The New York Times pulls its stories from Apple News, saying the service does not align with its strategy of building direct relationships with paying readers
one that can hopefully be converted to subscription,” and a platform like Apple News does not help enough with that goal to make it worth participating. https://www.niemanlab.org/... Nancy Scola / @nancyscola : Possible to see this and the Facebook ad boycott as part of a larger trend: third-party companies that jumped into relationships with the platforms are beginning to question how well those arrangements are serving them. https://twitter.com/... Max Tani / @maxwelltani : Starting on Monday, Apple News will be offering more aggregation by other outlets of New York Times articles. https://twitter.com/... @jstoff : The New York Times also lets you subscribe online easily, but you can't cancel a subscription without calling their service line. No better than your common cable company in that “direct relationship.” https://twitter.com/... Dylan Byers / @dylanbyers : >> Full Apple statement re: New York Times decision to pull out of Apple News: https://twitter.com/... David Grunwald / @st_eppel : The question is: when did Apple News ever align with the Times' strategy of building direct relationships with readers. Why did it sign up in the first place? https://twitter.com/... Will Oremus / @willoremus : I dug into the economics of Apple News in 2018 and found it was giving news publishers tons of readers—but hardly any money: https://slate.com/... Now the NY Times is opting out, @kdoctor reports. https://twitter.com/... @gregbensinger : This seems sensible. The tech firms that would offer to help with distribution are not mercenaries — they want direct access to readers https://twitter.com/... Kevin Baron / @defensebaron : Agree. Paraphrasing NYT's COO on journalism's questions for platforms: Do you drive readers to our sites, or steal them? Do you actually help us reach wider audiences? Do you pay or return in value at all the original journalism from which you're making money off of our backs? https://twitter.com/... @seyitaylor : Aggregators deciding not to get re-aggregated. https://twitter.com/... Casey Newton / @caseynewton : Good! It absolutely does not https://twitter.com/... Dan Lyons / @realdanlyons : great move bc fuck apple news https://twitter.com/... See also Mediagazer
New York Times
Context & Ripple Effects
The Times' exit from Apple News is the culmination of an arc its own coverage has traced for a year: warnings that Apple News+ could decimate publisher revenue and disrupt the reader relationship, and the paper's May 2020 move to stop third-party ad targeting in favor of a first-party data platform built on 45 proprietary audience segments. Leaving the platform is the distribution half of that same first-party bet.
It also lands against a backdrop where Apple News+ itself has struggled — 200,000 sign-ups in its first 48 hours but slow growth since — which weakens the case for publishers to trade their brand and billing relationship for a bundled service.
First-order effects
Starting Monday, Apple News compensates for the hole by allowing more aggregation of New York Times articles by other outlets inside the app, so the Times loses control of how its journalism appears on the platform while Apple keeps the traffic.
The Times consolidates all reader touchpoints behind its own subscription funnel, consistent with the first-party strategy it announced weeks earlier.
Second-order effects
Publishers without the Times' subscription scale face a sharper fork: later coverage shows outlets like The Daily Beast and Time deepening their reliance on Apple News+ for seven-figure annual revenue, so Apple can backfill premium slots with partners who accept the bundle economics.
The exit strengthens the argument regulators are already making in Australia and France about forcing platforms to pay publishers for news — a payment model that would change the math for every publisher weighing this trade.
Third-order effects
News publishing splits structurally into two camps: at-scale subscription brands that treat platforms as optional reach, and smaller outlets that become revenue-dependent on those same platforms — giving Apple growing gatekeeper power over exactly the tier it once threatened to decimate.
Meta's parallel retreat from its News tab signals the broader pattern Nancy Scola flagged alongside the Facebook ad boycott: platforms are re-evaluating news partnerships just as some publishers conclude the arrangements serve them less than promised.
The trend: Subscription-scale publishers are exiting platform news distribution to own the reader relationship directly, while smaller outlets drift the other way into platform dependence.
New: The New York Times is pulling its stories from Apple News, the latest salvo in the struggle between publishers and Silicon Valley. w/ @Kellen_Browning https://www.nytimes.com/...
Definitely the right decision. All these services run contrary to publisher interests and can only sustain themselves when publishers are producing surpluses of desperation. https://www.nytimes.com/...
The NY Times has power and privilege to make this decision, but it's worth paying attention to - especially their reasons why 👀https://www.niemanlab.org/ ...
If we've learned anything, it's the platforms only have their best interest at heart, not the interest of news organizations. Advertisers should take the money they've been pouring into Facebook and give it right to the publishers. https://www.nytimes.com/...
It's a good time to remind everyone that what the NYT does or does not do may not necessarily be the right thing for your newsroom. https://twitter.com/...
Not surprised. I said it last year and I'll say it now: if you're a publisher and want to have a relationship with your readers, you should always fully control your business. An aggregator is almost never a good deal. https://twitter.com/...
We have a survey running benchmarking Apple News+ right now and even with a segment of our panel that is hardcore Apple camp we are having trouble finding critical mass of News+ subscribers. May need to be a bundle with TV+, Arcade, etc. https://twitter.com/...
Direct relation = We own the cancellation process. Rest all data analytics and personalization and digital disintermediation is hogwash. https://twitter.com/...
Also, I'm not sure this has any impact on Apple News (especially since the Times wasn't part of Apple News+), except to give other big publications the courage to dump it too. But the free Apple News will continue as it does.
The New York Times is removing itself from Apple News because it wants “a direct reader relationship — one that can hopefully be converted to subscription,” and a platform like Apple News does not help enough with that goal to make it worth participating. https://www.niemanlab.or…
Possible to see this and the Facebook ad boycott as part of a larger trend: third-party companies that jumped into relationships with the platforms are beginning to question how well those arrangements are serving them. https://twitter.com/...
The New York Times also lets you subscribe online easily, but you can't cancel a subscription without calling their service line. No better than your common cable company in that “direct relationship.” https://twitter.com/...
The question is: when did Apple News ever align with the Times' strategy of building direct relationships with readers. Why did it sign up in the first place? https://twitter.com/...
I dug into the economics of Apple News in 2018 and found it was giving news publishers tons of readers—but hardly any money: https://slate.com/... Now the NY Times is opting out, @kdoctor reports. https://twitter.com/...
This seems sensible. The tech firms that would offer to help with distribution are not mercenaries — they want direct access to readers https://twitter.com/...
Agree. Paraphrasing NYT's COO on journalism's questions for platforms: Do you drive readers to our sites, or steal them? Do you actually help us reach wider audiences? Do you pay or return in value at all the original journalism from which you're making money off of our backs? ht…