I’ve been saying Apple’s 30% cut is too high for 10 years, so it won’t surprise anyone that I think a 50% cut for subscriptions in Apple News is also ridiculous. It’s completely out of line with the value Apple could provide to news organizations.

@manton Is there any chance this is deliberately placed misinformation from Apple? I recall Apple did the same thing with the original iPad in 2010 (everyone expected $1,000 and gasped when $499 fell down on that one slide). Maybe I am giving Apple too much leniency here.

@bobschulties Good question, maybe! Or just testing the limits in talks with publishers. "Surprise, it's only 30% after all!"

@manton Right. But it would be tone deaf of Apple. Publishers, despite it being their own fault, are hurting and Apple could really help here and 30% is a big slice to take out of that pie.

@Dizzymcfable To do it justice I'd need a longer post... Apple has a monopoly on iOS distribution and they are leveraging it to essentially tax developers, with no alternative. Transactions fees outside the App Store are usually less than 5%.

@bobschulties Yep, it's a much better story if Apple looks like they are trying to help the news industry instead of monetize it.

@manton seems insane ! Apple have looked at there bank reserve lately … look at the long term gain! Apple have so much to fix and focus on to ensure the ecosystem is an awesome investment for people to join and stop trying to rip organisations/ developers / content providers off

@manton Apple knows that 70/30 split is not going to work in the long term. I highly doubt that Apple is asking for a 50/50 split. I reckon that it was a click-bait.

@Dizzymcfable @manton this is an interesting thread. ;) Here's my take, Apple needs to attract publishers with their Apple News service that does not share user data. How can 50/50 split help that? I really doubt the veracity of that article. This is a subscription service, I think 5-15% Apple share might be the more realistic share.

@Dizzymcfable @manton Good point -- but are they willing to take the risk? Maybe if the deal gets Apple share reduced after it reaches a certain number of subscribers, then might be an easier pill to swallow.

@manton I'm surprised that no one has proposed the theory that this is purposely incorrect info put into the hands of a suspected leaker(s) to catch them. There's precedent for such things from Apple.

@manton Why is it out of line? The news organizations are going to produce the content anyway and probably distribute it in many places that provide no revenue beyond ads. This just seems like an extra revenue stream that’s independent of ads. I also imagine Apple’s share may drop after the first year, like in the App Store.

@tmj It's not necessarily just extra money. In some cases it may replace an existing revenue stream, like someone switching from paying The New York Times directly to subscribing to Apple News instead.

@manton So two things, this is like a newsstand selling NYT, they pay the wholesale price, usually 50%. And second, I subbed to NYT once, and getting them to unsub me was a phone & bureaucracy maze. I ended up cancelling my card so they had to talk to me. Apple's a lot easier.

@mdhughes Selling a physical newspaper has very different costs than downloading a web page. But you're right about how difficult it is to cancel from some of these publishers. Maybe that's part of what Newspack from Automattic/Google is going to solve.

@adamprocter Sadly it makes complete sense with their current strategy. Wall Street doesn’t care about cash in the bank, only future growth. Apple has pivoted to a story about being a services business. And that’s where the 50% from publishers would go.