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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 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
  • Reply 42 of 66
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,762member
    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.
    You forgot that snark tag....
    baconstangGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 43 of 66
    I dunno....does it include the crossword?
  • Reply 44 of 66
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,990member
    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.
    Whatever man.  If the obsolete news services can do better why haven't they implemented it?

    I'd rather have 50% of something than 100% of nothing.
    mobird
  • Reply 45 of 66
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,389member
    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.
    I'd say Apple brings a hell of a lot more than just an embedded browser app. It also brings its name which people trust and know, and its already setup user install base, etc. Yes, Apple didn't have to do work right now for it, but its been working its ass off over time to get where it is today and maintain it. 
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 46 of 66
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    sflocal said:

    I'd rather have 50% of something than 100% of nothing.

    Except that’s not what they’re getting. Stop spreading FUD. The revenue is split between all publications. So each publication gets a fraction of that 50%. For every subscriber the NYT lost to Apple News+, Apple would literally have to sign up a hundred or more new users to make up the lost revenue for each direct subscription. And the newspaper loses its relationship with the subscriber. Only desperate publications are going to sign up for News+. The NYT and Washington Post are both profitable, highly respected, and frankly don’t need Apple’s buffet line approach to news to be successful. 
    edited April 2019 beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 47 of 66
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,291member
    I am not sure if they are just being stubornly foolish or scare, or both. With the way Apple pricing News+, it is for certain that people will abandon individual subs that cost double than that.
  • Reply 48 of 66
    kenaustuskenaustus Posts: 916member
    The potential of bringing N Times and WaPo will depend on how strong Apple's growth turns out to be.   Internationally Apple's news programs can reach tens of millions of subscribers.  If there is a major story out of Congress then interested people living around the world could easily click on  WaPio and read a more detailed story than locally,  There used to be a website (the paperboy.com) that could take you directly to any newspaper in the world and identified papers in English,  A major story in Vienna?  Read it locally, which would normally be more extensive than your local paper,  This is where Apple can offer both the readers and the publishers a far better (and more profitable) operation.  The key factor will be the population size of the subscribers.  
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 49 of 66
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,628member
    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.
    No, it's not the opportunity of a lifetime to share royalties with hundreds of other publications (even aside from the issue of Apple supposedly taking 50% off the top) when you already have a very healthy subscription model, which both the Times and the Post do.   It could have worked if Apple wasn't insisting on needing every article.   The problem with Apple is that they "negotiate" with incredible arrogance.  

    Let's say that there's just 60 publications and everyone gets an equal share and Apple is going to charge $10 a month.   That's $120 a year.  Apple takes $60.   The other $60 gets split among the 60 publications.  So the Times and the Post would each get $1 per year per subscriber.   They currently get a few hundred $ per year.   Even if it were $20 a month, that would be only $2 per year per subscriber.   Why would they do the deal?  It would make absolutely no sense.   
    edited April 2019 entropys80s_Apple_Guymuthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 50 of 66
    elijahg said:
    Maybe this is more evidence of Cue being less than stellar at his job... Or just NYT and WP being stubborn. 
    I believe it is a bit of both.  But, i cannot understand why Tim Cook doesn’t bite the bullet and move Cue out.  He messed up the iBooks case leading to an embarrassing loss in the US Supreme Court.  I believe that Apple is so late the party on TV streaming, it could now be headed to a failure. This is all Cue and he just needs to step aside. Come on Apple, wake up.  Cook is a great leader, and Craig and Phil are great. Bye, bye to Angela, who never should have been hired. And now, it is time to replace Cue.  Astonishing that one of the richest companies in the world, with great products and highly respectable policies concerning privacy and the environment, cannot seem to leverage its financial power into a basic streaming bundle for TV.  Apple Music is a success, but i believe that others made thst happen.  The same should be true for TV.
  • Reply 51 of 66
    rlgauthier@comcast.net[email protected] Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Generally I think News + is a lifeline to regular magazines, all of which see their subscription numbers dwindle and ad revenue decline. The NYT and WaPo moved early and aggressively into subscription and do not need News +. I used to read a number of magazines, have either switched to e versions or dropped as their quality dwindles with reduced subscribers. This might work out great- I see it as Netflix for print, but the big guys are going their own way for now. IF they come back, they will still likely be in a strong position. I actually agree with their desire to not give all content up. Apple should look at getting the Book section and the Sunday magazine onto their platform as a way for both to get comfortable- extra revenue for NYT as the info is bundled into the paper now and both a quality resources to specific crowds. Think Eddy pulled the we are big and you need us card and they did not cave. So change strategy. I don't see Barron's on sub list, may be missing it however, that is a WSJ publication and it is a premium content piece for a specific area, but it is highly read in the business community. So WSJ did not give everything to News +. I subscribed and they need to get bugginess out of it soon, not very Apple like.
  • Reply 52 of 66
    hentaiboyhentaiboy Posts: 1,249member
    Anyone remember these dinosaurs?


  • Reply 53 of 66
    New York Times has successfully transitioned into being profitable with digital media. They now have more journalists than ever before. I think that’s a good thing - and I totally understand why they have declined to join News+. There are people arguing that Eddie Cue isn’t good at his job. I don’t think we can prove that with this article. Notice how Apple has managed to do good deals in markets which didn’t do very good on it’s own already. So, Music, Movies, Books and Magazines. It has been very difficult for Apple to be dominating in television. But is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. We have so much good content available on our iDevices, with Netflix providing a really good experience, from a technical point of view (I also like Netflix content, but YMMV). I believe it’s beyond naive to expect Eddie Cue to basically walk into the room and charm profitable - some of them very profitable - companies into making deals, which would cost them money and make money for Apple. It’s a sign of a mature market that he’s been unable to do so. And that fact is good for us consumers, because that means that we already have lots f good content and companies to choose from.
  • Reply 54 of 66
    LatkoLatko Posts: 398member
    lkrupp said:

    elijahg said:
    Maybe this is more evidence of Cue being less than stellar at his job... Or just NYT and WP being stubborn. 
    If you take the time to read the NYT CEO’s response it becomes clear Mr. Cue’s competence had nothing to do with the decision. 
    Take the time to read many other CEO experiences around Hollywood/LA to make you feel the opposite (not counting YT dancing bear appearances...)
    Major news sources can have respectable preferences to remain platform independent (and 100% more profitable...) and having Eddy Cue around generally makes businesses realize that once more
    edited April 2019
  • Reply 55 of 66
    aknabiaknabi Posts: 211member
    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 if you want to maintain high quality journalism... clearly many don't realize the costs involved in serious, quality investigative journalism and how crucial it is for a democracy (especially given the fact the electorate are half idiots).
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 56 of 66
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,004member
    zoetmb 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.
    No, it's not the opportunity of a lifetime to share royalties with hundreds of other publications (even aside from the issue of Apple supposedly taking 50% off the top) when you already have a very healthy subscription model, which both the Times and the Post do.   It could have worked if Apple wasn't insisting on needing every article.   The problem with Apple is that they "negotiate" with incredible arrogance.  

    Let's say that there's just 60 publications and everyone gets an equal share and Apple is going to charge $10 a month.   That's $120 a year.  Apple takes $60.   The other $60 gets split among the 60 publications.  So the Times and the Post would each get $1 per year per subscriber.   They currently get a few hundred $ per year.   Even if it were $20 a month, that would be only $2 per year per subscriber.   Why would they do the deal?  It would make absolutely no sense.   
    There's no chance that's how the revenue split works. The model is likely similar to that of Apple Music. The pool of money that goes to the content providers gets divided up based on how much respective providers' content gets viewed.

    I'd say that participating in News+ would likely be a good move for some providers and a bad move for others. It depends on particulars of a providers' business. If they have lots of people willing to pay a premium for their service, who highly value their content in particular, then joining News+ might not be a good choice for them.

    Participating in News+ will surely mean the cannibalization of some people who currently, or would be willing to, pay for a direct subscription. But on the other side, it opens a providers' content up to many more people who wouldn't be wiling to pay $10 or $15 a month for that providers' content by itself. If their content is popular enough, they'll get a decent share of the News+ revenue pool - but that share will, of course, still be quite small as compared to what they get from a direct subscription.

    Where do the numbers land, that's the question. Is it $.50 a month from 50 million subscribers versus $10 a month from 1 million. Or is it $.20 a month from 10 million subscribers versus $10 a month from 2 million? And then, how much are additional content viewers worth aside from the subscription revenue they generate? Is there advertisement within News+? Are there benefits to content providers from making their content available to a wider audience?
    tenthousandthings
  • Reply 57 of 66
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    Anyone surprised that the NYT and WaPo refused to join an unproven service that would take a cut (split between all publishers, so well less than a half) of 50% (after Apple's share) of $10 a month, representing a tiny fraction of what their own, exclusive subscriptions cost, are on cloud cuckoo land.  These are not publications that are struggling or "failing", their digital services are doing well.

    I subscribe to both and they're well worth it, because you get what you pay for with ad-supported news.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,423member
    loopless said:
    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.
    The LA Times may eventually wonder why THEY didn't put more thought into it. They just lost you as a $10/mo customer to a service paying them penny or two at best and maybe a whole lot worse depending on how the pot is divided up, ie per article view or some other metric. Do the math, 300+ publications sharing a total of $5/mo. Maybe they'll make it up in quantity. Maybe not.

    One publisher put it this way which makes a lot of sense:
    “If you have a subscription business or a membership business, and you’ve got, like, 9,000 digital subscribers, you don’t have much to lose going in with Apple.”

    "On the other hand, by getting on board with Apple News+, you run the risk of abdicating your direct relationship with readers and potentially cannibalizing your existing subscriber pool, thereby handing more leverage to an ever-more-powerful platform economy that has already wreaked havoc on journalism and the news business."

    ...Publishers hope they’ll get exposure to new audiences. But any potential new or existing direct subscriber to a publisher will no longer be willing to pay a healthy monthly fee to occasionally access that top content while supporting the rest of the newsroom. They’ll just cherry pick what they want via News+, and Apple will shave off a few cents for the publisher while owning all the data, customer relationship and power.”
    edited April 2019
  • Reply 59 of 66
    My biggest issue with the Apple News service isn't the publications it serves up, it's the whole "curated" thing.  What does that actually mean?  Will they be deciding on what content makes it through?  Will they be judging what makes it through based on some standard of quality?  If so, whose?  Will articles be rejected if they contain content that Apple doesn't like?

    Without commenting on Apple's absolute right to publish or not publish anything that they're "curating," all of the publications and sources I read already have an editorial staff that does all the "curating" for that publication.  I know what they publish, and I read different sources in order to get the different perspectives. If Apple is going to further curate what goes through and what doesn't, that has less value to me than reading the original, since now I have to go to yet another source for the stuff Apple doesn't want to publish.  Without the same level of confidence of what Apple is holding back as I have with the other sources I read, that's going to be a PITA for a while.

    It might be worth the price, I'll just have to see.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    When I was growing up nearly everybody had a subscription to one of the local newspapers -- which the paperboy faithfully delivered.

    But, that subscription cost what?   A dime or quarter a week?
    Plus, much of the reporting came from centralized major networks such as AP and was reported fairly and honestly -- so you really only needed a single paper to get the news.

    Now, we get specialized reporting from each major paper at what I consider to be exorbitant costs.  I might consider paying a couple hundred dollars a year if it got me a complete set of news.   But really, to get a complete picture I would need at least several of those subscriptions.

    When the economy crashes (and yes, that's a when not if) those high priced subscriptions will dry up (just as people will migrate from Whole Foods to Walmart) and, once again these papers will be hurting.  It will be then that they will be willing to deal with News+ and things will return back to what we had 50 years ago.
    tenthousandthings
Sign In or Register to comment.