Fortunately? I mean, even if it were…you wouldn’t have to use it…
Unless you find the mere existence of it intolerable? 🤷
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Further Expanding Into Ads, Now Directly Selling Ads in News App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unless you find the mere existence of it intolerable? 🤷
I have no problem paying via ads if I am not also paying top dollar for the devices and services. Apple seems to be going into a direction where one pays top dollar for the devices and services AND pays via ads. That is not for me. If you don't mind, by all means, pay both ways.
At least in the US, if this past election is any indication, legacy news/media is on its way out the door and there’s an all time low of viewership, as well as trust. Podcasts and other similar avenues are where it’s at. No more advertisements. On a global scale even, people are tired of those.
Apple tax just keeps increasing. Sooner or later Apple is going to irritate people enough to drop their products. How much more money does Apple really need?
Ad revenue won’t make up for the damage to the brand.
This is what you get with mediocre leaderships, and teams fighting for that kpi/visibility/promotions. There’s no one to say no to these decisions
This is what you get with mediocre leaderships, and teams fighting for that kpi/visibility/promotions. There’s no one to say no to these decisions
Last edited:
Me too. Just another way to keep zombie-media alive.
I don't even read this stuff uncurated for free anywhere. Here the app isn't even available. But I can just start the hidden file on my Mac without changing the location.
All those media outlets can't even survive in a free market. They get most of their money from big companies and governments that make the laws for those big companies. So they are all indirectly subsidized by tax payers money with ads directly from the government and some very big companies that bought the government to do what they want, what mostly is a disadvantage to the population. Sometime they even get direct substitutions here from the government or from foundations of people they call philanthropists.
The customers have to pay already for all kinds of ads that are only there to keep a special kind of media alive, with the product price.
And in addition there is this thing here you are forced to pay by the state and is not "allowed" to be called state television (+radio and much internet stuff) but is controlled mostly by politicians.
Last edited:
One more reason to NOT subscribe to Apple News.
This is true. I’ve already started easing out of Apple ecosystem and sad to do it, but the greed is getting ridiculous. It would be slightly different if the services and products brought something new, something innovative…but, Apple keeps rehashing the same stuff and somehow expecting people to pay more for it. Thanks, but, no thanks…
You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the ad companies, not join them!
Apple One should include an ad-free iPhone experience.
Apple actually lets people know what’s shared:
I have Apple News as part of an Apple One subscription. Yes - there are ads in the paid service. Do I like them? No. They're an annoyance. However, when I buy a physical magazine or newspaper it has ads in so what's the difference? I also subscribe to the Economist and it has ads in its app too. Is Apple doing anything out of the ordinary. Is there anything similar to Apple News that doesn't have ads? I wouldn't mind paying a little extra to see no ads. How much do they make out supplying my eyes with ads I wonder?
They could paywall some of your contacts. Want to call your auntie? = Apple One Premier tier
I have never heard anyone, anywhere (except on here), express the reason for buying Apple is because they hate Google.
I don't hate Google. I buy Apple because I like Apple.
Paying for a News app. lol. Same News that's lied the past 8 years and can be browsed for free all over the web.
The difference is that ads in physical magazines or newspapers are not targeted at you, and they do not receive any feedback from you in the form of your user data.
Apple often justified their prices by saying that they sell you the products while for others you are the product.
Do physical magazines break up the text flow of an article with ads?
If they insist on using ads, run them in the header, footer, or margin.
And for the 100th time, offer an ad-free tier. Apple One should absolutely be ad-free. If that disrupts your fiscal model, create a new tier so we can pay to remove the ads. I do not need to rejuvenate my bathtub. I do not need to clean my gutters. I need to read this article.
It’s the non-ad ads that wind me up - like the ‘Must read’ section, Apple spotlight and reader favourite sections that you can’t seem to get rid of. One of its big draws is being able to curate your own feed, but you can’t really. I’ve blocked everything to do with football, for example, and the My Sports feed is still 90% football stories “chosen by Apple editors”
My biggest hate is the video ad and the animated ad. Those are distracting especially on a phone where they take half the screen. If they go further with the video ad that becomes a persistent thumbnail, I would consider canceling.
I agree that IF there are any ads, they should only be outside of the page flow like you said.
ADDING: I also definitely do not think that ads should be in any paid subscription like News+. It's a paid service, no ads should be there.
I do not agree that they should offer an ad-free plan that costs more. That is a very dangerous road to go down, one that can or will never be undone and only get worse and worse over time.
Last edited:
This is gross. It’ll be interesting to see how people defend their beloved corporation on this one
No, I will not pay for that. Stupid idea. Unless the ads are meant only for a non-funded tier.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
They don't need more but they WANT ALL of it. It's like the old childhood argument that leads to using "infinity": one tries to play the ultimate card: "infinity" and the other kid says "infinity + 1." If any "king" of this hill ever reaches "infinite" revenue & profit, it will still NOT be enough (because there is no "enough"): instead they will pursue infinity + 1. It is a game with no finish line... only "more, more, more!"
I think Apple is intoxicated with spinning "another record quarter" every quarter and the new product dev is not keeping pace with that paramount goal above all else. So they keep seeking every possible nickel from everything.
As long as lots of people keep accepting such choices, it's all positive for Apple. However, if people reach their "the straw" moment and bail as a group, the Corp gets to learn a lesson about tapping accumulated goodwill too many times or too deeply. I don't know if Apple can ever get there as "we" seem to ultimately accept EVERY such decision- some even rationalizing it to others like they work for Apple Marketing- but that well is not endless... even if it has seemed so to date. If nothing else, eventually a chunk of the crowd just runs out of "a little more money/credit/organs/blood/etc" and out of necessity (vs. choices) must cut their costs.
Last edited: