[untog]

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 and sign up with Apple?

(an aside, but the 50% cut just seems absurd. Just reads like Apple saying "because we can", there's no way the cost of distributing an article is anywhere near the same as the cost of making it)

[tuna-piano]

Maybe WSJ would only allow this on iPads and iPhones, and they think their higher paying normal users also want access on desktop devices? Maybe WSJ got something crazy like a 10 year exclusive without NYT or Washington Post in the service?

Still seems crazy... Apple seems to need the WSJ more than the WSJ would need Apple for this service. WSJ is a marquee name and content producer that millions of people are willing to pay for. WSJ is profitable and seems to do just fine in print and digital distribution.

While the $10 price point may be the correct one for all parties involved (a value price point expands scale without expanding cost) - the 50% cut seems wild.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

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

[natch]

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.

[Despegar]

There could be lots of deals. Maybe the 50% cut drops after they get to 20 million subscribers. Maybe the WSJ and the magazines will get a lower rate for being an initial partner compared to the NYT or WaPo who might want to come on later if Apple News gets really big. The fact that WSJ isn't going to have any competition from the other big national newspapers means they'll likely capture most of the reads.

[reaperducer]

Maybe they’re after people like me.

I like having all of my news in fewer apps rather than more. I’d subscribe to the Journal if it was part of Apple News, but as a stand-alone app, I’m not interested.

Similarly, I listen to as many of my favorite streaming radion stations through TuneIn as possible, rather than having a folder full of individual apps.

[wycy]

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

[Alex3917]

> 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.

[comex]

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

Citation needed.

[m0zg]

Probably because they're getting access to double-filtered (first by the price of the iPhone, then by the price of their subscription), creme de la creme audience to which they could show a ton of targeted ads?

[mcny]

» 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 and sign up with Apple?

You should absolutely cancel your WSJ subscription and sign up with Apple. I agree 50% cut is a little steep but I am worried Apple might not have enough clout. What's to stop WSJ from spinning off (for example) new media into a separate entity therefore allow Apple news access to only a subset of its offerings? Does Apple have enough power to call a spade a spade?

[rhegart]

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

[donarb]

50% has been a standard in print publishing for a hundred years.

[pier25]

Maybe you get more content when subscribed directly to WSJ?