Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Wall Street Journal to Join Apple's News Subscription Service, but NYT and Washington Post Not Participating

Why would any publisher want to pay Apple to deliver the news? I’ve used the news app before and most of the stuff it serves up to me is weeks old.
 
DoctorTech said:
I am looking forward to trying this service. Whether I keep it long term will all depend on which content creators end up participating but I am hopeful this will catch on like Apple Music.
Click to expand...

Apologies if this has already been answered but will this include every article that an online digital WSJ subscriber would have access to? For example, if you subscribe to the digital NY Times, you get access to all of the website articles and you can read a separate replica edition which is a digital exact copy of the print paper, for the newspapers that sign with Apple, are they offering 100 percent of their content?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran
sorry Apple. I don’t see a way how you’re getting 10 a month from me for this. You’d need my local paper, some business journals, in addition to wsj. Even then I’d want access to their apps not your garbage Apple news app.
 
GordonGekko999 said:
Apologies if this has already been answered but will this include every article that an online digital WSJ subscriber would have access to? For example, if you subscribe to the digital NY Times, you get access to all of the website articles and you can read a separate replica edition which is a digital exact copy of the print paper, for the newspapers that sign with Apple, are they offering 100 percent of their content?
Click to expand...
Tough to say one way or the other definitively having not seen the service, and it'll probably be up to the publisher, but I'm sure many will go with either all their digital content or all digital content from the last x weeks/months for Apple News subscribers.

That replica edition you mention is…unlikely, I'd say.
 
News & content curated by Apple? Yeah no thanks. I don't want Lil' Timmy's agenda shoved down my throat
 
Moonlight said:
If by welcome, you mean, welcome to what macrumors has become, than yes. I've been reading this site religiously since 2002 and it never used to be like this.
Click to expand...

Ha,you probably remember ‘spymac’ lol


i’m not surprised that the papers are balking - 50% is a hefty cut from the papers point of view - especially considering that no metadata makes it back to the paper and Apple controls what makes it to the forefront (The paper has no ability to ‘pay more’ to rise to the top)

And considering there are a million free sites, you tubers, podcasters, etc collating the news for free, I just don’t see who is subscribing.

That said, I wish them luck
 
  • Like
Reactions: derekamoss
Wall Street Journal is so pricey that that I can't justify a direct subscription. I'll subscribe to Apple's service if it also includes my local paper - Seattle Times.
 
I'm really looking forward to this service, and I'm happy to pay for it. I'm going to enjoy the variety of browsing content that is not laser focused on my interests. The news aggregators have gotten so good at serving up things I'm interested in that it's repetitive. Same with the handful of websites I frequent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arran and DoctorTech
seems like they're doubling down on an already lame app/service. My "News" app got sequestered into my "Junk" folder years ago
 
NufSaid said:
WSJ? I am in.
Click to expand...
A Journal subscription is $32.00 a month after a 12 week for $12 initial offering.

I have to imagine the tier for Apple's service is going to be pretty hobbled.

If not, WSJ is worth the cost of service alone.

Most of these publisher subscription sites are between $5 and $20 a month, so I cannot imagine we'll get access to all of it for $9.99 per month.

There has got to be a catch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmore and jjrtiger
Apple taking a 50% cut is a joke. I am surprised the WSJ signed on because they are expensive. I’ll just cancel my current subscription and do it through apple. Seems too good to be true but we will see.
 
Frankied22 said:
Can’t wait to see this flop. Apple are in la la land with this one. The majority of people don’t give a **** about paying for news. The written word is free all over the internet.
Click to expand...
Would you say the same thing about a streaming music service?

Probably not, but I personally know of and am aware of many, many people who passively listen to music and are fine with the free tier of Pandora or Spotify or the offerings that come with Amazon Prime. They would never consider paying $10.00 a month for music when there are a million free offerings all over the internet.

You might think that's crazy, but believe it or not, there are demographics NOT made up of people like you.

Apple's not stupid---if it does jump into this market, it's doing so because it thinks it can make a ton of cash.

Apple will be dealing in news (News), music (Apple Music), books (Apple Books) and movies (iTunes Store) and will have its own studio to create, release and promote its own content (Apple Whatever it's Called) on its own devices.

The future for Apple is clearly services. There's going to be very little of society that Apple does not have a hand in.
[doublepost=1553129611][/doublepost]
Nilhum said:
Apple taking a 50% cut is a joke. I am surprised the WSJ signed on because they are expensive. I’ll just cancel my current subscription and do it through apple. Seems too good to be true but we will see.
Click to expand...
I'm sure those super premium products will be hobbled in some way.
 
Scooby_Snacks said:
I think the 50% revenue split on Apple's part is pure GREED. Magazines and newspapers have been in a tough spot for several years as their revenues have consistently declined. Apple is doing nothing more than aggregating the services, the actual publishers are doing the hard work of writing the stories, taking the photos, laying out each and every issue and putting blood, sweat and tears into their publications. They deserve the lion share of the revenue. Not Apple. Good for the NYT and Washington Post for calling out Apple on it's greedy business practices.
Click to expand...

I agree that 50% is just too much. Even if Apple can bring a lot of new readers to those newspapers, 50% is kind of a slap in the face given that the news media are the ones doing all the work of writing their articles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep. No one would consider continuing their WSJ full digital subscription if Apple's was equivalent. No one, perhaps, other than those who get to expense it.

Glockworkorange said:
A Journal subscription is $32.00 a month after a 12 week for $12 initial offering.

I have to imagine the tier for Apple's service is going to be pretty hobbled.

If not, WSJ is worth the cost of service alone.

Most of these publisher subscription sites are between $5 and $20 a month, so I cannot imagine we'll get access to all of it for $9.99 per month.

There has got to be a catch.
Click to expand...
 
RedGala said:
I agree that 50% is just too much. Even if Apple can bring a lot of new readers to those newspapers, 50% is kind of a slap in the face given that the news media are the ones doing all the work of writing their article
Click to expand...

Most investigative news outlets have been losing money for years. Even if it’s just following a run of the mill business situation it can take days or weeks before you can publish some stories. If those papers, especially WSJ who you would hope have some business sense are willing to share revenue to get their stories out then the current way of selling isn’t working or isn’t working well.
 
Can someone explain to me why people need to consume their news media from a native Apple app?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back