• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
Slate - The world's most valuable company is wooing the media with a human touch and a huge audience. One thing it hasn't delivered: money.

Since 2017, scandals involving fake news, Russian electoral interference, and user privacy have sullied the social network's reputation. Facebook has responded to the criticism partly by trying to exert more control over what stories appear in users' feeds—but also partly by simply showing them less news. For many publishers (though certainly not all), traffic from Facebook has nosedived.

This change in the landscape has left both readers and publishers casting about for new platforms. Google, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, and Flipboard are among those that have sought to fill the vacuum left by Facebook's pullback—each bringing its own set of incentives for publishers who want to reach more readers. But one platform in particular has exploded as a news source in the past year, and it promises an antidote to some of the poisonous dynamics that Facebook had set in motion. That platform is Apple News.
Launched to rather tepid fanfare three years ago, Apple's mobile news app has recently surged in popularity and influence, if publishers' traffic figures are any indication. Sources at several news outlets say they've seen their audience on Apple News multiply in 2018 alone. Some now say it has become one of their top traffic sources, alongside Facebook and Google. At Slate, which disclosed its data for this story, page views on Apple News have roughly tripled since September 2017, and the app recently surpassed Facebook as a driver of readership.

Conversations with social media consultants and people who work in audience development at major publications, along with recent reports by other outlets, suggest Slate is not an outlier—which is why many news organizations are now making Apple News an important part of their strategy to reach as large an audience as possible.
There is, of course, a catch. Whereas Facebook sent hordes of readers from its news feed to publishers' websites, Apple tends to keep them inside its app. And so far, publishers have found that's not a lucrative place to be. Although it's been two years since Apple partnered with NBCUniversal to sell ads inside the app, several sources at media outlets told me that they're seeing little to no ad revenue from Apple News.

The problem, publishers say, is that Apple doesn't sell many ads within the app—not nearly as many as you'd find on most websites—and it doesn't make it particularly easy for publishers to sell their own. Apple News doesn't support some of the common ad formats or systems that dominate ad sales on the web, and not all media companies find it worthwhile to develop and sell custom ads just for Apple News. (Those that do can keep all the revenue or they can let Apple sell them, in which case Apple takes a 30 percent cut.) As Matt Karolian, the Boston Globe's director of new initiatives, told me, "The juice ain't worth the squeeze."
So why would an industry largely sustained by ads go in on a platform that, thus far, does not pay? Because Apple News may represent a saner way of discovering the news than Facebook. And because there are some indirect ways in which publishers believe the app's massive audience will make them money.
Because Apple both tightly controls the platform and closely guards its data, there are no definitive industrywide figures on Apple News traffic. But the company does share some data with its media partners. And that data is as encouraging as the data coming out of Facebook is dispiriting. The Information reported in February that there were days when Vox got half of its daily traffic from Apple News. Business Insider reported in May that Vice's Apple News traffichad more than doubled in the past year. Digiday reported in January that ABC News had more than 400,000 people signed up for its alerts on Apple News.

Mother Jones, meanwhile, has seen a 400 percent leap in Apple News audience since last September, said Ben Dreyfuss, its editorial director for growth and strategy. The spike began in the first few months of 2018, he added, when readership doubled in consecutive months. That kind of growth would grab media companies' attention no matter where it was coming from. No wonder a Digiday poll in February found that more media executives were prioritizing Apple News over other platforms.
The audience isn't the only thing that excites publishers. Unlike Facebook, Apple News employs humans to choose its top stories and takes cues from editors at the news organizations with which it partners. The result is a platform that looks more like an online magazine than an algorithmically generated feed—one where editorial judgments about news value tend to trump viral clickbait, and breaking news and original features outrank partisan hot takes. By regularly delivering push notifications to users from publications they've signaled interest in, the app gives editors a direct line to readers' phones. It is, in many ways, the anti-Facebook that the mainstream news media (and some of its savvier consumers) have been craving.

"If you were to sit down with publishers and ask them what they would want to see in a multi-source news app, it would look probably pretty much identical to Apple News," said Karolian, who has worked to develop the Globe's presence on the platform.
How Apple News decides what stories to feature in each user's app is a bit murky. Several sources confirmed to Slate a February report from the Information that Apple has set up Slack channels in which editors at major publications can pitch stories for it to feature. BBC News has one, as does Slate. Apple News also sometimes rewrites headlines on the articles it picks for its featured sections, and uses its Slack channels to make sure those changes are accurate. Sources at two midsize publications said they do not have access to a Slack channel with Apple News, though one said he corresponds occasionally with the app's editors via email.
The audience growth and the human editing is the good news for publishers. And so far, that seems to outweigh their disappointment in the revenue. The reason is that there may be other ways to leverage the Apple News readership.

Slate's Schieffer told me that the magazine uses its Apple News ad slots on house ads promoting its own podcasts, and hopes to use the app in the future to drive sign-ups for its Slate Plus membership program. That's a model that does appear to hold some promise: The Washington Post told the Information earlier this year that it was gaining hundreds of paying subscribers through Apple News each day. And Apple reportedly plans to eventually incorporate Texture into its own premium subscription service—like Apple Music, but for news.* (Texture, whose service has been glossed as "Netflix for magazines," gives users access to digitized versions of dozens of magazines for a single monthly subscription.)
News organizations are probably right to cheer a platform that seems to eschew the worst tendencies of the social media age. But if they want to be sustained by Apple News, they better hope it starts getting serious about ad sales soon—or that other benefits, like a boost in subscriptions, go from theoretical to concrete. If the Facebook era taught us anything, it's that bad habits are always only so far away.

tldr - Apple News using human curation is better than the chaos of clickbait trash on Facebook, but this human interaction (e.g. slack channels) might be too skewed towards major news outlets. Restrictive ad management and keeping users in the Apple News app itself also means most sources are not seeing increased revenue despite increased views / traffic. The increased visits may lead to news sources that offer subscription services getting increased revenue that way, though.

Even shorter tldr - fuk u Apple release the News app in more than three countries.
 

uzipukki

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,722
Still can't understand why Apple News isn't available in more countries.
 
OP
OP
signal

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
It's been years and Apple News is still only available in a handful of countries, excluding mine!
Apple news app still isn't available in Norway but the widget is.
Still can't understand why Apple News isn't available in more countries.
It's still only US, UK and Australia isn't it? smh. I don't even know if I would use it much (it depends on how much I can curate the topics and what the sources are) but I like well designed curated news apps. Could replace the sort-of dead RSS for me. Newspicks exists but I don't like it.
 

uzipukki

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,722
It's still only US, UK and Australia isn't it? smh. I don't even know if I would use it much (it depends on how much I can curate the topics and what the sources are) but I like well designed curated news apps. Could replace the sort-of dead RSS for me. Newspicks exists but I don't like it.
Not sure of the countries but way too many countries are missing. I would love to see some of the tech news etc. with Apple News myself. Not sure how much I would use it but would love the option of being able to use it. Oh well, maybe in 2030.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,103
Sweden
I used Google News for awhile. It's also very slick, but they just link to the sources websites, so you're going from "Man this looks great" to "OH GOD WHAT IS THIS!?" with obscenely large ads, autoplaying videos, jumping text and overall a hellscape for reading.
 
OP
OP
signal

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
Not sure of the countries but way too many countries are missing. I would love to see some of the tech news etc. with Apple News myself. Not sure how much I would use it but would love the option of being able to use it. Oh well, maybe in 2030.
Just checked - only 3! Some of those traffic numbers are pretty high considering the limited numbers then. I guess since a lot of the content isn't just scraped from the sources, there might be language issues resulting in a slow rollout, but that wouldn't explain countries like Canada being excluded. It's also been like three years lol.
HnrMF0x.png


I used Google News for awhile. It's also very slick, but they just link to the sources websites, so you're going from "Man this looks great" to "OH GOD WHAT IS THIS!?" with obscenely large ads, autoplaying videos, jumping text and overall a hellscape for reading.
How much of an article is shown before you have to exit the app to go to the source itself? Google News topic selection never worked for me but even if it did, I hated the fact that it was literally just feeding me amp pages.
 

Deleted member 8860

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,525
As the article notes, the lack of revenue is tied directly to the limited number (and limited obnoxiousness) of ads on the platform and the all-in-one nature of the app which doesn't kick readers out to the source websites.

These are all reader-centric principles.

(FWIW, I don't use Apple News, but rather Heartfeed with my own selected RSS feeds.)
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,103
Sweden
How much of an article is shown before you have to exit the app to go to the source itself? Google News topic selection never worked for me but even if it did, I hated the fact that it was literally just feeding me amp pages.
The title, a picture and the ingress, I think.

I also think the news business needs someone like Apple with an iron fist, that can rethink the experience and ask money for that. I gladly pay a subscription for a news app if it is slick, has good content and is enjoyable to read.

No wonder many people think news should be free when there's so much shit out there.
 

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,190
It's curated by humans, so I suppose they just don't want to invest the money needed to expand the app into more countries/languages.
I mean, we're not talking about dozens upon dozens of people here.

All you need is one or two per country to read the news and decide what is worthy of a repost.
 

chubigans

Vertigo Gaming Inc.
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
2,560
I love apple news, and in fact subscribed to the Washington post because of it. Interesting article, thanks for sharing!
 
OP
OP
signal

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
The title, a picture and the ingress, I think.

I also think the news business needs someone like Apple with an iron fist, that can rethink the experience and ask money for that. I gladly pay a subscription for a news app if it is slick, has good content and is enjoyable to read.

No wonder many people think news should be free when there's so much shit out there.
Curious to see how their subscription thing (which I have no doubt is coming) will work. I wonder if more would be interested in some a la carte style service or a Netflix-style pay a fee and access everything.
 

B'z-chan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,110
I would pay a small fee for access to the content available on Apple news if I knew it didn't all go to Apple. They created a compelling aggregator that actually makes reading articles interesting and informative, but at the end of the day it's not Apple writing all those articles.
 

jwhit28

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,052
Apple will have to put 20 shocking stories I won't believe at the end of every article.
 
OP
OP
signal

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
I would pay a small fee for access to the content available on Apple news if I knew it didn't all go to Apple. They created a compelling aggregator that actually makes reading articles interesting and informative, but at the end of the day it's not Apple writing all those articles.
They sometimes write headlines though! Worth a few cents.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
The hilarious thing is the requirements to deliver news to Apple News are really annoying compared to something like AMP. Google has their bots that will scrape your existing site instead of having to send shit to Apple. Then again I think Apple is still running some of that web objects stuff from Jobs's NEXT nonsense so they have no trouble supporting weird shit.
 
OP
OP
signal

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
The hilarious thing is the requirements to deliver news to Apple News are really annoying compared to something like AMP. Google has their bots that will scrape your existing site instead of having to send shit to Apple. Then again I think Apple is still running some of that web objects stuff from Jobs's NEXT nonsense so they have no trouble supporting weird shit.
Yeah but for readers this is probably better. I don't see much point in Google News being an "app" that's just serving me AMP pages. Might as well just use google news' site itself.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,865
I never understood how you could access paywalled content in the app. I subscribe to the wsj but my friend doesn't and often can see the best articles in the app.

The app is great by the way. Apple should just license stories or something. Facebook is garbage.
 

WillyFive

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,979
App is great, hopefully Apple can find a way to monetize it more for the press without ruining it for readers.
 

ghostemoji

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,818
There was a very obvious switch in friends sharing me news from urls I recognized into only using the Apple News url. You even see it here. It seems kind of shitty to be honest.

Then again most people are blocking ads anyway. So that doesn't help either.
 

dmoe

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,290
I actually really like the news app; its quite underated. News sites have turn into pop up videos, ads, auto plays, everything thats wrong with the internet and the Apple News app fixes that
 

SwampBastard

The Fallen
Nov 1, 2017
11,040
There was a very obvious switch in friends sharing me news from urls I recognized into only using the Apple News url. You even see it here. It seems kind of shitty to be honest.
I have noticed the same thing. I pretty much always end up Googling the article instead of using the Apple News link because I wasn't sure if Apple got any revenue from my clicks or not.
 

Uno Venova

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,858
This thread sold me on opening the app for the first time and now I'm going to use it everyday. Its real nice.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,846
I'd say the real problem comes back to "people" (mostly corporations) expecting quality journalism to be a significant money maker.

Almost all the problems with journalism disappear once you're not expecting to extract ever-increasing profits. You don't have to make your user experience terrible to stuff ads and tracking scripts everywhere, you can afford not to spend your time churning out clickbait.

If they can't succeed via Apple's rules, I'm not all that interested in their survival. I'm not going to deal with a frustrating experience to get my news.
 

Deleted member 11626

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,199
It's my preferred way of catching up. I don't have social media and I'm not going to download an app for each outlet, so Apple News fits the bill perfectly. They need to release it in more countries though
 

Border

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,859
Apple really ought to partner with and pay their news sources.

The News app is great though. It's so nice to be able to read articles without the increasingly invasive ads or deal with stories that try to send/link you to other stories before you've even gotten done reading the one you wanted.
 

shenden

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,306
I don't give a shit about news. I do give a shit that here in Sweden we still don't have support for QuickType. I mean what the fuck Apple!??
 

MistaTwo

SNK Gaming Division Studio 1
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
2,456
So wait... Sorry if I am going off topic but I literally didn't know this was a thing.

It's a News app on one of the world's biggest global digital platforms and it's only available in 3 countries?

So even as an English speaker in Japan, I can't just download it and... Read the news?

About what I would expect from the most courageous company out there.

I can get the fucking New York Times delivered to my door if I wanted.

And they say print media are behind the times. smdh.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,229
The hilarious thing is the requirements to deliver news to Apple News are really annoying compared to something like AMP. Google has their bots that will scrape your existing site instead of having to send shit to Apple. Then again I think Apple is still running some of that web objects stuff from Jobs's NEXT nonsense so they have no trouble supporting weird shit.

AMP is far more detrimental to the open web as a whole than Apple News is.
 

badcrumble

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,732
I wish Apple News were *slightly* better for power users/news junkies.

It's kinda iffy on adding lesser-known RSS feeds, for one, but I'd also dearly love to see it smartly pull articles from my email inboxes. Sherlocking Nuzzel would be great, too; more Twitter integration (on par with RSS) would generally be really nice.

Not surprised that it isn't generating enough revenue for news publishers, though; neither are Twitter/Facebook/Google. It's kind of an impossible problem to solve, to be frank.

"Free" ad-supported news can't just be put back into Pandora's box - there's effectively infinite competition out there (and for the foreseeable future, "shitty but free" will always beat "paywalled but good content" for reaching a wide audience).

To go back to what I was saying about power-users - I think centralizing news discovery for power users under a single app is a much easier problem to solve than the news-publisher-revenue problem OR the "fake news" problem, so I hope Apple tackles that first and then maybe starts building toward solving those other issues from there.
 
Last edited:

ruggiex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,085
Yeah but for readers this is probably better. I don't see much point in Google News being an "app" that's just serving me AMP pages. Might as well just use google news' site itself.

The back end of the Google news app is the same as the news site but on mobile platform the app is much easier and faster to browse or change preferences/interests. I don't really mind the AMP pages on mobile since the ads in there are fairly well formatted. If that's what it takes for me to get news for free that works for me.
 

badcrumble

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,732
I wouldn't be incredibly surprised to see Apple offer a sort of bundled-subscription thing that covers the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times, and maybe a few others at some point in the future, since Apple News *does* support paywalls where applicable (obviously it's very easy for minimally savvy users to get around paywalls but yeah).
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
AMP is far more detrimental to the open web as a whole than Apple News is.

I'd love to see you expand on this point of view because both of them are detrimental in my eyes, but at least with AMP publishers' CPMs are solid. (I work for a media company)

Also AMP's paradigms (almost no custom javascript, small amount of CSS, small or no amount of external HTTP requests) generate a better user experience. Things like AMP wouldn't be necessary if the web wasn't full of terrible publisher websites that are loaded down with ad calls that go through seventeen redirects in order to generate a flat image with a link.

My own personal feelings: any publisher being beholden to Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple for a large amount of ad revenue would make me nervous. Any time any of these companies change anything, it could severely fuck up your business. The web has to move to people being accepting of monetized information, in an ideal world I should say. Because I don't see people paying for 99% of written content.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,229
I'd love to see you expand on this point of view because both of them are detrimental in my eyes, but at least with AMP publishers' CPMs are solid. (I work for a media company)

Also AMP's paradigms (almost no custom javascript, small amount of CSS, small or no amount of external HTTP requests) generate a better user experience. Things like AMP wouldn't be necessary if the web wasn't full of terrible publisher websites that are loaded down with ad calls that go through seventeen redirects in order to generate a flat image with a link.

My own personal feelings: any publisher being beholden to Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple for a large amount of ad revenue would make me nervous. Any time any of these companies change anything, it could severely fuck up your business. The web has to move to people being accepting of monetized information, in an ideal world I should say. Because I don't see people paying for 99% of written content.

Content delivered via AMP gets better SEO in Google Search
AMP obfuscates URL structures (though they may have backtracked on this)
The push for AMP in email is EXTREMELY problematic as email has always been static and opens up room for people to abuse it

There's plenty of stories/discussion on people having problems with AMP on HackerNews where more technological coverage is given: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13414570, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14635013, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17717241 and many more

From an "open web stand point" Google have this much of the pipeline IS a problem. Browser, search, and now content all of which is given priority within Google services.
 

borghe

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,112
I wouldn't be incredibly surprised to see Apple offer a sort of bundled-subscription thing that covers the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times, and maybe a few others at some point in the future, since Apple News *does* support paywalls where applicable (obviously it's very easy for minimally savvy users to get around paywalls but yeah).
I would be fine with this, as long as I got to choose the bundle to a degree.. I'd hate to pay for 4 news sources I love, only to have to give money to the NYT (for example) to do so.

I mean the news should be FREE for everyone.. but then give subscribers added benefits (social pieces, editorials, etc). I'd be ok with this. Currently only pay for Reuters TV ($2/month) but would gladly pay for more to support high quality journalism.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
Content delivered via AMP gets better SEO in Google Search
AMP obfuscates URL structures (though they may have backtracked on this)
The push for AMP in email is EXTREMELY problematic as email has always been static and opens up room for people to abuse it

There's plenty of stories/discussion on people having problems with AMP on HackerNews where more technological coverage is given: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13414570, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14635013, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17717241 and many more

From an "open web stand point" Google have this much of the pipeline IS a problem. Browser, search, and now content all of which is given priority within Google services.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I'm trying to contrast this with Apple News and I'm unclear why Apple wouldn't be guilty of this as well. Is this just down to Google controlling 95% of searches?
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,229
I don't disagree with any of this. But I'm trying to contrast this with Apple News and I'm unclear why Apple wouldn't be guilty of this as well. Is this just down to Google controlling 95% of searches?

Apple News is self contained to, well, Apple News. Apple isn't forcing publishers across the web to use a service that then rewards those via a search engine.
Google is pushing AMP as a solution to a "slow" web, which is just wrong.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
Apple News is self contained to, well, Apple News. Apple isn't forcing publishers across the web to use a service that then rewards those via a search engine.
Google is pushing AMP as a solution to a "slow" web, which is just wrong.

The web is slow as fuck and Google's solutions do indeed make for faster responding pages. The number one indicator of return traffic is responsiveness.

Google isn't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it to make money. The same as Apple is doing. But they don't require you to literally send the information to Apple as if this is a fax machine from 1985.

Neither company is altruistic but I fail to see how Google is far more disruptive than Apple in this particular instance. I had to create motherfucking database tables to track which articles we've sent to Apple and which we hadn't. And then fucking POST the articles after generating authorization headers with sha256 encryption to Apple News. The barrier to entry is far higher from the Apple end. Not to mention how terrible the iCloud interface is for managing this shit.

If anything with Google leveraging web tech instead of a different app, it's more likely that it's able to be crawled by other sources than Google. Which isn't something you could say about Apple.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,229
The web is slow as fuck and Google's solutions do indeed make for faster responding pages. The number one indicator of return traffic is responsiveness.

Google isn't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it to make money. The same as Apple is doing. But they don't require you to literally send the information to Apple as if this is a fax machine from 1985.

Neither company is altruistic but I fail to see how Google is far more disruptive than Apple in this particular instance. I had to create motherfucking database tables to track which articles we've sent to Apple and which we hadn't. And then fucking POST the articles after generating authorization headers with sha256 encryption to Apple News. The barrier to entry is far higher from the Apple end. Not to mention how terrible the iCloud interface is for managing this shit.

If anything with Google leveraging web tech instead of a different app, it's more likely that it's able to be crawled by other sources than Google. Which isn't something you could say about Apple.

My comment was not about who was right or wrong when it comes to handling news articles, simply stating that AMP as a whole is detrimental to the open web. The things Google is doing with AMP, Chrome, and their services is counter intuitive to their whole mission early on. Google is very much in the MS phase of "Embrace, extend, extinguish". If it wasn't for the massive pushes and drives of advertising, thanks in part to Google, we wouldn't be needing things like AMP.