Facebook to launch subscription tool in iOS app after resolving dispute with Apple
Facebook has resolved a revenue sharing issue with Apple, it was announced on Monday, allowing the social media giant to launch a subscription tool for publishers looking to enable paywall access on Facebook's iOS app.
Speaking at the Code Media event, Facebook's News Partnerships chief Campbell Brown said the company reached a deal with Apple to enable the feature, Recode reports. Currently, Facebook's subscription too is limited to Android.
"It's resolved," Brown said, referring to the prior disagreement with Apple.
Plans to bring the publishing asset to Facebook's iOS app were revealed last Octboer. Reports at the time said Facebook and Apple were working on an amicable agreement to allow in-app paywalls for months, but were unable to reach common ground.
Facebook's approach to news subscriptions consists of a metered paywall that prompts users to pay for content after reading a predetermined number of free articles, as well as a "freemium" version that grants free access to select stories while gating off others.
At issue was Apple's subscription fees policy, which requires developers to hand over up to 30 percent of revenue per month. Facebook does not currently take a cut of revenue generated from paywall funds and instead redirects users to a publisher's website, making the subscription tool a losing proposition for the social media firm.
Brown and Facebook executive Adam Mosseri declined to provide details on the terms of its agreement with Apple, but said publishers were asking for the paywall meter to be reduced from ten articles to five, the report said. With Apple on board, that change, and the new paywall system, will go into effect on March 1.
Speaking at the Code Media event, Facebook's News Partnerships chief Campbell Brown said the company reached a deal with Apple to enable the feature, Recode reports. Currently, Facebook's subscription too is limited to Android.
"It's resolved," Brown said, referring to the prior disagreement with Apple.
Plans to bring the publishing asset to Facebook's iOS app were revealed last Octboer. Reports at the time said Facebook and Apple were working on an amicable agreement to allow in-app paywalls for months, but were unable to reach common ground.
Facebook's approach to news subscriptions consists of a metered paywall that prompts users to pay for content after reading a predetermined number of free articles, as well as a "freemium" version that grants free access to select stories while gating off others.
At issue was Apple's subscription fees policy, which requires developers to hand over up to 30 percent of revenue per month. Facebook does not currently take a cut of revenue generated from paywall funds and instead redirects users to a publisher's website, making the subscription tool a losing proposition for the social media firm.
Brown and Facebook executive Adam Mosseri declined to provide details on the terms of its agreement with Apple, but said publishers were asking for the paywall meter to be reduced from ten articles to five, the report said. With Apple on board, that change, and the new paywall system, will go into effect on March 1.
Comments
"Facebook's approach to news subscriptions consists of a metered paywall..."
Is the paywall from Facebook or from the news source?
"Facebook does not currently take a cut of revenue generated from paywall funds and instead redirects users to a publisher's website..."
So, if they already have a paywall why do they need another one?
My suspicion is that FaceBook is changing something in its current newsfeeds, but the article only talks about payment methods for those changes without disclosing what the changes are...
Perhaps that second quote offers a clue:
Is FaceBook switching from redirecting readers to the publisher's website to carrying the news source itself -- and then asking its users to pay for the news source? That could have interesting ramifications as, currently, every CNN article is flooded with comments from paid trolls. I wonder what would happen if their masters had to pay not only the troll but for access to the article too? Would it still be an economically viable method of distributing their propaganda?
It sounds like they're trying to remove themselves as a free platform for the propagandists that used them to sway the 2016 election -- but without pissing them off too much...
The next step: address the paid trolls that flood any and all legitimate news with their propaganda disguised as legitimate comments...