Apple Said Apple News+ Cares About Users, But It Actually Doesn't

If there's something Apple News+ really cares about, it's the revenue, not the news itself. So while publishers are struggling with the fact that Apple will only offer them a fraction of the $10 payment each month from each user, they are eager to be in harness with this tech giant.

This poses a much bigger threat than that of Facebook since Instant Articles can eliminate the relationship between readers and writers, but at least it provides free content from publishers only. But Apple will create an unfathomable hole that let premium, paywall-protected articles to leak. Why bother paying for the original publishers while you can choose whatever you want to read, with top-quality content just by paying for Apple News+? The data, information, relationship with subscribers, are all theirs.

Apple News+

And while paying for Apple seems like a great deal compared to paying to subscribe to dozens of various publishers for readers, this can be the worst nightmare of journalism, which accelerates the downfall of traditional news sites. Even worse, if publishers are willing to cooperate with Apple, they will just give it more control and power.

So why and how Apple News+ can be a threat to publishers?

They control the relationship with readers

To make money, every site needs users' information, attention, and revenue. They earn through ads, promotion, marketing or ad targeting, all of which require user's information when they visit the site and gathered through cookies, email addresses, or payment information. And when Apple is the owner of these types of information and access, publishers are left with nothing.

Newspapers used to live on based on users' subscriptions and now it is interrupted by Apple

What's more? Apple News+ will suggest related articles from competitive sources in each and every articles of publishers. They have no control over their own exposure to the audiences and readers. That means no bookmark, no favorite sites, no follows for journalists and content creators. Highlight news means nothing. Why the readers bother surfing every site choosing the best article and content when Apple News+ can do it for them within a click? And guess what, publishers will finally have to go to any length just to keep their followers, even overusing sensationalism.

And even the exposure of publishers

Apple has full control over how a publisher's news and articles are displayed on its platform, by which decide which publishers can earn more than the others. Is it truly fair for the publishers when now the readers have access to articles by Apple's choices, not by their own choices based on the quality and recognition of the newspaper? Keep in mind that Apple only cares about the revenue, not the news itself, so it has all the rights to display whatever can keep and attract the vast majority of readers regardless of its depth and quality of information.

Even worse, if Apple decided to give a certain publisher's greatest competitor all the display and exposure while still shaving off only a fraction of its revenue for the said publisher's premium exclusive content, that will be the death of it.

Apple News+'s editor's pick

Apple News+ can even favor certain topics from time to time, and imagine it works like Facebook when it preferred family and friends content. This will put great pressure on content creators and publishers who are major in only a few topics, so while the Wall Street Journal declared that it is hiring 50 employers for the Apple News+ content exclusively, they sure will have a hard, perilous time.

And what if Apple decides that it is fed up with the platform and doesn't need it anymore when its revenue is just a fraction of their businesses, so it shuts down the entire platform just like what Facebook did with its Instant Articles? Even the favorite publishers which are depending on the platform will be left alone with the unfathomable loss of readers and revenue. This is an existing risk that we all have seen and what can ensure that it won't happen again?

They don't care about the news itself

Last year, Apple bought the magazine platform Texture as an attempt to become a reliable news provider. Turns out, it just wants to make the app more visually appealing by displaying images and cover from famous magazines and puts the text-based articles to the bottom without a useful way to get to and find them but swiping through a long stack of articles.

This results in the inequality access to magazines and traditional news articles. While magazines only need standalone images to be appealing, text-based but informed articles are left behind with far behind views and attention. And while the publishers have ways to control how this is distributed equally throughout their sites, Apple only cares about visual effects to attract viewers, while in the meantime steal the places designated for promotion, ads, and offers from newspapers.

Problems with the platform itself

Remember what happened with the music industry when iTunes appear? Before the time of online music platform, music artists often earned their money by having only 1 flagship, blockbuster single song. Fans were willing to spend $16 on the whole album just to get that single and ended up listening to the other songs then decided to buy by-products and attending concerts, giving the artist the ticket sales.

Then everything has changed since the online music era, why fans must bother buying the whole album when they can easily download their favorite and blockbuster single with just $0.99, a fraction of what they had to pay in the past? While this might be a sweet deal for content consumers, it is a disaster for the artists and the publishers alike. Similarly, no readers feel the need to pay for a full subscription for a newspaper when they can easily access to top-quality, exclusive articles that used to be the financial makers for the newspapers.

Readers used to have to pay $30 for a full subscription for the Wall Street Journal to access their top content every month. The money was worth it for the users because of the quality which the exclusive articles brought, and the newspaper could keep the solid money without sharing it for anyone to cover every fee even if people don't read anything at all. It was a buffet thing. But with Apple News+, articles are paid separately, à la carte, making an unstable income for the publishers, not to mention the amount of income is shattered between Apple (they charge 50% of the revenue) and other publishers as well.

What's more? Apple doesn't feel the need for providing "the best", only the "acceptable" product. What this means is that it has exclusively owned a solid users base on their ecosystem. Much like when Instagram kicked Snapchat out of the game with the appearance of Story though it wasn't even as good but instead owned a strong amount of existing users. With Apple users, the Apple News+ app is already pre-installed in the devices with a cheaper price than the competitors and other uncountable privileges that Apple grants it. Even if the platform is just acceptable with a moderate price for access to top quality content for top newspapers, users will use and pay for it anyway.

But the "acceptable" products really enough to provide users? I don't think so.