Broken record: online newspaper subscriptions are super cheap and are remarkably useful; when you can click around a newspaper site without popups, it starts to makes sense to use them as your news portal, which quickly weans you off lower-quality free sites like CNN.
Like the people that get the sleep apnea devices and won't shut up about how much better their life is, I'm constantly (and noisily) surprised by how shitty the news writing and presentation I was putting up with was before I subscribed to a bunch of actual newspapers.
All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked out and they're all on sale (unlikely).
So, that puts them at or above the cost of a TV or Music streaming subscription. If you're subscribing to "a bunch", that's pretty expensive.
edit: I should add, I believe all of these prices are a "with ads" price, which arguably makes them a worse value than an ad-free streaming subscription of equal price.
I think the problem is that some sites are charging for low quality click bait journalism. I am not going to pay for NYT or WP or the many magazines I used to subscribe to and dont anymore. I will pay for WsJ, The Economist and Bloomberg.
Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.
counterpoint: journalism is obsolete. At least from the standpoint of newspapers. Good writing is superfluous. The content and information that I'm really after is available in more condensed format through aggregators, reactions on discussion forums and summaries. Most people prefer not to read a long article. Just give me the TLDR, the chart, the stock price, the name, the temperature etc...
It's worth noting that Apple did not create the "50% revenue share" business model behind the Texture app they bought.
The big names in magazine publishing who created Texture did.
>New York, NY, December 8, 2009 – Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, News Corporation and Time Inc. today jointly announced that they have entered into an independent venture to develop open standards for a new digital storefront and related technology that will allow consumers to enjoy their favorite media content on portable digital devices.
>That service, which was eventually called Texture, paid out 10 percent of its monthly revenue to its owner-operators, who divvied it up based on the usage their titles generated. And publishers who sold their stuff through the service but didn’t own a piece of Texture captured 50 percent of the revenue, also cut up by usage.
I'm confused why WSJ, of all publications, is jumping on board here. A look at their subscription page shows me that the cheapest option is $15 a month. This Apple News subscription product is going to be $10 a month and Apple is taking 50% of that.
I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple?
(an aside, but the 50% cut just seems absurd. Just reads like Apple saying "because we can", there's no way the cost of distributing an article is anywhere near the same as the cost of making it)
Maybe WSJ would only allow this on iPads and iPhones, and they think their higher paying normal users also want access on desktop devices? Maybe WSJ got something crazy like a 10 year exclusive without NYT or Washington Post in the service?
Still seems crazy... Apple seems to need the WSJ more than the WSJ would need Apple for this service. WSJ is a marquee name and content producer that millions of people are willing to pay for. WSJ is profitable and seems to do just fine in print and digital distribution.
While the $10 price point may be the correct one for all parties involved (a value price point expands scale without expanding cost) - the 50% cut seems wild.
There could be lots of deals. Maybe the 50% cut drops after they get to 20 million subscribers. Maybe the WSJ and the magazines will get a lower rate for being an initial partner compared to the NYT or WaPo who might want to come on later if Apple News gets really big. The fact that WSJ isn't going to have any competition from the other big national newspapers means they'll likely capture most of the reads.
I like having all of my news in fewer apps rather than more. I’d subscribe to the Journal if it was part of Apple News, but as a stand-alone app, I’m not interested.
Similarly, I listen to as many of my favorite streaming radion stations through TuneIn as possible, rather than having a folder full of individual apps.
> there's no way the cost of distributing an article is anywhere near the same as the cost of making it
IIRC actual "investigative journalism" is less than 2% of the NYT's budget. Even though the cut is very high, most media companies may be coming out ahead based on where they're currently spending their budget.
Probably because they're getting access to double-filtered (first by the price of the iPhone, then by the price of their subscription), creme de la creme audience to which they could show a ton of targeted ads?
» I'm confused why WSJ, of all publications, is jumping on board here. A look at their subscription page shows me that the cheapest option is $15 a month. This Apple News subscription product is going to be $10 a month and Apple is taking 50% of that.
» I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple?
You should absolutely cancel your WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple. I agree 50% cut is a little steep but I am worried Apple might not have enough clout. What's to stop WSJ from spinning off (for example) new media into a separate entity therefore allow Apple news access to only a subset of its offerings? Does Apple have enough power to call a spade a spade?
Former newspaper industry employee here... This is a mistake by the WSJ. They would be better served by reducing their ridiculous digital subscription fees and skipping Apple's extortionate gatekeeping "service".
The newspaper industry was founded on (although nobody really understood it until the invention of the internet) being the intermediary between consumers and companies. In 2019 the business has changed to content provision. But these old line companies (and who is older line than Apple and the WSJ?) can't help but try to discover intermediary points of control.
The WSJ online costs $39 per month, but the print copy costs $43 per month. It's pretty crazy, because I would expect the physical paper to cost much more than the online version.
I think it's so important that we move towards a model where we can subscribe to a selection of news sources for a reasonable amount. As others have pointed out, individual newspapers are as much as a netflix or spotify subscription - which may be justified. But even if everyone does move to a subscription model, it's bad for our society for everyone to have 1 source of news.
It's even more unhealthy if I can't have an informed discussion about the news of the day with you because you got your news from the NYT and I got my news from Times of London and we got two entirely different sides of the story and we can't go and see each other's sources of information. That sounds to me like a terrible situation to put ourselves in.
I would much rather pay $10 bucks a month and know that that revenue is distributed amongst the papers I read in proportion to how long I've spent reading each article- in exactly the same way Youtube tracks watched minutes.
> It's even more unhealthy if I can't have an informed discussion about the news of the day with you because you got your news from the NYT and I got my news from Times of London and we got two entirely different sides of the story and we can't go and see each other's sources of information
Probably not the best example. With the NYT and the Times of London, you might get different perspectives on a news story (as opposed to an opinion piece), but they will both be mostly correct. You should be able to have informed discussion.
To make your example work, you need something more like an AlterNet reader trying to have an informed discussion with an InfoWars reader.
Haven't newspapers always been like that? If you want to see someone else's source of information, you would have to go and buy that days copy of the paper.
Newspapers seem to be the original subscription model--you only have one source of news.
>the most recent terms that Apple is offering to publishers ask for a cut of roughly half of the subscription revenue involved in the service
50% cut? And likely no access to customer data, with content embedded in a proprietary app outside of a news paper’s control... why would publishers agree to shutting off so many avenues for future innovation and strategic independence?
Apple News does provide analytics, just not user-profile derived data. It’s more general than that, but is available across categories like loyalty metrics, vague demographics, etc—without associating that information to specific users.
But you’ll have to investigate for yourself if you’d like to know more since I don’t work or speak for them and just have some personal experience.
There are publishers (including the Washington Post, who are not signing on) that have decided that they have to transition from getting lots of revenue from a few people (often in one geography) to getting a little revenue from lots of people (all over the world). If this is your new strategy, Apple's offering might make sense.
Note to those not keen on paying money to Apple for this service: RBDigital lets you download lots of magazines through your local library. Mine even has The Economist. I still pay for a subscription because I like the audio, but RBDigital is great for people who like plain PDF scans of magazines and has the added benefit of being already paid for.
> Publishers are also concerned that they won’t have access to important data about the consumers — credit cards, email addresses and other subscriber information — as part of the deal.
Why are credit card numbers important information? All they would know is what the credit card is, but it's not like they can sell the credit card or use that number to get more purchases, etc, from that number, can they?
As a former Next Issue/Texture user I really hope they’re going to do a better job with the UX. I really loved the idea of an unlimited magazine subscription but the execution just wasn’t there.
Same. I _recently_ checked out Texture again, having tried Next Issue years ago, and I was shocked that the UX seemed to be exactly the same. No movement in years! Still takes ages to download a magazine, still incredibly clunky to navigate. The whole thing feels years behind everything else.
What confuses me most here is that the ethics of the WSJ, as defined by the beliefs of owner Rupert Murdoch, run counter to everything Apple professes to support. I don't know why they would support WSJ and not a more unbiased newspaper.
A 50% cut seems insane. Is there context that's missing here?
Because also, nothing is said about how the subscription is divvied up. Is the remaining 50% ($5/mo.) split among publishers by the % of articles read?
tptacek|7 years ago
Like the people that get the sleep apnea devices and won't shut up about how much better their life is, I'm constantly (and noisily) surprised by how shitty the news writing and presentation I was putting up with was before I subscribed to a bunch of actual newspapers.
ac29|7 years ago
WSJ: $100-$150/year
WP: $187/year
NYT: $195/year
All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked out and they're all on sale (unlikely).
So, that puts them at or above the cost of a TV or Music streaming subscription. If you're subscribing to "a bunch", that's pretty expensive.
edit: I should add, I believe all of these prices are a "with ads" price, which arguably makes them a worse value than an ad-free streaming subscription of equal price.
steve19|7 years ago
Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.
mikekij|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
joegahona|7 years ago
winningcontinue|7 years ago
GeekyBear|7 years ago
The big names in magazine publishing who created Texture did.
>New York, NY, December 8, 2009 – Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, News Corporation and Time Inc. today jointly announced that they have entered into an independent venture to develop open standards for a new digital storefront and related technology that will allow consumers to enjoy their favorite media content on portable digital devices.
http://allthingsd.com/20091208/nows-the-time-finally-publish...
As for their revenue model.
>That service, which was eventually called Texture, paid out 10 percent of its monthly revenue to its owner-operators, who divvied it up based on the usage their titles generated. And publishers who sold their stuff through the service but didn’t own a piece of Texture captured 50 percent of the revenue, also cut up by usage.
https://www.recode.net/2019/2/13/18224013/apple-news-publish...
Apparently the magazine industry and the newspaper industry have different ideas on what a equitable revenue share might be.
untog|7 years ago
I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple?
(an aside, but the 50% cut just seems absurd. Just reads like Apple saying "because we can", there's no way the cost of distributing an article is anywhere near the same as the cost of making it)
tuna-piano|7 years ago
Still seems crazy... Apple seems to need the WSJ more than the WSJ would need Apple for this service. WSJ is a marquee name and content producer that millions of people are willing to pay for. WSJ is profitable and seems to do just fine in print and digital distribution.
While the $10 price point may be the correct one for all parties involved (a value price point expands scale without expanding cost) - the 50% cut seems wild.
6gvONxR4sf7o|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
Despegar|7 years ago
reaperducer|7 years ago
I like having all of my news in fewer apps rather than more. I’d subscribe to the Journal if it was part of Apple News, but as a stand-alone app, I’m not interested.
Similarly, I listen to as many of my favorite streaming radion stations through TuneIn as possible, rather than having a folder full of individual apps.
wycy|7 years ago
Alex3917|7 years ago
IIRC actual "investigative journalism" is less than 2% of the NYT's budget. Even though the cut is very high, most media companies may be coming out ahead based on where they're currently spending their budget.
m0zg|7 years ago
mcny|7 years ago
» I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple?
You should absolutely cancel your WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple. I agree 50% cut is a little steep but I am worried Apple might not have enough clout. What's to stop WSJ from spinning off (for example) new media into a separate entity therefore allow Apple news access to only a subset of its offerings? Does Apple have enough power to call a spade a spade?
rhegart|7 years ago
donarb|7 years ago
pier25|7 years ago
esun|7 years ago
The newspaper industry was founded on (although nobody really understood it until the invention of the internet) being the intermediary between consumers and companies. In 2019 the business has changed to content provision. But these old line companies (and who is older line than Apple and the WSJ?) can't help but try to discover intermediary points of control.
Pah.
sneeze-slayer|7 years ago
snazz|7 years ago
reaperducer|7 years ago
Traster|7 years ago
It's even more unhealthy if I can't have an informed discussion about the news of the day with you because you got your news from the NYT and I got my news from Times of London and we got two entirely different sides of the story and we can't go and see each other's sources of information. That sounds to me like a terrible situation to put ourselves in.
I would much rather pay $10 bucks a month and know that that revenue is distributed amongst the papers I read in proportion to how long I've spent reading each article- in exactly the same way Youtube tracks watched minutes.
tzs|7 years ago
Probably not the best example. With the NYT and the Times of London, you might get different perspectives on a news story (as opposed to an opinion piece), but they will both be mostly correct. You should be able to have informed discussion.
To make your example work, you need something more like an AlterNet reader trying to have an informed discussion with an InfoWars reader.
sneeze-slayer|7 years ago
Newspapers seem to be the original subscription model--you only have one source of news.
ohnope|7 years ago
50% cut? And likely no access to customer data, with content embedded in a proprietary app outside of a news paper’s control... why would publishers agree to shutting off so many avenues for future innovation and strategic independence?
52-6F-62|7 years ago
But you’ll have to investigate for yourself if you’d like to know more since I don’t work or speak for them and just have some personal experience.
gnicholas|7 years ago
intopieces|7 years ago
steven2012|7 years ago
Why are credit card numbers important information? All they would know is what the credit card is, but it's not like they can sell the credit card or use that number to get more purchases, etc, from that number, can they?
bearcobra|7 years ago
joegahona|7 years ago
sdfsdfsdfsdf3|7 years ago
sqldba|7 years ago
crazygringo|7 years ago
Because also, nothing is said about how the subscription is divvied up. Is the remaining 50% ($5/mo.) split among publishers by the % of articles read?
joegahona|7 years ago
alg0rith|7 years ago
>Apple News host a bunch of text and some images $10.00
Is it fair?
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]