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

[foqus]

I'm hoping that they will have a wide variety of magazines. For me, the NY Times is more important than the Washington Post. Besides, to get around the Washington Post's subscription, all you have to do it turn off Javascript and reload the page. At least with Apple they'd have better security than that. Big mistake, Washington Post. Oh, and hire someone who can code real security on your website, or pay someone to do it.

 

[zilba25]

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.

If you want to subscribe for the WSJ it's about 29£/month. I can see a lot of people that are in the Apple ecosystem that could benefit a lot by paying less than half as much and having other newspapers included. It's actually a steal

 

[cmaier]

If you want to subscribe for the WSJ it's about 29£/month. I can see a lot of people that are in the Apple ecosystem that could benefit a lot by paying less than half as much and having other newspapers included. It's actually a steal

Exactly. I wouldn’t pay for a stand alone subscription but if they throw it in a bundle with other sources I’d be interested.

 

[sanook997]

Apples dictator style way of business means I’m switching to android and refusing to buy apples services.

It should be about competition and innovation.

Good! I don't think they or anyone else cares much what you do........

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

Sarcasm?

Big mistake for these papers...at least try it for a while.

every service who can give apple an 50 percent cut - overcharge their customers huge and are evil

every company participating at such an apple rip off has an evil mark on them!

 

[Khedron]

every service who can give apple an 50 percent cut - overcharge their customers huge and are evil

every company participating at such an apple rip off has an evil mark on them!

They're probably planning to make up the missing 50% by flooding the Apple News versions of articles with adverts.

"Sign up through our online portal to get stories sooner and ad-free."

 

[joueboy]

$9.99 for an information you can easily find in the internet. Besides some of those publishers are biased with their agendas. I like my news to be verified from other sources to make sure they're accurate or maybe even wait for a week before I start believing them anymore.

 

[yngrshr]

this subscription service is gonna fail

I highly doubt it. The WSJ is $16-$20/mo for digital all-access depending on how much you want to pay up front and for how long.

I am absolutely going to pay the $9.99 price to access it via Apple. It's a no-brainer when you combine that price savings alone with whatever else will come with it. If the price is actually $9.99/mo, that's a great deal for including the WSJ.

I pay $.99/mo for WaPo and $4.99/mo for the Times; both of which I will keep going.

 

[Mike_Trivisonno]

WaPo is a propaganda organ for Jeff Bezos and the NYT is just plain garbage.

 

[bumbo]

I'm hoping it doesn't go the way of Newsstand. Doubt it will but that quickly turned into an absolute mess.

Some sort of bundling (Music, News, TV) is gonna convince a lot of people - this could be a game changer

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I highly doubt it. The WSJ is $16-$20/mo for digital all-access depending on how much you want to pay up front and for how long.

I am absolutely going to pay the $9.99 price to access it via Apple. It's a no-brainer when you combine that price savings alone with whatever else will come with it. If the price is actually $9.99/mo, that's a great deal for including the WSJ.

I pay $.99/mo for WaPo and $4.99/mo for the Times; both of which I will keep going.

Where do you get WaPo for 99 cents?

 

[cmaier]

$9.99 for an information you can easily find in the internet. Besides some of those publishers are biased with their agendas. I like my news to be verified from other sources to make sure they're accurate or maybe even wait for a week before I start believing them anymore.

I like my news to age gracefully, say for 20 years or so, before I trust it. Then, and only then, once the news has become sufficiently dated, I carefully consider its likelihood of veracity, being sure to remind myself that I actually know what’s true or not and am the ultimate arbiter of truth, and then I discard any news that doesn’t fit my preconceived world view, being careful to remind myself that I am not being biased because unlike the rest of you savages my own preconceptions are simply correct and are not in anyway biases.

I mean, why should I believe what these publications report just because they back things up with video recordings, original source documents, multiple witness accounts, reviews of historical precedent, etc. Fake news, am I right?

 

[jpn]

NYT and WP are actually the ONLY news sources I'm interested in reading, so ...

totally agree.
i have subscription with NYT. its only USD 4.00 / billed every 4 weeks.
but the Washington Post wants much much more than this, so i havent opted for a subscription with them.
i really was hoping they would join this apple news sub.
but apple wanting a 50% cut is ridiculous for the Post to come on board.
anybody know if The Guardian is on board?

 

[Razeus]

Without Washington Post and NYT (2 out of the 3 subscriptions I have), this is a dead service to me. Nice try Apple. Better luck next time.

 

[curtvaughan]

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.

I can't speak for "most people", but the news you get for "free" has its costs. The news you get tends to be less accurate, provides less detail and analysis, and gets paid for mostly by advertising. I use a gym with a line of 12 television screens on the wall. It's funny to watch "pack journalism" among the news broadcasters like CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News. They all feature the same news bites, often at the same time and with the same or similar visuals. Analysis, if any, is spotty and brief. It's like having a newspaper featuring nothing but headlines. Major print news organizations like the New York Times, Washington Post, and others still differentiate themselves with high quality reporting and detailed analysis. They are able to do that partially by charging for subscriptions. I gladly subscribe to NYT, Wired, Ars Technica, and The Nation online. This gets me high quality reporting, opinion, and feature articles unavailable via broadcast news or free internet sites, and generally without much, if any, advertising. Major news organizations have little to gain by paying Apple 50% of their revenue from content. As the article states, they would likely lose money as it would drive their subscription base to use Apple instead of their individual prime offerings. I applaud NYT and WPO for declining to use Apple as an outlet.

 

[cardfan]

Wow this is huge news! WSJ for $10 a month? Apple just hit a home run.

It depends. Full content? Considering I get iTunes cards at 20 percent off or so it’s about 8 a month. I’ll do a trial at least.

But still not a fan of the news app. Ads or pop ups would be a disgrace. Will have to see.

 

[curtvaughan]

It seems to me most major publishers probably would not want to be part of this. Imagine not able to make a marketing campaign out of this. What good would this do if Apple gives their customer unlimited access, but the publisher will learn next to nothing about the customer?

The only news outlets who might be served by using Apple for distribution are new, lesser known, or perhaps regional organizations like individual NPR content providers with independent local features/content. They might actually stand to gain a little with increased distribution, even with a 50% hit. Major content providers have nothing to gain.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

Yes, news is (effectively) free, but it costs resources to create. You have bills and salaries to pay, and overheads to cover.

Rather than paying for news, I would see it as paying to support the continued creation of news by the company that you like. The same way one might support their favourite YouTube on Patreon.

 

[curtvaughan]

It depends. Full content? Considering I get iTunes cards at 20 percent off or so it’s about 8 a month. I’ll do a trial at least.

But still not a fan of the news app. Ads or pop ups would be a disgrace. Will have to see.

I've noted that a lot of publishers offering content through the current Apple News apps on both iOS and MacOS often just provide "teasers" - you'll get headlines and brief synopses, with offers to provide further detail with a subscription. NYT, WPO, and The Guardian do this through Apple News. This new $10/month version of Apple News will likely dispense with "teasers", requiring publishers to provide total access for a 50% income garnishing. That isn't attractive for major publishers with large subscription bases.

 

[Weaselboy]

Moderator Note:

Quite a few posts discussing the political leanings of various media outlets have been removed. If you would like to discuss that topic, please create a thread in the Politics, Religion, and Social Issues forum where that topic belongs. Thank you

 

[springsup]

Apple wants to keep 50 percent of all subscription revenue

That's just taking the piss. I was curious about this subscription service, but there's no way I'm going to support that.

Quality journalism is not a manufactured product - every piece is unique, curated by the journalists and editors who research and write it. The whole reason to pay for news these days is because you care about supporting those people and the important work they do to keep us informed.

Apple can go suck a lemon.

 

[truthertech]

Apples dictator style way of business means I’m switching to android and refusing to buy apples services.

It should be about competition and innovation.

Google smiles: "At last, we can start filling in those gaps in RT's dossier."
[doublepost=1553178488][/doublepost]

That's just taking the piss. I was curious about this subscription service, but there's no way I'm going to support that.

Quality journalism is not a manufactured product - every piece is unique, curated by the journalists and editors who research and write it. The whole reason to pay for news these days is because you care about supporting those people and the important work they do to keep us informed.

Apple can go suck a lemon.

Ironically, you have it backwards. This is the best hope for supporting quality journalism. People will be exposed to some great journalists and writers that they never had access to before. The best articles will be the ones that are recommended and read by millions, pumping money to those sources and writers. It will also create a market for smaller outlets, writers, etc., who have no way of effectively reaching a larger audience, much the way that the App store made it possible for small developers to reach a worldwide market.

 

[whooleytoo]

Not surprised NYT and WP have not signed on. Why would you give Apple 50% of your profits in an age when you have enough trouble getting people to pay for newspaper at all? This service will fail, IMO.

I agree it makes little sense for them.

Apple is very good at commoditising others' work. Turning the content (music, movies, apps, now news) into cheap commodities that help sell Apple products at high margins. Plus Apple gets a (big) cut on the service end, so it's win-win; for Apple.

I'd be very skeptical it always makes sense for the content producers though. They reduce their cut substantially; plus they concede control of the market and lose contact with their customer base. If everyone signs up, Apple becomes a Goliath that is very hard to argue/deal/bargain with.

 

[truthertech]

It seems to me most major publishers probably would not want to be part of this. Imagine not able to make a marketing campaign out of this. What good would this do if Apple gives their customer unlimited access, but the publisher will learn next to nothing about the customer?

This is reader friendly. Most of us don't want to give our personal information to publishers so they can resell and use it for their own purposes. Apple gives anonymized information to them, and gives the most important information: what is read !

Think about it. When you buy a newspaper at the newsstand, does the publisher get your personal information??????? Why would you be so anxious to give someone your private data????

 

[springsup]

Ironically, you have it backwards. This is the best hope for supporting quality journalism. People will be exposed to some great journalists and writers that they never had access to before. The best articles will be the ones that are recommended and read by millions, pumping money to those sources and writers. It will also create a market for smaller outlets, writers, etc., who have no way of effectively reaching a larger audience, much the way that the App store made it possible for small developers to reach a worldwide market.

I agree that a news subscription is a good idea; that's why I was curious about it in the first place.

The 50% revenue split is what I have a problem with. Apple cannot seriously claim that they deserve a cut level with the people who actually create the content. They're just trying to throw their weight around.