[mysterydip]

I think part of the problem is the distributed nature of news sources. I don't want to have 20 separate subscriptions to different news sources to manage. I would pay for one site if I could get all my news there, but a single site a) can't cover everything and b) has its own biases.

[ajd1988]

It seems like we're living in the era of the 'Netflix Paradox' - the more our content gets decentralized - the more subscriptions we're expected to manage on our credit cards - but, unlike Netflix, there's no 'one size fits all' for news for most people.

[drdaeman]

> unlike Netflix, there's no 'one size fits all'

A gaming would've been a good example - there's Steam and there's everything else, but is this the case for video streaming? One either shells out a noticeable sum for Netflix/Hulu/Disney+/ESPN+/HBO Max/Amazon Prime Video/Apple TV+/Paramount+/Peacock/... combo (with a number of those free on some year-long promotion), or, I've heard, as the those year-long trials come to end, fragmentation progresses, and diversity and quality of media on any single individual platform declines, people are simply starting to sail back to the high seas.

Maybe if this stream dies (and companies stop blaming it on password sharing or whatever, but realize no one is paying because it's not worth it anymore) there will be some partnerships and larger package deals. But I'm skeptical, as no one had solved how to slice the pie. Microtransactions were proposed to solve this but any attempts at those had ultimately failed.

[j33zusjuice]

Apple News+? I think you get access to NYT, WaPo, and a bunch of other paywalled stuff.

[tshaddox]

Nope, neither of those newspapers. More like the LA Times and the Fresno Bee. And a bunch of magazines that are mostly just ads anyway.

[mysterydip]

I'll check it out, thanks!