This quote is from a post from early yesterday:
> Is Apple building a news funnel where all payment for web content flows through their coffers? Will Apple steer paid ads through Apple’s mobile advertising platform, iAd?
And this is from the Wall Street Journal:
>For Apple, blocking ads could be popular with many consumers, because it will enable mobile web pages to load faster and remove annoying clutter.
>
>The move might also serve to benefit the company’s forthcoming Apple News application, some industry observers say. The app will host articles from major news publishers and also will come bundled with iOS 9. The blocking of ads in Safari mobile browsers may force publishers to put more emphasis on distributing content through apps, including their own as well as perhaps Apple’s.
>
> One publishing executive noted the “dichotomy” between Apple’s rollout of ad-blocking and the News app, which is ad-supported. Apple will get a cut of the ad revenue when it sells ads in the app.
>
> Several publishers, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, Daily Mail and Time Inc., have agreed to distribute content on Apple News.
Remember music before iTunes? Chaos into order, with a more predictable cut for musicians, more power to package your own product, get it into the store without the middle person. In embracing this arguably better model, we have trusted Apple as the keeper of music.
This same move seems to be coming for content publishing and its accompanying ads. The ability for users to cut ads out of the stream is one thing, but to use that power to steer content publishers to a single platform truly makes me uneasy.
Is that what’s happening here? Is Apple giving users the switch so they can turn off the traditional access to advertising? Will Apple then step in and offer the News app as a white knight to save the day for bloggers who need ads to keep the lights on?
Am I wrong to feel a bit nervous about this coming wrinkle?
I doubt anyone who is forced to work with Apple news would consider them a white knight. If anything, being forced to work with the company that put your site out of business would be like making a deal with the devil.
It’s the 30 percent cut that would bother me. But didn’t they say they’re rethinking that for News? I can’t remember exactly what they were talking about. You can bet the Justice Department will start snooping around now. Their credibility in dealing with Apple is very poor. But in this case, they might have a case if this is how it’s going down.
Or… maybe Apple just wants to create a better experience for its customers. I would much prefer Apple’s system (more efficient web browsing, less annoying ads), with an app for curated news. Seems like everyone wins: consumers get a great app that works better than any webpage, creators get ad revenue without affecting the user experience negatively, and Apple gets a cut for their effort/hosting.
It seems like there’s a lot of assumption in this loopinsight report. As an Apple fan, I love this site and check it daily. But please keep in mind that this website has a reputation for being an ‘Apple fan’ site, and anything that is said here can (and sometimes is), used to spread anti-Apple FUD and blown up 10 fold. Please keep this in consideration. Thank you.
Well, you couldn’t do it yourselves, so we’ll do it for you. Notice how digital music purchasing/ownership works better, plays for sure? Artists can self publish music and books and get 70%, as well as international distribution. With Amazon, Hulu, until recently, Netflix, etc, you just get geoblocked. Obviously Clarkson and Co went for the money as they’re burnt out, rather than global viewership.
I don’t think Apple is going for global control of news, etc, it’s just that digital content sucks, like phones before the iPhone. Plus they can stab Google in the face, after they get the knife out of their back.
There are obviously sites like this and Fireball, Asymco, MacRumors, etc that serve readers well, but you can count them on your fingers, you don’t need an abacus.
Isn’t 70% of more better than .0x% of a little? It also appears that most sites are being controlled by the ad networks anyway. Ritchie is not happy being a Ho, so a less appalling alternative could easily be better. Are they not controlled by an actual devil(s) now?