[joegahona]

I think that’s the key to this thing’s success. There’s no way enough people are going to pay $120 per year for newspaper/magazine articles to make it worthwhile for publishers or for users.

[52-6F-62]

AFAIK Texture was doing quite well.

[joegahona]

I’d be curious where you got that information. Everything I’ve read has sounded simliar to this: https://adage.com/article/digital/greedy-apple-half-publishi...

> The skeptical publishers point to the original Texture—it didn't work--as proof the concept is shaky. The publishers say the revenue was meager, and the app itself sputtered through several incarnations before being sold off to Apple.

[52-6F-62]

Which publishers? Texture was owned by publishers.

In 2016 it was doing quite well (remember this is publishing money and not tech VC money. Success in publishing does not look the same in dollars as success does in SV tech): https://nypost.com/2016/06/21/the-netflix-of-magazines-is-ab...

Apple bought Texture this time last year and then it spread they had planned their own news platform. It's no surprise they were scaling back Texture as a company.