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

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

#41

Post by throwawaymath » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:36 AM UTC

StevePerkins wrote: post #38

ac29 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

I can't speak for The Atlantic because I don't read it, but I wouldn't categorize The Economist as right-leaning. Its positions on various issues are too nuanced; I think it would be more accurate to decompose its views into economic and social issues. Then you end up with something that looks economically conservative and socially progressive. But even that sort of leaves out a lot of details that tend to get smoothed over in more mainstream political discourse.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page covering The Economist's editorial stance[1]. In particular, note their presidential endorsements and their respective positions on climate change, drug decriminalization/legalization and American military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To drill into a specific example, consider that they've historically endorsed Democratic presidential candidates more often than not; on the other hand they endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 because they agreed with his, "small government, pro-market philosophy".

While they haven't done it in recent memory, they have in the past abstained from making any specific endorsement for a presidential candidate. More recently they haven't shied away from criticizing both candidates.[2]

____________________

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance

2. Here's a fun one: in 2004 The Economist very weakly (and sardonically) endorsed Kerry by saying, "The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry." In contrast they gave two ringing endorsements for Obama.

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

#42

Post by sqldba » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:40 AM UTC

What confuses me most here is that the ethics of the WSJ, as defined by the beliefs of owner Rupert Murdoch, run counter to everything Apple professes to support. I don't know why they would support WSJ and not a more unbiased newspaper.

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

#43

Post by bArray » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

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…

Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. I understand that journalists need to be paid, but this is well above and beyond - this is to feed the investors.

I remember hearing that the majority/average person in the US doesn't have $400 spare for an emergency, how on earth are they expected to be able to consume "better" media on this business model? And of course this would encourage those papers to produce material that supports the views of the people who are able to consume it, only further adding to social divides.

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

#44

Post by int_19h » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

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…

Blendle is a better option IMO. It's pay-per-article (and you can refund after reading if you believe it to be low quality), so it doesn't lock you into any kind of subscription from a single provider. And they have WaPo, NYT, Time, WSJ...

Articles usually show up there a few days later than in the originating newspaper, but for quality journalism that's usually not an issue, since it takes a lot more to write it to begin with.

https://blendle.com/

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

#45

Post by Despegar » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:52 AM UTC

bArray wrote: post #43

ac29 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. I understand that journalists need to be paid, but this is well above and beyond - this is to feed the investors. I remember hearing that the majority/average person in the US doesn't have $400 spare for an emergency, how on earth are they expected to be able to consume "…

The NYT is a public company. Its gross margin is 59%. Its operating margin is 11.5%. Its profit margin is 7%. And this is after the NYT grew massively after Trump got elected and isn't guaranteed to last.

Give me a break. The only true thing you said was that journalists need to be paid, and they're a massive expense.

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

#46

Post by rb666 » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:54 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #44

ac29 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Blendle is a better option IMO. It's pay-per-article (and you can refund after reading if you believe it to be low quality), so it doesn't lock you into any kind of subscription from a single provider. And they have WaPo, NYT, Time, WSJ... Articles usually show up there a few days later than in the originating newspaper, but for quality journalism that's usually not an issue, since it takes a lot more to write it to…

Yes! Love Blendle. It's very convenient and the app is high quality.

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

#47

Post by throwawaymath » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 3:00 AM UTC

bArray wrote: post #43

ac29 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. I understand that journalists need to be paid, but this is well above and beyond - this is to feed the investors. I remember hearing that the majority/average person in the US doesn't have $400 spare for an emergency, how on earth are they expected to be able to consume "…

> Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few.

Leaving aside the comment about pricing, how do you consume more varied news than those "select few"? I read The Economist, NYT and WSJ every morning. Reading several articles (often on the same topic) across all three takes me about an hour. For a while I was trying to read Foreign Policy too but there's just not enough time.

I can only do this because I commute into the city on a relatively quiet train ride. I can't imagine adding another news source to this routine, let alone a bunch of them. What would you do, have a Monday set of sources, a Tuesday set and so on?

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

#48

Post by draw_down » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 3:01 AM UTC

wycy wrote: post #9

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…

Apple's 30% cut on most things already seemed offensively high, 50% just seems utterly crazy.

Honest question, why do you guys care? That deal is between Apple and the newspaper companies. Not sure why a presumptive consumer would care about that at all.

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

#49

Post by steve19 » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 3:02 AM UTC

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”.

Point taken!

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

#50

Post by comex » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 3:04 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #27

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…

> there's no way the cost of distributing an article is anywhere near the same as the cost of making it IIRC actual "investigative journalism" is less than 2% of the NYT's budget. Even though the cut is very high, most media companies may be coming out ahead based on where they're currently spending their budget.

> IIRC actual "investigative journalism" is less than 2% of the NYT's budget.

Citation needed.