Apples News+ is a bargain. I was paying $8.95/mo for the La Times. Now for $9.95 a month I get a huge selection including the LA Times. It's a no brainer.
What about a new and different type (younger) audience that never considered picking up a physical newspaper or going directly to their respective websites? Why not see if a different type of reader is perusing your articles? That is if Apple makes that type of data available to the publisher?
When the service becomes huge, as it will, I would keep them out until they are desperate.
They got the opportunity of s life time, and turned it down.
How will we every know if it becomes huge if Apple isn’t post Revenue and profit broken out by product? But we will know if it’s failing if companies announce they are quitting.
I presume some of the special offers Apple offered them are off the table if News+ turns out to be a success and they want in on the party later.
Doesn't matter if it's a success if Apple is taking 50% of your money in the process.
Yeah, I was going to post on that too. Why so much? Are costs for Apple so much higher? I would have thought the standard 30% would apply, and possibly even the 15% after one year they introduced a year, or so ago.
I don’t really see what Apple brings to this other than running an embedded browser in an app. 10% seems more like it. 95% of the time if I can view an article else where for free. I’m fine with advertising that saves me money.
I presume some of the special offers Apple offered them are off the table if News+ turns out to be a success and they want in on the party later.
Doesn't matter if it's a success if Apple is taking 50% of your money in the process.
Yeah, I was going to post on that too. Why so much? Are costs for Apple so much higher? I would have thought the standard 30% would apply, and possibly even the 15% after one year they introduced a year, or so ago.
I’m beginning to think people are upset simply because Apple will be making money. It’s more about not liking Apple than what is being negotiated. So maybe Apple asked for 50% and GOT IT from many publishers. That just doesn’t sit well with people who don’t like the company now that it’s no longer the underdog it once was. Now that Apple has power and leverage because of its success it is described as greedy and evil.
Newspapers as a whole are on life support anyway. The NYT and the WaPo are not. The Times has the readership to support itself and the Post has Bezos. They both are far left papers so maybe it is better that they are not included unless far right papers will be included as well. The Times does have some excellent writing once you exit the politics pages.
Those two papers are fake news anyway. They take their marching orders from the DNC just like CNN and MSNBC. The important thing is for Apple to sign up Fox News and the Wall Street Journal so subscribers will be getting real news rather than left wing propaganda.
When the service becomes huge, as it will, I would keep them out until they are desperate.
They got the opportunity of s life time, and turned it down.
How will we every know if it becomes huge if Apple isn’t post Revenue and profit broken out by product? But we will know if it’s failing if companies announce they are quitting.
I'm sure we'll get a "most news subscribers in the world" statement in typical Apple fashion.
I presume some of the special offers Apple offered them are off the table if News+ turns out to be a success and they want in on the party later.
Doesn't matter if it's a success if Apple is taking 50% of your money in the process.
Yeah, I was going to post on that too. Why so much? Are costs for Apple so much higher? I would have thought the standard 30% would apply, and possibly even the 15% after one year they introduced a year, or so ago.
I’m beginning to think people are upset simply because Apple will be making money. It’s more about not liking Apple than what is being negotiated. So maybe Apple asked for 50% and GOT IT from many publishers. That just doesn’t sit well with people who don’t like the company now that it’s no longer the underdog it once was. Now that Apple has power and leverage because of its success it is described as greedy and evil.
Apple is no different from a Wal Mart or convenient store where they take a huge chunk of sales because they're paying the bills and providing a platform. You're right that people just want to hate Apple. Meanwhile Google is making 80% of their revenue with YOUR data and you get 0% but but but Apple!
Yes, Apple should control everything and if anyone dare refuse Apple the keys to the kingdom they should be ridiculed by AI readers without mercy. Any of you ever worked for a news organization, a daily publication or a school newspaper? How many of you own your own business, if yes, would you like to give away 50% to another giant corporation?
I presume some of the special offers Apple offered them are off the table if News+ turns out to be a success and they want in on the party later.
Doesn't matter if it's a success if Apple is taking 50% of your money in the process.
Yeah, I was going to post on that too. Why so much? Are costs for Apple so much higher? I would have thought the standard 30% would apply, and possibly even the 15% after one year they introduced a year, or so ago.
I don’t really see what Apple brings to this other than running an embedded browser in an app. 10% seems more like it. 95% of the time if I can view an article else where for free. I’m fine with advertising that saves me money.
Because it’s expensive to write the software and maintain it. It cost to have people curating it. It costs to advertise it. There are always costs. And Apple is here to make a profit. So that has to be added on as well. 10% seems too low to me, and 50% seems too high.
I presume some of the special offers Apple offered them are off the table if News+ turns out to be a success and they want in on the party later.
Doesn't matter if it's a success if Apple is taking 50% of your money in the process.
Yeah, I was going to post on that too. Why so much? Are costs for Apple so much higher? I would have thought the standard 30% would apply, and possibly even the 15% after one year they introduced a year, or so ago.
I’m beginning to think people are upset simply because Apple will be making money. It’s more about not liking Apple than what is being negotiated. So maybe Apple asked for 50% and GOT IT from many publishers. That just doesn’t sit well with people who don’t like the company now that it’s no longer the underdog it once was. Now that Apple has power and leverage because of its success it is described as greedy and evil.
That’s...conspiratorial. This is business, not politics. Businesses make deals because of business. Some publications looked at their businesses and thought that this would add nothing, and might possibly take away. It’s really that simple. 50% of the total, dispersed between 300+ publications, depending on viewership, isn’t much. What is Apple doing that merits half of that total?
Those two papers are fake news anyway. They take their marching orders from the DNC just like CNN and MSNBC. The important thing is for Apple to sign up Fox News and the Wall Street Journal so subscribers will be getting real news rather than left wing propaganda.
Oh, for crying out loud. We don’t need that crap. Cut it out. Do you really want to get into an argument about those, and Fox and Breithart? You’ll lose big.
Let these dinosaurs catch on when it's too late. These dumb moves are what made Netflix, Amazon and even PewDiePie successful. Dinosaurs like Barnes and Noble believed they were standing on solid ground until the future took over. I wouldn't doubt it if new publishers become big names because of News+.
I presume some of the special offers Apple offered them are off the table if News+ turns out to be a success and they want in on the party later.
Doesn't matter if it's a success if Apple is taking 50% of your money in the process.
And when News+ is making publishers more money than their crappy alternatives, I would charge the dinosaurs 60% for being late to the party.
Good luck with that wishful thinking. I don't see it happening. They are making far more money on their own then what they would ever get from Apple. News+ is a limited market. Apple only has about 50% of the U.S. market, leaving the other 50% Android users out. Globally, Android has a far larger percentage, around 80%, not that American Newspapers care all that much globally. If people did, Apple's News+ matters far less. it's a flat out bad deal for them. Doesn't even matter if NEWS+ becomes a hit.
Those two papers are fake news anyway. They take their marching orders from the DNC just like CNN and MSNBC. The important thing is for Apple to sign up Fox News and the Wall Street Journal so subscribers will be getting real news rather than left wing propaganda.
Oh, for crying out loud. We don’t need that crap. Cut it out. Do you really want to get into an argument about those, and Fox and Breithart? You’ll lose big.
I laughed as it was an excellent troll. And you could easily substitute Fox News in davsmall’s statement and it would read like any common statement made on this forum over the years.
point is to be omnivorous in your reading, lean to discern truth from polemics, recognise that if 90% of a subject you actually know something about the journalists get wrong, that means rather than accept what they say, they are probably just as wrong about the stuff you don’t know much about, and give it all a sceptical eye. Most importantly, read from as many different sources as possible so you don’t fall victim to group think.
Those two papers are fake news anyway. They take their marching orders from the DNC just like CNN and MSNBC. The important thing is for Apple to sign up Fox News and the Wall Street Journal so subscribers will be getting real news rather than left wing propaganda.
Oh, for crying out loud. We don’t need that crap. Cut it out. Do you really want to get into an argument about those, and Fox and Breithart? You’ll lose big.
We’ll see, but I doubt you are responding to a real person here. It’s the world we live in. They just deposit the comment and move on, to the next site on their list. I guess AI should be flattered that it gets this sort of attention?
Comments
Apple is no different from a Wal Mart or convenient store where they take a huge chunk of sales because they're paying the bills and providing a platform. You're right that people just want to hate Apple. Meanwhile Google is making 80% of their revenue with YOUR data and you get 0% but but but Apple!
That’s...conspiratorial. This is business, not politics. Businesses make deals because of business. Some publications looked at their businesses and thought that this would add nothing, and might possibly take away. It’s really that simple. 50% of the total, dispersed between 300+ publications, depending on viewership, isn’t much. What is Apple doing that merits half of that total?
Oh, for crying out loud. We don’t need that crap. Cut it out. Do you really want to get into an argument about those, and Fox and Breithart? You’ll lose big.
point is to be omnivorous in your reading, lean to discern truth from polemics, recognise that if 90% of a subject you actually know something about the journalists get wrong, that means rather than accept what they say, they are probably just as wrong about the stuff you don’t know much about, and give it all a sceptical eye. Most importantly, read from as many different sources as possible so you don’t fall victim to group think.