Apple is allegedly pointing to Apple Music as an example of how it can build a successful subscription business, but encountering resistance for several reasons, among them the view that newspapers and magazines are inheretly different from music -- a person who reads Scientific American may be unlikely to care about an all-you-can-eat subscription that includes People, and vice versa.
Similarly, publishers are said to see Apple News as something people read briefly when they have a few minutes to spare, rather than a place for top-shelf paid content.
Apple is moreover said to be demanding 50 percent of revenue, the rest being split among every publisher. That's a hard sell given that the Post alone charges $10 per month, the Times $15, and the Journal $39.
Couldn’t the same be said about Apple Music? My MIL, for instance, loves country music and pop but “may be unlikely” to listen rap or R&B.
Also, we have a subsription to WSJ and don’t pay nearly $39/month for it. Typically we get 6 months for $99 and that’s delivered to our house 6 days a week, plus online and in Apple News.
In Apple Music, Apple doesn’t take 50% of all revenue and then split the remaining 50% between each artist. They pay per stream (I believe). This is a very different model to AM.
How does a revenue split between companies involved in providing a service, something that most normals would have little to no idea about, affect how people would use that service?
Apple wanting 50% is pure greed. I would refuse to sign up with Apple also. Companies are having issue with Apple getting 30% and even 15%, BUT 50%? If Apple thinks in going to sign up to all their different $10 a month packages, good lick with that. $10 for this, $10 for video streamingvservive. My guess! Plus another $10 for Apple Music. If Apple thinks they're getting $30 a month from me, ... Lol.
It’s incremental revenue for participants in Apple’s service. People who subscribe via this likely won’t cannibalize other customers.
Apple wanting 50% is pure greed. I would refuse to sign up with Apple also. Companies are having issue with Apple getting 30% and even 15%, BUT 50%? If Apple thinks in going to sign up to all their different $10 a month packages, good lick with that. $10 for this, $10 for video streamingvservive. My guess! Plus another $10 for Apple Music. If Apple thinks they're getting $30 a month from me, ... Lol.
It’s incremental revenue for participants in Apple’s service. People who subscribe via this likely won’t cannibalize other customers.
If Apple is buying an AP and Reuters feed directly that’s probably 50% of the content right there. Even for WaPo and NYT I bet half the articles is from a wire service. That’s opposed to 80% in a lesser newspaper.
Apple wanting 50% is pure greed. I would refuse to sign up with Apple also. Companies are having issue with Apple getting 30% and even 15%, BUT 50%? If Apple thinks in going to sign up to all their different $10 a month packages, good lick with that. $10 for this, $10 for video streamingvservive. My guess! Plus another $10 for Apple Music. If Apple thinks they're getting $30 a month from me, ... Lol.
It’s incremental revenue for participants in Apple’s service. People who subscribe via this likely won’t cannibalize other customers.
If Apple is buying an AP and Reuters feed directly that’s probably 50% of the content right there. Even for WaPo and NYT I bet half the articles is from a wire service. That’s opposed to 80% in a lesser newspaper.
I've not seen mention that Apple would be buying a feed of their own. Did you see that somewhere as a rumored feature? You've suggested that a couple of times.
Comments