7 ms·

Single subscription payment for news along the lines of the Spotify model. I'd happily pay a single subscription which gave me access to ALL the news websites,

Single subscription payment for news along the lines of the Spotify model. I'd happily pay a single subscription which gave me access to ALL the news websites, and divided payment up based on which articles people click on. Do that without tracking me between the different sites and I'm sold. Pressreader gets close but it only gives you yesterday's print versions (not current online content), it has a few notable gaps which matter to me (the FT, The Times (of London), Bloomberg news among others) and it doesn't really collate different sources for the same story very well. Though I have to say it's great for magazines.

enriquec 6y ago
Apple News is trying. Also better for magazines than current events.
- mertd 6y ago
  I dislike Apple News because there is no way to follow the article to the publisher site.
  - hilbertseries 6y ago
    Somewhat of a pain, but you can use the share button to open it in a web browser. Then when it forwards you to apple news use the back to old app in the top left corner. Then hit tap here and it takes you to the website.
- packetlost 6y ago
  It's too bad that number of sources they actually support is not very good. I got a free trial with my new phone and have no intent on renewing when it's up because it's borderline useless.
wussboy 6y ago
Paying according to which articles people click on has already failed as a model for determining truth and relevancy. We need to think of “one weird trick” that will have the same “stunning” effect but without the incentive to appeal to humanity’s baser instincts.
- mgkimsal 6y ago
  I didn't think the goal was "truth and relevancy" but... just to apportion payment for the services used (reading articles).
  - ip26 6y ago
    I think the point is while you start with a platform for "news", if you apportion payment for services used, you get clickbait, i.e. something fundamentally different than "news".
- zarkov99 6y ago
  People act differently when they pay for a service rather than get it for free.
- khrbrt 6y ago
  Agreed. This will only make clickbait and sensationalism worse, and starve boring but vital reporting on local government.
- nillium 6y ago
  FWIW, we are working on this. Almost all of the issues listed in this thread can be traced back to the way aggregators and social networks end up monetizing (or not monetizing) news. We're trying something a little different: https://blog.nillium.com/were-not-an-aggregator/ https://blog.nillium.com/were-not-an-aggregator/
  - roye 6y ago
    how do you compare with substack?
    - nillium 6y ago
      Substack can work for reporters who already have a following -- but we are trying to help those in local markets and earlier in their careers. From a user perspective, we're looking to give a holistic view of what's happening around you, regardless of which trusted journalist is posting.
oblio 6y ago
For news? I want an OS and browser integrate single payment system. I don't want to have to give my credit card details to everyone. I want a digital wallet that's an open standard and that's integrated with every form of online payment. Where I can cut off subscriptions easily and with no hassle, maybe one time payments, etc. For news, shopping, any kind of subscription (Netflix, AWS, etc.). I want banking-as-a-service. I already trust my bank with my money, I want them to be the middle man between me and the online payment jungle.
- pirateship 6y ago
  What about Brave Rewards? https://brave.com/brave-rewards/ https://brave.com/brave-rewards/ You can set a budget to spend among the websites you visit, if they have "signed up" to the service.
  - 0-_-0 6y ago
    This is indeed the solution, and I don't get the HN reaction when it's mentioned.
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  How close does Paypal come to this? What is it lacking in your eyes (other than the "open standard" aspect)?
  - summm 6y ago
    non-anonymous: PayPal always sees who pays whom what amount, maybe even for what content. Reliance on a single vendor: If PayPal is down, or doesn't like some publication ("violates our standards/US laws/etc."), you're out of luck.
- summm 6y ago
  That's exactly what https://taler.net https://taler.net is aiming for.
- lefrenchy 6y ago
  Isn’t this what Privacy does? https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/
creinhardt 6y ago
A few different outlets have tried this over the years, and it's never gone that well, as far as I know. I think that was originally the model for Tinypass, which merged with Piano Media. Not sure if they still offer that model or not, but it's the most recent I can think of. The reality is that for all but the largest news sites, this model won't really work. Say you're in a medium-small city. Even in your best case scenario of like 50% of the population reading your site, you'd still only likely get such a small sum per-article (10-20k pageviews, maybe?) that you'd still have to supplement revenue with advertising and other revenue streams. And now you're back where you started! I love the idea, but I just struggle to see it happen at scale.
- hansvm 6y ago
  > you'd still only likely get such a small sum per-article (10-20k pageviews, maybe?) that you'd still have to supplement revenue with advertising and other revenue streams Advertising and other revenue streams also only pay out per view on a fairly small number of views though, right? Is the problem not that advertising pays more per view than people are willing to in the first place of their own volition?
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I am not an advertising expert, nor do I know much about monetizing static media (in this case I mean newspapers). But regarding Spotify, the business model roughly breaks down to the top 2% of artists get 98% of the profits. So...it's basically impossible for anyone smaller than NYT or WaPo to ever make money from this model. Likewise, most artists don't make any meaningful money from Spotify. https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-artists-isnt-fair/ https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-...
    - hansvm 6y ago
      > So...it's basically impossible for anyone smaller than NYT or WaPo to ever make money from this model. That doesn't necessarily follow though. It just means that organizations smaller than NYT or WaPo will make proportionally less money, which would be true of any monetization method. The question is whether you can bring in as many total dollars with such a shared subscription scheme as you could with advertising or some other similar venue. > Likewise, most artists don't make any meaningful money from Spotify. And if they would have made meaningful money with CDs, merch, and whatnot then the cause is that people are paying less in aggregate for music via Spotify than they used to from other channels (Spotify's cut might also play a role if the difference is only 2x or something). It's not that Spotify is paying out in proportion to listens, because that was already happening.
marvinkennis 6y ago
Blendle.com is a notable competitor here. Initially started out with a pay-per-article model, but now moved to a Spotify model as you mention.
graeme 6y ago
Apple News is trying this and it doesn’t seem to work too well. The trouble is the best publications can run their own offers and charge much more. FT and Bloomberg in particular tend to be corporate expenses. Apple news costs $120 a year. Basic digital FT is over $350. Premium digital even more.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 6y ago
  It seems like news organizations dislike Apple News for the same reason I like it - they don't get access to their reader. I'm sympathetic to the idea that it would help them make their service better for me, but I also know they would abuse that relationship. I'm happy having Apple in the middle.
- graeme 6y ago
  Sorry, I should have said “the trouble with OP’s idea”. You wouldn’t get a full business subscription to news orgs for less than $500-$1000 a year, which consumers won’t pay. A bundle of consumer news might work, but you still get the adverse selection problem that the clients most interested also tend to be the clients interested in standalone, expensive subs. So it’s hard to get NYT, WaPo, times of london, etc
a9d34571 6y ago
Mozilla Scroll [0] kind of does this. Not on a large scale, though. [0] https://scroll.com https://scroll.com
asdf333 6y ago
sounds like apple news+
dartharva 6y ago
Won't that increase the scope of censorship, something that should be avoided at all costs when it comes to news?
slothtrop 6y ago
I'll check it out. Personally I'm in for "slow news": a weekly/monthly reader like the Economist, CSMonitor, New Yorker etc. I don't actually want to read news every day and I think that would be maddening. I catch a glimpse of headlines from aggregators at most.
cjameskeller 6y ago
Texture was like this, but was acquired by Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(app)

enriquec 6y ago

Apple News is trying. Also better for magazines than current events.

mertd 6y ago
I dislike Apple News because there is no way to follow the article to the publisher site.
- hilbertseries 6y ago
  Somewhat of a pain, but you can use the share button to open it in a web browser. Then when it forwards you to apple news use the back to old app in the top left corner. Then hit tap here and it takes you to the website.
packetlost 6y ago
It's too bad that number of sources they actually support is not very good. I got a free trial with my new phone and have no intent on renewing when it's up because it's borderline useless.

wussboy 6y ago

Paying according to which articles people click on has already failed as a model for determining truth and relevancy. We need to think of “one weird trick” that will have the same “stunning” effect but without the incentive to appeal to humanity’s baser instincts.

mgkimsal 6y ago
I didn't think the goal was "truth and relevancy" but... just to apportion payment for the services used (reading articles).
- ip26 6y ago
  I think the point is while you start with a platform for "news", if you apportion payment for services used, you get clickbait, i.e. something fundamentally different than "news".
zarkov99 6y ago
People act differently when they pay for a service rather than get it for free.
khrbrt 6y ago
Agreed. This will only make clickbait and sensationalism worse, and starve boring but vital reporting on local government.
nillium 6y ago
FWIW, we are working on this. Almost all of the issues listed in this thread can be traced back to the way aggregators and social networks end up monetizing (or not monetizing) news. We're trying something a little different: https://blog.nillium.com/were-not-an-aggregator/ https://blog.nillium.com/were-not-an-aggregator/
- roye 6y ago
  how do you compare with substack?
  - nillium 6y ago
    Substack can work for reporters who already have a following -- but we are trying to help those in local markets and earlier in their careers. From a user perspective, we're looking to give a holistic view of what's happening around you, regardless of which trusted journalist is posting.

oblio 6y ago

For news? I want an OS and browser integrate single payment system. I don't want to have to give my credit card details to everyone. I want a digital wallet that's an open standard and that's integrated with every form of online payment. Where I can cut off subscriptions easily and with no hassle, maybe one time payments, etc. For news, shopping, any kind of subscription (Netflix, AWS, etc.). I want banking-as-a-service. I already trust my bank with my money, I want them to be the middle man between me and the online payment jungle.

pirateship 6y ago
What about Brave Rewards? https://brave.com/brave-rewards/ https://brave.com/brave-rewards/ You can set a budget to spend among the websites you visit, if they have "signed up" to the service.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  This is indeed the solution, and I don't get the HN reaction when it's mentioned.
MauranKilom 6y ago
How close does Paypal come to this? What is it lacking in your eyes (other than the "open standard" aspect)?
- summm 6y ago
  non-anonymous: PayPal always sees who pays whom what amount, maybe even for what content. Reliance on a single vendor: If PayPal is down, or doesn't like some publication ("violates our standards/US laws/etc."), you're out of luck.
summm 6y ago
That's exactly what https://taler.net https://taler.net is aiming for.
lefrenchy 6y ago
Isn’t this what Privacy does? https://privacy.com/ https://privacy.com/

creinhardt 6y ago

A few different outlets have tried this over the years, and it's never gone that well, as far as I know. I think that was originally the model for Tinypass, which merged with Piano Media. Not sure if they still offer that model or not, but it's the most recent I can think of. The reality is that for all but the largest news sites, this model won't really work. Say you're in a medium-small city. Even in your best case scenario of like 50% of the population reading your site, you'd still only likely get such a small sum per-article (10-20k pageviews, maybe?) that you'd still have to supplement revenue with advertising and other revenue streams. And now you're back where you started! I love the idea, but I just struggle to see it happen at scale.

hansvm 6y ago
> you'd still only likely get such a small sum per-article (10-20k pageviews, maybe?) that you'd still have to supplement revenue with advertising and other revenue streams Advertising and other revenue streams also only pay out per view on a fairly small number of views though, right? Is the problem not that advertising pays more per view than people are willing to in the first place of their own volition?
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  I am not an advertising expert, nor do I know much about monetizing static media (in this case I mean newspapers). But regarding Spotify, the business model roughly breaks down to the top 2% of artists get 98% of the profits. So...it's basically impossible for anyone smaller than NYT or WaPo to ever make money from this model. Likewise, most artists don't make any meaningful money from Spotify. https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-artists-isnt-fair/ https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-...
  - hansvm 6y ago
    > So...it's basically impossible for anyone smaller than NYT or WaPo to ever make money from this model. That doesn't necessarily follow though. It just means that organizations smaller than NYT or WaPo will make proportionally less money, which would be true of any monetization method. The question is whether you can bring in as many total dollars with such a shared subscription scheme as you could with advertising or some other similar venue. > Likewise, most artists don't make any meaningful money from Spotify. And if they would have made meaningful money with CDs, merch, and whatnot then the cause is that people are paying less in aggregate for music via Spotify than they used to from other channels (Spotify's cut might also play a role if the difference is only 2x or something). It's not that Spotify is paying out in proportion to listens, because that was already happening.

marvinkennis 6y ago

Blendle.com is a notable competitor here. Initially started out with a pay-per-article model, but now moved to a Spotify model as you mention.

graeme 6y ago

Apple News is trying this and it doesn’t seem to work too well. The trouble is the best publications can run their own offers and charge much more. FT and Bloomberg in particular tend to be corporate expenses. Apple news costs $120 a year. Basic digital FT is over $350. Premium digital even more.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
criddell 6y ago
It seems like news organizations dislike Apple News for the same reason I like it - they don't get access to their reader. I'm sympathetic to the idea that it would help them make their service better for me, but I also know they would abuse that relationship. I'm happy having Apple in the middle.
graeme 6y ago
Sorry, I should have said “the trouble with OP’s idea”. You wouldn’t get a full business subscription to news orgs for less than $500-$1000 a year, which consumers won’t pay. A bundle of consumer news might work, but you still get the adverse selection problem that the clients most interested also tend to be the clients interested in standalone, expensive subs. So it’s hard to get NYT, WaPo, times of london, etc

a9d34571 6y ago

Mozilla Scroll [0] kind of does this. Not on a large scale, though. [0] https://scroll.com https://scroll.com

asdf333 6y ago

sounds like apple news+

dartharva 6y ago

Won't that increase the scope of censorship, something that should be avoided at all costs when it comes to news?

slothtrop 6y ago

I'll check it out. Personally I'm in for "slow news": a weekly/monthly reader like the Economist, CSMonitor, New Yorker etc. I don't actually want to read news every day and I think that would be maddening. I catch a glimpse of headlines from aggregators at most.

cjameskeller 6y ago

Texture was like this, but was acquired by Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_(app)