I don't know why Eddy thought the WaPo would entertain the idea of going with News+ when Apple's proposal was going to result in even less payout than the existing WaPo loss leader deal through Amazon Prime.
Arrogance I guess because it sure wasn't based on business sense. Bezos owns both, why would he enrich Apple? He can already reach millions of customers.
It’s not really like Apple Music — it’s a lot more like Cable providers in television. They make deals to carry channels (LAT and the magazines) — but some cost extra like HBO and Showtime (NYT and WaPo). That’s fine.
In this case, however, unlike Cable-channel negotiations, Apple will have exponentially more precise and informative data when the deals are renewed/renegotiated. There will be an evolutionary, survival of the fittest aspect to it.
The genius of this is the price. It will save my family a lot of money. The big loser, in our case, will not be the publishers— it will be the Hudson News newsstand in Grand Central Terminal.
I also think that it might be a bit naive to assume Eddy Cue was only at NYT and WaPo to try to get them to do what the LAT did — it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find, in a few years, when the News+ user experience really starts to work well (these things take time to develop), that we’ll be able to subscribe to the digital NYT and WaPo through Apple as premium content — the groundwork for how to make that work needs to happen now, as Apple builds the platform.
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.
This makes little sense. 50% of a subscriber's money is 50% more than they have now. It's quite simple, really. I would actually subscribe to News+ if they had full access to WashPo and others like the Denver Post (where I live). Heck, I would do it just for the WashPo TBH. It's fine if they don't want to play ball. I can live without their content.....and they'll just lose out on the 50% of my subscription fee they could have had.
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.
This makes little sense. 50% of a subscriber's money is 50% more than they have now. It's quite simple, really. I would actually subscribe to News+ if they had full access to WashPo and others like the Denver Post (where I live). Heck, I would do it just for the WashPo TBH. It's fine if they don't want to play ball. I can live without their content.....and they'll just lose out on the 50% of my subscription fee they could have had.
They won't get 50% of your subscription fee. They'd get their pro-rated portion, divided up among the 300+ publications. equaling maybe a couple of penny's more or less?
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.
This makes little sense. 50% of a subscriber's money is 50% more than they have now. It's quite simple, really. I would actually subscribe to News+ if they had full access to WashPo and others like the Denver Post (where I live). Heck, I would do it just for the WashPo TBH. It's fine if they don't want to play ball. I can live without their content.....and they'll just lose out on the 50% of my subscription fee they could have had.
They won't get 50% of your subscription fee. They'd get their pro-rated portion, divided up among the 300+ publications. equaling maybe a couple of penny's more or less?
Well, the division of the subscription fees will be a power distribution, the top 10% will take most of it. The point stands nevertheless, any newspaper with its own online digital brand could earn less here if they lose customers. One guy here has already said he has abandoned the LA Times for the cheaper Apple version, which is a loss to the LA Times.
Comments
Arrogance I guess because it sure wasn't based on business sense. Bezos owns both, why would he enrich Apple? He can already reach millions of customers.
In this case, however, unlike Cable-channel negotiations, Apple will have exponentially more precise and informative data when the deals are renewed/renegotiated. There will be an evolutionary, survival of the fittest aspect to it.
The genius of this is the price. It will save my family a lot of money. The big loser, in our case, will not be the publishers— it will be the Hudson News newsstand in Grand Central Terminal.
I also think that it might be a bit naive to assume Eddy Cue was only at NYT and WaPo to try to get them to do what the LAT did — it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find, in a few years, when the News+ user experience really starts to work well (these things take time to develop), that we’ll be able to subscribe to the digital NYT and WaPo through Apple as premium content — the groundwork for how to make that work needs to happen now, as Apple builds the platform.