It would be foolish for Apple to waste their time with this for any less than 50% of revenue. Even with 50%, this is little more than a rounding error for Apple, while at 50%, this could be lifesaving for the publishers. Not even a close case.
I’m assuming that there will be advertising within the magazines and newspapers and that the magazines and newspapers will keep 100% of that add revenue making that $5 fixed cost negligible.
Bingo! Don't know how this editorial missed this obvious incentive. Magazine publishers are more likely to join in, as will maybe smaller newspapers. The largest newspapers (especially the regional and national conglomerates) may be reluctant given all their recent efforts to monetize subscriptions. But I think they have lots to gain from this Apple partnership.
I imagine the advertising would be dynamic and possibly location based, potentially creating a ton of revenue where. My family already subscribes to a few magazines for $1-2/issue in print. Depending on the magazines included, I would gladly pay $10 to greatly expand the list of titles available on iOS devices.
Do you see a lot of ads from the magazines or online venues on Apple News now?
This is a foolish idea. Apple acts as an intermediary who wants 50%. This could make sense if Apple could make the magazine market to grow by a factor of at least 2.2, which won't happen.
This line is foolish.
Apple did it with music, why can't they do it again?
This is a foolish idea. Apple acts as an intermediary who wants 50%. This could make sense if Apple could make the magazine market to grow by a factor of at least 2.2, which won't happen.
This line is foolish.
Apple did it with music, why can't they do it again?
This seems like too tough a sell in any case. News and magazine content is as valuable as music or even video, and it is competing with “free” as well.
The service would have to have gigantic volume of news and magazine content in it to make it worthwhile, like 90% of all magazines and journals. It needs to have scientific/research journals, magazines for professional markets, academia, etc. It won’t work for mass market news as that is effectively free, but if it has enough of a volume of specialty content, maybe it can draw enough customers to subscribe.
Having nonfiction and fiction books would help too.
I’m assuming that there will be advertising within the magazines and newspapers and that the magazines and newspapers will keep 100% of that add revenue making that $5 fixed cost negligible.
Bingo! Don't know how this editorial missed this obvious incentive. Magazine publishers are more likely to join in, as will maybe smaller newspapers. The largest newspapers (especially the regional and national conglomerates) may be reluctant given all their recent efforts to monetize subscriptions. But I think they have lots to gain from this Apple partnership.
I imagine the advertising would be dynamic and possibly location based, potentially creating a ton of revenue where. My family already subscribes to a few magazines for $1-2/issue in print. Depending on the magazines included, I would gladly pay $10 to greatly expand the list of titles available on iOS devices.
Do you see a lot of ads from the magazines or online venues on Apple News now?
I haven't used Apple News in so long, I can't remember. I went back to print magazines. Mainly New York and The New Yorker. Occasionally Esquire and The Prospect. I read several newspaper magazine articles online, but would love to read much more online on the new iPad Pro.
I use my Kindle to subscribe to Wall Street Journal (USA) and also the Financial Times (UK).
I usually read an hour or so before bedtime, and I much prefer the kindle eInk rather than backlit screens like the iPad.
WSJ and FT don't have my subscription info - Amazon do. So that model is nothing new with Apple.
But that's actually the biggest downfall. When a friend shares a 'link' to somehting on the WSJ or FT web sites, I can't read it online and have to pick up the kindle and search for the headline. To access the web site I'd have to subscribe a second time.
If Apple can get people to share links to the 'news' app, rather than web links, then they might get traction - but I doubt it. As long as Facebook etc. are sharing web links to articles, that's really what drives people to say - yeah, I'll pay $N per month to access this.
I also like the fact the kindle is available offline. So if I'm on a plane without wifi (more common outside the US) then I can read OK. The article here didn't mention if this will be possible with the Apple News app.
I use my Kindle to subscribe to Wall Street Journal (USA) and also the Financial Times (UK).
I usually read an hour or so before bedtime, and I much prefer the kindle eInk rather than backlit screens like the iPad.
WSJ and FT don't have my subscription info - Amazon do. So that model is nothing new with Apple.
But that's actually the biggest downfall. When a friend shares a 'link' to somehting on the WSJ or FT web sites, I can't read it online and have to pick up the kindle and search for the headline. To access the web site I'd have to subscribe a second time.
If Apple can get people to share links to the 'news' app, rather than web links, then they might get traction - but I doubt it. As long as Facebook etc. are sharing web links to articles, that's really what drives people to say - yeah, I'll pay $N per month to access this.
I also like the fact the kindle is available offline. So if I'm on a plane without wifi (more common outside the US) then I can read OK. The article here didn't mention if this will be possible with the Apple News app.
Nobody knows. But, the core of the system that is theoretically built around the Apple-owned Texture service does allow for download and offline reading.
I've really, really, really been enjoying access to the content that's there for free now from those with paywalls such as WaPo, WSJ, Bloomberg, etc. I'm assuming these are test runs and that Apple must be paying them for this or maybe those companies are seeing some other benefit from having a presence already.
I'm fairly sure I'll pay $10 per month for additional access. It's easy and gives me access to really awesome articles. For the last few years I've been bouncing around paying serious cash for access to individual publications. I can't stomach paying for more than one so just choose one at a time. Having this subscription service means that I wouldn't have to choose.
More than a few have taken a crack at this model and nobody has been much of a success. The recommendation algorithms just do not cut it. This is true of TV or music apps as well.
For example, it will see you watching a single basketball or football game and then flood you with recommendations for ESPN, Fox Sports, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, and every team sport played- all because you watched one game involving the school you went to. Likewise, it will see you watching BBC World News and add every supposed news channel and program to your list of suggestions. I hate to tell them, but just because I watched a single program on Brexit on BBC does not mean I want Fox & Friends or The Situation Room on CNN.
Beyond that, I hate Tim Cook's emphasis on scratching everyone's pocket each month. Apple does services poorly and always has. Apple is also continuing to suck the air out of the room for any company that figures out a way to make money on iOS or Mac OS. I also think creators of content deserve to be paid and these services- just like Apple Music - underpay the artist.
Peter Frampton got $1,700 for 55 million streams of one of his songs. Does that sound like just compensation to you? Here is the tweet from Frampton.
I already subscribe to many news organizations - NYT, LAT, WaPo, The Economist, the FT, and Bloomberg. Not seeing why I need Apple to stick their nose in. I get my magazines from Zinio.
More than a few have taken a crack at this model and nobody has been much of a success. The recommendation algorithms just do not cut it. This is true of TV or music apps as well.
For example, it will see you watching a single basketball or football game and then flood you with recommendations for ESPN, Fox Sports, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, and every team sport played- all because you watched one game involving the school you went to. Likewise, it will see you watching BBC World News and add every supposed news channel and program to your list of suggestions. I hate to tell them, but just because I watched a single program on Brexit on BBC does not mean I want Fox & Friends or The Situation Room on CNN.
Beyond that, I hate Tim Cook's emphasis on scratching everyone's pocket each month. Apple does services poorly and always has. Apple is also continuing to suck the air out of the room for any company that figures out a way to make money on iOS or Mac OS. I also think creators of content deserve to be paid and these services- just like Apple Music - underpay the artist.
Peter Frampton got $1,700 for 55 million streams of one of his songs. Does that sound like just compensation to you? Here is the tweet from Frampton.
I already subscribe to many news organizations - NYT, LAT, WaPo, The Economist, the FT, and Bloomberg. Not seeing why I need Apple to stick their nose in. I get my magazines from Zinio.
While I agree with most of your points, the Frampton one is problematic, because there's a publisher between Apple and him drawing away some of that cash.
While I agree with most of your points, the Frampton one is problematic, because there's a publisher between Apple and him drawing away some of that cash.
The problem is not the label so much as it is the streaming services- like Apple & Spotify- who pay almost nothing. In the Twitter thread, David Crosby showed the real numbers of how much each service pays per stream. Apple should be embarrassed. One of the reasons I buy physical media or buy the content on iTunes- the artists get paid more appropriately. The numbers speak for themselves. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjtlCdsU8AA-O3x.jpg
While I agree with most of your points, the Frampton one is problematic, because there's a publisher between Apple and him drawing away some of that cash.
The problem is not the label so much as it is the streaming services- like Apple & Spotify- who pay almost nothing. In the Twitter thread, David Crosby showed the real numbers of how much each service pays per stream. Apple should be embarrassed. One of the reasons I buy physical media or buy the content on iTunes- the artists get paid more appropriately. The numbers speak for themselves. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjtlCdsU8AA-O3x.jpg
Yeah. I'm not saying that what the streamers pay isn't part of the problem. It just isn't the only problem.
Comments
This line is foolish.
Apple did it with music, why can't they do it again?
The service would have to have gigantic volume of news and magazine content in it to make it worthwhile, like 90% of all magazines and journals. It needs to have scientific/research journals, magazines for professional markets, academia, etc. It won’t work for mass market news as that is effectively free, but if it has enough of a volume of specialty content, maybe it can draw enough customers to subscribe.
Having nonfiction and fiction books would help too.
I usually read an hour or so before bedtime, and I much prefer the kindle eInk rather than backlit screens like the iPad.
WSJ and FT don't have my subscription info - Amazon do. So that model is nothing new with Apple.
But that's actually the biggest downfall. When a friend shares a 'link' to somehting on the WSJ or FT web sites, I can't read it online and have to pick up the kindle and search for the headline. To access the web site I'd have to subscribe a second time.
If Apple can get people to share links to the 'news' app, rather than web links, then they might get traction - but I doubt it. As long as Facebook etc. are sharing web links to articles, that's really what drives people to say - yeah, I'll pay $N per month to access this.
I also like the fact the kindle is available offline. So if I'm on a plane without wifi (more common outside the US) then I can read OK. The article here didn't mention if this will be possible with the Apple News app.
I'm fairly sure I'll pay $10 per month for additional access. It's easy and gives me access to really awesome articles. For the last few years I've been bouncing around paying serious cash for access to individual publications. I can't stomach paying for more than one so just choose one at a time. Having this subscription service means that I wouldn't have to choose.
Edit: formatting
For example, it will see you watching a single basketball or football game and then flood you with recommendations for ESPN, Fox Sports, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, and every team sport played- all because you watched one game involving the school you went to. Likewise, it will see you watching BBC World News and add every supposed news channel and program to your list of suggestions. I hate to tell them, but just because I watched a single program on Brexit on BBC does not mean I want Fox & Friends or The Situation Room on CNN.
Beyond that, I hate Tim Cook's emphasis on scratching everyone's pocket each month. Apple does services poorly and always has. Apple is also continuing to suck the air out of the room for any company that figures out a way to make money on iOS or Mac OS. I also think creators of content deserve to be paid and these services- just like Apple Music - underpay the artist.
Peter Frampton got $1,700 for 55 million streams of one of his songs. Does that sound like just compensation to you? Here is the tweet from Frampton.
I already subscribe to many news organizations - NYT, LAT, WaPo, The Economist, the FT, and Bloomberg. Not seeing why I need Apple to stick their nose in. I get my magazines from Zinio.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjtlCdsU8AA-O3x.jpg