Eddy Cue repeatedly visited Washington Post, New York Times in failed Apple News+ bid

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 66
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    jbdragon said:
    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.
    All income from Apple would be incremental revenue. Right now they make zero dollars from Apple.
    mobirdAppleExposed
  • Reply 22 of 66
    I hate the New York Times and Washington Post. I know my comment is not pertinent to the conversation, 
    redraider11SpamSandwich
  • Reply 23 of 66
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,234member
    Washington Compost. Who cares.
    redraider11SpamSandwich
  • Reply 24 of 66
    looplessloopless Posts: 320member
    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.
    AppleExposedSpamSandwichMisterKitlostkiwi
  • Reply 25 of 66
    mobirdmobird Posts: 749member
    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?
  • Reply 26 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    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.
  • Reply 27 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    melgross said:
    jbdragon said:
    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.
    edited April 2019 Latko
  • Reply 28 of 66
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    melgross said:
    jbdragon said:
    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. 
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 29 of 66
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 578member
    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.
    redraider11lostkiwi
  • Reply 30 of 66
    davesmalldavesmall Posts: 118member
    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.
    k2kwredraider1180s_Apple_GuySpamSandwich
  • Reply 31 of 66
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,398member
    mobird said:
    jbdragon said:
    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.
    Isn't something better than nothing?
    Not at all, if it cannibalizes their existing business.
    baconstang80s_Apple_Guymuthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 32 of 66
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,398member
    All income from Apple would be incremental revenue. 
    Not necessarily. That's a huge assumption. I would, for example, switch from my existing NYT subscription to News+ if NYT became a part of News+.
    edited April 2019 muthuk_vanalingamlostkiwi
  • Reply 33 of 66
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    k2kw said:
    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.

    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    jbdragon said:
    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!
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 34 of 66
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    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? 
    rogifan_newLatkomuthuk_vanalingamasdasdchemengin
  • Reply 35 of 66
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    k2kw said:
    melgross said:
    jbdragon said:
    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.
    baconstang
  • Reply 36 of 66
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    lkrupp said:
    melgross said:
    jbdragon said:
    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?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 37 of 66
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    davesmall said:
    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.
    baconstangmazda 3smuthuk_vanalingamgordoncomstock
  • Reply 38 of 66
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,297member
    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+.

    jbdragon said:
    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.
    Latko
  • Reply 39 of 66
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,126member
    melgross said:

    davesmall said:
    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.
    beowulfschmidtlostkiwi
  • Reply 40 of 66
    melgross said:

    davesmall said:
    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?
    baconstangGeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.