Apple News+ subscription growth blows away major media sites : apple

[-] RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

I love my News+ subscription. Lots of great things to read and no clutter.

[-] ji17br@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 month ago

It bothers me that they show ads in the news app for news+ subscribers

[-] RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah definitely not ideal. I wish it was clean with 0 ads.

[-] diggit@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 weeks ago

That’s why I stopped paying them for it. I still use it, I’ll still look at their ads. But not both.

[-] ji17br@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yeah I only have it because of Apple One Sub, I definitely wouldn’t pay for it standalone

[-] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

News++ is great but I don’t know if I’d subscribe to it outside of the fact it’s included in the bundle

[-] noname_yet2077@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Is it a paid subscription? I think i might know the answer, but I'll ask anyway

[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Yes. And most people end up with it in a bundle.

[+] yesman@lemmy.world -9 points 1 month ago

Paying for news? lol

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 month ago

What's wrong with that? You either buy a product or are a product.

[-] countablenewt@allthingstech.social 9 points 1 month ago

@misk @yesman also you get three options: pay for news, get predatory ads and unreadable websites, or state funded media

Scummy fourth option is Adblock

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago

The side effect of the fourth option is your news outlet dies because it can't get any money

[-] balder1993@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

What I’ve noticed that happened in Brazil is that most major news channels have 2 websites: a subscription one with quality articles and a free one with very summarized AI lazily written news with no details or context.

There’s really not much to it, quality content needs money and ads don’t pay off for all of it (besides the fact nowadays people just blocks them).

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

npr and associated press are free and not for profit.

[-] arquebus_x@kbin.social 4 points 1 month ago

NPR is not free; it's paid for by taxes, which means that every U.S. citizen is in fact paying for news whether they like it or not. And "not for profit" is not the same as "no cost to the consumer." In addition, most of the outlets for NPR are local public radio stations that are - you guessed it - funded by taxes (as well as fund drives).

[-] explore_broaden@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago

NPR/public radio stations get less than 10% of their funding from the federal government.

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago

NPR gets most of its money from corporate sponsorships, which means advertisements, which falls back to being the product

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

obviously nothing is literally “free”, that’s a trivial point to make. operational funds have to come for somewhere. The point was there's no additional cost to the reader (that they aren't already paying for) to get news from those sources and they don't depend on ad revenue or data monetization to make a profit.

[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Fair point, I don't envy much about America but NPR is a gem. There's much more included in News+ though.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 1 month ago

Pretty sure AP is funded by newspapers

Apple

Welcome

Rules:

Communities of Interest: