Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#31

Post by natch »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #16
untog wrote: post #6

I'm confused why WSJ, of all publications, is jumping on board here. A look at their subscription page shows me that the cheapest option is $15 a month. This Apple News subscription product is going to be $10 a month and Apple is taking 50% of that. I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription a…

Worth noting that after the first year, that $15/mo turns into $40/mo (which is when I cancelled my subscription).

This is why I don’t sign up to pay even at sites I would like to support. It’s very hard to tell how much I would end up paying after the trial. Yes it’s all there in black and white (or gray on gray) in fine print somewhere. I just don’t trust myself to get reading that stuff right and I resent they require such vigilance, so I don’t want to reward it.

It’s not that I would never pay, either. I do pay contributions to some sites where the amount stays fixed, such as a monthly recurring donation to Wikipedia.

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#32

Post by intopieces »

Note to those not keen on paying money to Apple for this service: RBDigital lets you download lots of magazines through your local library. Mine even has The Economist. I still pay for a subscription because I like the audio, but RBDigital is great for people who like plain PDF scans of magazines and has the added benefit of being already paid for.

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#33

Post by rhegart »

untog wrote: post #6

I'm confused why WSJ, of all publications, is jumping on board here. A look at their subscription page shows me that the cheapest option is $15 a month. This Apple News subscription product is going to be $10 a month and Apple is taking 50% of that. I get the argument that Apple News will expose you to a much larger audience, but that level of revenue cut is... significant. Why wouldn't I cancel my WSJ subscription a…

WSJ is $4 a month, cancel every 3 months and restart, takes 2 mins.

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#34

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #3

Broken record: online newspaper subscriptions are super cheap and are remarkably useful; when you can click around a newspaper site without popups, it starts to makes sense to use them as your news portal, which quickly weans you off lower-quality free sites like CNN. Like the people that get the sleep apnea devices and won't shut up about how much better their life is, I'm constantly (and noisily) surprised by how s…

[deleted]

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#35

Post by bilbo0s »

xtian wrote: post #8
steve19 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that some sites are charging for low quality click bait journalism. I am not going to pay for NYT or WP or the many magazines I used to subscribe to and dont anymore. I will pay for WsJ, The Economist and Bloomberg. Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.

Not sure I would use Bloomberg as an example of high-quality journalism after their handling of “The Big Hack”.

I think steve19 is illustrative of the issue in online news.

Essentially, people are only willing to pay for "news" with which they are in accordance. Whether or not a particular news source is factually accurate, is very much a secondary concern. (Witness Bloomberg.) So you generally have two huge markets, one for "news" with a conservative bent, the other for "news" with a liberal bent.

Of course you have several markets, that are much smaller, for other types of "news". But very few markets where factual accuracy is at a premium. Add to that the fact that the few markets where factual accuracy is at a premium are small, and it's not hard to see why no one really caters to them. (All of that doesn't even consider the very real problem that it's hard to address such markets with a product that those markets would accept).

So pointing out the inaccuracies in Bloomberg, or CNN, or WSJ, or NY Times, etc misses the point. These media companies are in the business of selling "news". They don't put a priority on the business of selling accuracy because the business of accuracy doesn't really pay very well.

Think of it this way, you likely know a lot of people who consume, say, FOX or CNN, but how many people are you acquainted with who watch C-Span?

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#36

Post by ac29 »

tptacek wrote: post #3

Broken record: online newspaper subscriptions are super cheap and are remarkably useful; when you can click around a newspaper site without popups, it starts to makes sense to use them as your news portal, which quickly weans you off lower-quality free sites like CNN. Like the people that get the sleep apnea devices and won't shut up about how much better their life is, I'm constantly (and noisily) surprised by how s…

I suppose "super cheap" is relative:

WSJ: $100-$150/year

WP: $187/year

NYT: $195/year

All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked out and they're all on sale (unlikely).

So, that puts them at or above the cost of a TV or Music streaming subscription. If you're subscribing to "a bunch", that's pretty expensive.

edit: I should add, I believe all of these prices are a "with ads" price, which arguably makes them a worse value than an ad-free streaming subscription of equal price.

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#38

Post by StevePerkins »

ac29 wrote: post #36
tptacek wrote: post #3

Broken record: online newspaper subscriptions are super cheap and are remarkably useful; when you can click around a newspaper site without popups, it starts to makes sense to use them as your news portal, which quickly weans you off lower-quality free sites like CNN. Like the people that get the sleep apnea devices and won't shut up about how much better their life is, I'm constantly (and noisily) surprised by how s…

I suppose "super cheap" is relative: WSJ: $100-$150/year WP: $187/year NYT: $195/year All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked out and they're all on sale (unlikely). So, that puts them at or above the cost of a TV or Music streaming subscription. If you're subscribing to "a bunch", that's pretty expensive. edit: I should add, I believe all of these prices are a "with ads" price, which argu…

It's worth noting that the Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos) only costs $100/year for Amazon Prime members, who also get the first six months free.

Having said that, I tried it out and canceled before the six month trial expired. Personally, I just didn't find the quality to be THAT much higher than CNN. Just non-stop Trump ranting, more or less op-ed content on the front page section, etc.

I've settled into a habit of using the junk cable news sites for "breaking" stories, and getting more in-depth content from The Atlantic (left-leaning perspective) and The Economist (right-leaning perspective). Both of which I can read digitally for free via my local public library.

(I actually started paying for The Atlantic, because it's only $20/yr and I feel good about supporting them. The Economist is ten times that amount, so I don't feel THAT good!)

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#39

Post by steve19 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #35
xtian wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I would use Bloomberg as an example of high-quality journalism after their handling of “The Big Hack”.

I think steve19 is illustrative of the issue in online news. Essentially, people are only willing to pay for "news" with which they are in accordance. Whether or not a particular news source is factually accurate, is very much a secondary concern. (Witness Bloomberg.) So you generally have two huge markets, one for "news" with a conservative bent, the other for "news" with a liberal bent. Of course you have several m…

I was making a point about not buying news organizations that are peddling clickbait.

I don't think my choice of subscriptions illustrates the point that I am a consumer who buys news that suits my point of view. You are making the assumption that Conservative={Bloomberg, WSJ, Economist} (I would not call two of those three conservative) and therefore I am a conservative who refuses to read Liberal={...}

What it actually represents is someone who is sick of modern political discourse, tired of clickbait with false headlines and just wants classical news that can keep me informed of world events, specially financial events that may impact my daily decision making.

I want to pay people who will keep me informed, not people who want a slice of my attention or a slice of my emotional energy.

Re: Apple News Service Said to Feature WSJ for $10 a month, Without NYT or WP

#40

Post by steve19 »

peteretep wrote: post #25
steve19 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that some sites are charging for low quality click bait journalism. I am not going to pay for NYT or WP or the many magazines I used to subscribe to and dont anymore. I will pay for WsJ, The Economist and Bloomberg. Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me.

> The Economist > Its when they want both seo/viral traffic AND my subscription dollars that annoys me. Have you followed TE on Facebook or Twitter? There’s plenty of clickbait there, although they do now hive some of it off to 1843 Magazine and Espresso

I have not, my assessment is based on the paper magazine. Sad to hear they are chasing clicks.
Post reply on HN