New York Times:
The Wall Street Journal plans to join a new paid subscription news service run by Apple, according to two people familiar with the plans, as other publishers chafe at the terms that the Silicon Valley company is demanding of its partners.
Other major publishers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, have opted out of joining the subscription service, said the people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the plans.
And:
The most recent terms that Apple is offering to publishers ask for a cut of roughly half of the subscription revenue involved in the service, the people said. Apple has also asked publishers to give unlimited access to all their content, which has caused concern among potential partners, they said. A subscription is expected to cost $10 a month.
The deal’s terms have caused some publishers to recoil, as a 50 percent cut is higher than the 30 percent that Apple usually takes from apps and subscriptions sold through its App Store. Publishers are also concerned that they won’t have access to important data about the consumers — credit cards, email addresses and other subscriber information — as part of the deal.
This is interesting on two counts. Both that two of the biggest news gatherers in the world have opted out, and to hear a first hand account from one of them as to why.
The event is Monday.
Traditionally, I always thought magazine publishers got a small fraction of the subscription revenue when a broker is involved. The publishers made their money from ads. The ad revenue comes from the possibility of a single copy of a magazine being seen by hundreds of people, making the ad space more valuable. Which becomes even more valuable when you have a publication that targets a specific demographic.
Second, publishers only gets subscriber information when a subscriber fills out the “marketing” form included in the magazines (or they buy it from the broker). And even then it’s only from that single subscriber even though hundreds of people may actually read that copy.
And let’s not forget the bigger picture here… All of these magazines are producing articles whether there’s an Apple News or not. So, 50% of $0, is still $0. If Apple can convince a some of its user base to subscribe, then it’s just more revenue for the publishers at no extra cost to them.
I think “people familiar with the plans” are making more of this than what’s actually going on. 50% might seem like a lot for Apple to take, but there’s a lot we don’t know…
I don’t
want my news from Apple
Short sighted and mostly wrong.This is my industry. We get all the subscriber info we need. We don’t
need apple stealing our customers and our income. It’s a bad deal. I don’t
care who you are or what you love.
finally, the current iteration of Apple News sucks.
Your industry, huh?
So you’re responsible for running it into the ground? Seems to me the publishing industry has been short-sighted and dying because people like you have no idea what modern users want and have no idea how to get there.
I don’t care who you are or what you love. I’ll get my news from Apple News… and your business will slowly fade into someone’s memory – certainly not mine.
Yeah. The news industry pretty much jump started surveillance capitalism that Silicon Valley’s giants adapted and weaponized. I’d like to hear come out with a “yeah we’re sorry about that”.
The reader abuse prevalent on news websites drove me to install ad blockers just for ending the App Store redirects, auto play video harassment, malware hijacking, screenjacking, the device battery draining.
I subscribe to two newspapers and I’ll subscribe to Apple News’ service if it gives me access to the WSJ content. But I’m keeping my ad blockers to protect myself from abuse.