light mode regardless of the system setting 🤦🏼♂️
This bugs me a lot. I have to go to Ars, Economist, WSJ and others directly because of dark mode.
Sure it has a lot to do with the traffic they can count towards readership. Taking away Apple News views didn’t look so good with only their ’direct relationships’.
Interesting. I’ve been keeping my NYT subscription alive for a couple years now using the same trick: Sign up for introductory discounte rate. When it expires initiate cancellation due to cost. Two days later an agent offers the same discount for another year. Been working well. Yes it’s liberal but it’s good journalism.
This post is ridiculous. You of course omitted from your quote the part where the guy noted how great the objective news coverage is. WSJ has an opinion SECTION, which is clearly delineated from its reporting. And as the poster you quote noted, it is relatively balanced (while WJS's editorial board is right leaning, it is not averse to criticizing the president, and it welcomes outside opinion pieces from other viewpoints).
I was just thinking about this yesterday with all these news sites pulling out. I will literally never subscribe to a random singular news website. If I ever subscribe to anything it'll be apple news. So they kind of just make sure they won't get someone like me's money at all when they pull out.
I do. I don't rely exclusively on Apple News+ to be informed, though. My main news source is still RSS. I see at Apple News as a complementary source.
Glad to hear there are some improvements. Hope, at least, that the searching will improve as well. It's too weak right now.
Saved Stories need more flexibility IMO like tagging/folders to organize the articles.
I actually googled for unbiased news sources and WSJ came up top. I am paying for the WSJ sub happily, as Apple News is not available in my region.
The big oportinity for apple is in LOCAL news. WSJ, NYT,and WaPo are not going away. They compete with the TV networks for brining national news. However, Local news is largely gone. 5e talented editors and reporters are alive and well. If Apple News got serious about covering LOCAL news, I would sign up. Also, Apple needs to understand that LOCAL does not mean what is the zip code of my IP. i would want to read the local news of hwere my grandmother lives, for example or perhaps 5e state park ill visit next year.
The Wall Street Journal has been one of the few newspaper publishers to participate in Apple News+, and according to statements from the company's CEO, Robert Thomson, The Wall Street Journal has no plans to end its Apple partnership.
As relayed by The New York Post, Apple News has brought the newspaper a "significantly new audience" that includes more women and younger people who might not otherwise read the WSJ.Thomson's comments come a little over a month after The New York Times announced that it was ending its partnership with Apple News because the service does not "align with its strategy of building direct relationships with paying readers."
Articles from The New York Times no longer show up in the Apple News app, and the site has accused Apple of providing it "little control over business" and "little in the way of direct relationships with readers."
Apple has struggled to score deals with newspaper publishers for Apple News+ and so far has sites like The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times on board.
Article Link: Wall Street Journal Sticking With Apple News Because It Brings 'Genuinely Different Audience'
I hadn’t noticed this but in Canada, The Globe & Mail has been added to News+, joining the Toronto Star as a top tier paywalled newspaper, available to News+ subscribers.
Each of these newspapers would be more than $9.99 alone — G&M is $6.99/week, The Star is $5/week. $9.99 per month for just these papers justifies the cost and makes News+ a deal. With the added magazines like GQ, Rolling Stone, National Geographic, Popular Science, ten bucks a month is a spectacular deal.
People talk about the newspaper that left (I can’t even remember which one) but have nothing to say of the ones that are joining.
The concept behind Apple News is solid. Having access to paid written content without having to subscribe to many different publications in advance and then having each publication paid according to their readership, both solves the problem for readers who don’t have to limit themselves to just one or two newspapers/magazines and for writers who get paid for their work without having to resort to a flood of ads.
I see a future for this format. It’s already better in iOS 14
Each of these newspapers would be more than $9.99 alone — G&M is $6.99/week, The Star is $5/week. $9.99 per month for just these papers justifies the cost and makes News+ a deal. With the added magazines like GQ, Rolling Stone, National Geographic, Popular Science, ten bucks a month is a spectacular deal.
People talk about the newspaper that left (I can’t even remember which one) but have nothing to say of the ones that are joining.
The concept behind Apple News is solid. Having access to paid written content without having to subscribe to many different publications in advance and then having each publication paid according to their readership, both solves the problem for readers who don’t have to limit themselves to just one or two newspapers/magazines and for writers who get paid for their work without having to resort to a flood of ads.
I see a future for this format. It’s already better in iOS 14
I may give it a try as I do like the Wall Street journal as it is so different from the hit piece click bait headlines of the other papers (they are not perfect but still good)
Plus it is a lot about making money and collecting money is a hobby of mine 💰💴😂
Plus it is a lot about making money and collecting money is a hobby of mine 💰💴😂
Factual reporting known as journalism is largely dead. WSJ used to be a source of journalism, but it has started to shift. A mutiny of sorts happened in June where a group of unnamed staff petitioned for a significant change in reporting the news. Right or wrong, if you blend your ideology with reporting the news it is opinion and not "journalism".
- Honesty: journalists must be truthful. It is unacceptable to report information known to be false, or report facts in a misleading way to give a wrong impression;
- Independence and objectivity: journalists should avoid topics in which they have a financial or personal interest that would provide them a particular benefit in the subject matter, as that interest may introduce bias into their reporting, or give the impression of such bias. In cases where a journalist may have a specific financial or personal interest, the interest should be disclosed;
- Fairness: journalists must present facts with impartiality and neutrality, presenting other viewpoints and sides to a story where these exist. It is unacceptable to slant facts;
- Diligence: a journalist should gather and present pertinent facts to provide a good understanding of the subject reported;
- Accountability: a journalist must be accountable for their work, prepared to accept criticism and consequences.
I think the bigger issue is that news stories are not covered depending on who they are pandering too.
It's not what people know while watching the news. It's what they are not told.
I do not have Apple news but if I did, I would want a diverse collection of reporting from the left and right.
Journalism is dead, no one wants to read full articles any more. People just read "tweet sized" snippets. Those tweet sized snippets today are reported by the average people, even news agencies rely on average people to capture video and pictures of current events.
Doing journalism needs a huge amounts of money, and they are no longer getting it from ads. The business model no longer works and the only way it will work is if they have an asset base that generates enough money they can spend on journalism. I guess like how PBS does it, based on donations, but as a business it will not work. Especially that many of them are willing to skew their opinions based on the highest bidder.
Doing journalism needs a huge amounts of money, and they are no longer getting it from ads. The business model no longer works and the only way it will work is if they have an asset base that generates enough money they can spend on journalism. I guess like how PBS does it, based on donations, but as a business it will not work. Especially that many of them are willing to skew their opinions based on the highest bidder.
Did you miss the part where the opinion section is one section of the paper, and clearly labeled as such. This is a standard practice in newspapers going back centuries. The person you’re responding to was pointing out how much they like that the rest of the paper reads as quite factual. That’s the mark of a good paper, keeping the opinions on the opinion page. (I can’t attest to whether the WSJ meets this standard, as I don’t read it, but I’ve heard this said of it more than once.)
You must not have read my post. They don't have an objective news section because all their articles use colorful language intended to influence the reader. Give me one example of a an objective news article they have written. The entire paper is an opinion section.
Also, it's not balanced. Getting different opinions doesn't equal balanced reporting. It just means you have multiple reported opinions. I have never seen an article written from a Lebanon national getting their fair share of the print. Where is the Iranian perspective. Not the perspective of an American looking to defend their writes, but an actual perceptive of someone living with US international policy. But it's ok, because Karen from LA wrote an article saying that children are in the Middle East. And this whole leaning right leaning left is just hogwash. I don't care if someone identifies as liberal agrees with the president. Just tell me what the president said and stop trying to convince me it's right or wrong. Because those are just different opinions - not balanced ones.