Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Apple News

iPad Newspaper From News Corp Rumored in January 220

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the if-you-can't-beat-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "News Corp plans to launch its rumored iPad-only newspaper on January 17 according to recent reports. Dubbed the 'Daily,' the paper will reportedly make use of a new 'push' subscription feature from Apple wherein users can opt to be automatically billed for either week-long or month-long subscriptions. Once set up, a new edition of the publication will show up on user's iPads each and every morning."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPad Newspaper From News Corp Rumored in January

Comments Filter:
  • Does that mean they won't use the same sources as their other papers and channels ?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      Um, News Corps? Isn't that the FOX people? It makes sense, only a FOX watcher would pay for news from the internet.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      No. The only difference is you won't be able to view wikileaks stories.
  • by Joehonkie (665142) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:29AM (#34642160) Homepage
    How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?
    • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:35AM (#34642266) Journal

      It makes Rupert Murdoch more money. Oh, you meant, "how is it better for the customer?" Does that actually matter?

      • by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:36AM (#34642288) Journal

        Um, yes it does, because if it doesn't bring something that other formats don't then no one will sign up for it. Which means Murdoch and company won't make any more money.

        • by ByOhTek (1181381)

          maybe that's his goal - one more piece of evidence that online news is a bad idea?

          • by corbettw (214229)

            He can go looking for that evidence all day long. Meanwhile, his competitors will keep making money left, right, and center.

            • There's no money to be made in the top, middle and bottom?

            • by ByOhTek (1181381)

              Not looking, creating

    • by shadowrat (1069614) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:36AM (#34642274)
      exactly. we have been able to charge people for content on the web forever. I suspect it's about finding your market though. The iPad is like a filter that extracts all the people who want to pay for stuff. the ratio of users who will pay a subscription to users who just want free stuff is likely far higher on the iPad than on the web in general.
      • It's a pretty stupid idea though, Even if 95% of people who WOULD buy the subscription own an iPad - you're effectively cutting out 5% of your market simply because they don't want to make it available on your other iProduct.

        It's not like you lose money for every person who doesn't subscribe...

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by characterZer0 (138196)

          If anybody could get it, the people who buy iPads would not want it.

        • by arth1 (260657)

          It's not like you lose money for every person who doesn't subscribe...

          That depends on whether you subscribe to (npi) RIAA/MPAA accounting or not.
          And given that this is the right wing, well...

          If you don't subscribe and get the same news elsewhere, you're costing them a sale every day, which is the same as theft.

          What's really sad is that I'm only halfway joking, and that there really are people who'd support this "logic".

        • by sakshale (598643) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @03:03PM (#34644628) Homepage Journal

          I did not read anything in TFA that even implied that there were no future plans to support other platforms. Could this not be a proof of concept exercise?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's designed specifically for the typical Apple user.

      "Oh! A way to spend more money with an Apple Product? An iPad only application where I can have my credit card billed automatically each month? A newspaper that will no doubt have articles that can be found on any decent news aggregating web site? Where do I sign up? That sounds piquant as shit!"

      • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:57AM (#34642566) Homepage

        It's designed specifically for the typical Apple user.

        You know, instead of the usual bitching and moaning about the "typical Apple user" like everybody else on Slashdot, why don't you try to actually think about this instead of just launching into the usual screed? That fact that you've been modded insightful for basically acting like a 4 year old kind of proves my point.

        I have the free BBC news app on my iPad, as well as Reuters and several others. In fact, I've never paid for an app on my iPad (or a track from iTunes for that matter) -- there's so much free stuff out there it's amazing. It's so much nicer to use than a web page, because it's a user interface that takes into account the platform it runs on.

        As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the native interface of an iPad application (and, indeed I bet this would be true for an Android device or a Blackberry) is that the interface works the way you expect the interface to work on that platform. The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.

        This isn't even about the iPad -- it's about realizing that the 15 years we've spent using the web for everything has led to really crappy user interfaces, all bound to the HTML paradigm. I'm glad to finally see the web being eclipsed by actual applications and interfaces. This will happen on Android, Microsoft, Blackberry, and every new device that comes along.

        If three months after this is released, and News Corp releases this for an Android tablet, will we be all saying how hip the Android users are because they can subscribe to the same content? Will it suddenly be cool?

        Seriously, get over the whole iPad/Apple bashing thing, and recognize that tablets (of all forms) and the like are fundamentally changing the rules and the prevalence of everything being a frigging web page. You don't have to like the iPad, but you should recognize everything you've said will apply to all new touch screen devices as they come on line and available.

        Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.

        Seriously, dial back the bitching about this being about Apple, and start thinking about this in the broader context of what is going to be happening in the industry over the next bunch of years. Now that touch-screen technology is becoming prevalent, you will see this kind of thing on all platforms.

        • You honestly believe that when Windows finally gets around to mimicking the iPad that someone will go and provide a "MS Tablet Only Newspaper"?
          Thats the source of the joke here. It's not that it won't make its way to other tablets, its that its specifically being marketted as iPad only.

          It's the worst piece of business logic I've ever heard of, yet someone has decided to try it out on an Apple product, all of which have a bad rap as being overpriced for what you actually get - the Hardware is never Earth Sha

          • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @12:24PM (#34642874) Homepage

            You honestly believe that when Windows finally gets around to mimicking the iPad that someone will go and provide a "MS Tablet Only Newspaper"?

            No, I honestly believe that when Microsoft finally mimics the iPad, this newpaper will be made available for it. Right now, as I understand it, neither enough people are running Windows Mobile 7, nor is the interface nearly good enough to do this.

            yet someone has decided to try it out on an Apple product, all of which have a bad rap as being overpriced for what you actually get - the Hardware is never Earth Shattering enough to justify the price

            The hardware? No. The software is actually some of the nicest I've used in years -- and that is worth the money. The iPad is some of my first exposure to Apple's stuff beyoind iTunes on my Windows machine -- and, I'm awfully tempted to add an actual Mac to the herd of computers. It's like the old pissing contest between Intel and AMD over processor speed -- if you don't write bloated software that doubles in size every year, you don't need to be constantly doubling hardware needs. It's not like I'm running a web server on the damned thing.

            I just learned the other day that in some cases you can't even activate your new iPhone without hooking it up to a computer with your iTunes.

            Can't speak to that -- in my experience, my iPods and my iPad all are designed to work with iTunes, and likely the iPhone as well. Since I've been using that for around 10 years, I actually find that convenient since all of my media is already in there. Plug it into the machine, and let iTunes sort out the intial setup -- 5 minutes later, I'm syncing music and movies.

            If you don't like it, don't buy it. But the whole "zomg, teh stupid Apple users" is getting kind of old.

          • by vijayiyer (728590)

            "It's not that it won't make its way to other tablets, its that its specifically being marketted as iPad only."

            No, it's not being marketed as anything yet. This is somewhere between a rumor and a leak.

            • This is somewhere between a rumor and a leak.

              So you obviously aren't up to date with Apple's marketting techniques.

          • You honestly believe that when Windows finally gets around to mimicking the iPad that someone will go and provide a "MS Tablet Only Newspaper"?

            If they grab a huge portion of the market and the market is such that portability s not super easy, yes. But that's unlikely to happen. There have, however been Windows specific Web pages and applications for distributing just such content, some little more than .exe's that wrap PDFs.

            It's not that it won't make its way to other tablets, its that its specifically being marketted as iPad only.

            Yeah, that and hundreds of other applications.

            It's the worst piece of business logic I've ever heard of...

            You haven't been paying attention.

            ...someone has decided to try it out on an Apple product, all of which have a bad rap as being overpriced for what you actually get...

            That's the reputation according to some people on Slashdot, not according to the general populace.

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by arth1 (260657)

          You know, instead of the usual bitching and moaning about the "typical Apple user" like everybody else on Slashdot,
          [rant deleted]
          Seriously, get over the whole iPad/Apple bashing thing,
          [rant deleted]
          Seriously, dial back the bitching about this being about Apple,
          [rant deleted]

          You know, instead of verbosely justifying your purchase, why don't you let it go?

          Seriously, get over the whole iPad/Apple bashing thing, and dial back the bitching about bitching about Apple.

          If you like your Apple devices, fine. But we don't need any more evangelists.

        • by chrome (3506)
          but, but, but the web is the future for all applications! We'll all be running apps on the cloud from our thin clients! The network is the computer! etc etc! Don't tell me they sold me a lie.
          • but, but, but the web is the future for all applications! We'll all be running apps on the cloud from our thin clients! The network is the computer! etc etc!

            Don't tell me they sold me a lie.

            The most hilarious part of this post is the fact that it was posted by a slashdot user with a 4-digit UID and a username of "chrome".

          • by Abcd1234 (188840)

            Fun fact: this specialized app is probably "thinner" (in terms of resource utilization, etc), than a web-based app.

            Which brings me to a dispute I have: to my mind, the definition of "thin" client is that the display component is local, and all the work is done remotely. How is a magazine *display* app *not* a thin client?

        • by PCM2 (4486) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @12:49PM (#34643170) Homepage

          The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.

          Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client? I hope you're not being serious.

          When I learned that most of the so-called apps that people have on their iPhones are actually purpose-built clients designed to access a single Web site each, that's when I started to agree with the folks at Research in Motion: this whole "apps" craze is a fad.

          • by gstoddart (321705)

            Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client? I hope you're not being serious.

            Did you read the whole comment, or just stop when your knickers got into a twist? Because I also said:

            Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.

            Of course the web is

          • by dzfoo (772245) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @01:51PM (#34643836)

            The Internet was a terrific idea, and still is. A single, unified, fault-tolerant, common protocol for communications between networks; it's brilliant!

            The World Wide Web, on the other hand, is not The Internet. It's one of the many services implemented on the Internet. A very popular one, but hardly unique. It was a great application for what it was designed: hyper-text document sharing.

            The web as the single, unified, common interface for the consumption of multi-media and other content may not be so great. Implementing every single application as an extension of the web, in HTML and JavaScript to boot, is like hammering a square peg into a round hole. You end up with the lowest common denominator, a jack-of-all-trades user interface which is master of none.

            To illustrate this point, consider why the geek world holds its collective breath in awe when, say, Google figures out how to do real-time keystroke display of online chats using JavaScript and HTTP, when dedicated chat clients were doing this since before the web was invented. The fact that the web is just now capable of supporting services and applications that have existed for some time in many other formats, suggests that perhaps it is not the best suited medium for them.

                    -dZ.

          • by Hatta (162192)

            Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client?

            Who said anything about proprietary clients? Native clients, open protocols is the way to go. Instead of shoehorning GUI elements into HTML, let the OS do it. That's what it's for. You can choose a proprietary client if you like. Or an open source client.

            The web as a document delivery mechanism was a great idea. As a

          • by tehcyder (746570)
            I am increasingly relieved that it was Microsoft and not Apple who were the dominant company when the internet started becoming widely available to the public.
        • This isn't even about the iPad -- it's about realizing that the 15 years we've spent using the web for everything has led to really crappy user interfaces, all bound to the HTML paradigm. I'm glad to finally see the web being eclipsed by actual applications and interfaces. This will happen on Android, Microsoft, Blackberry, and every new device that comes along.

          Well, except for ChromeOS applications. And, applications that need to economically target a broad range of devices rather than being rewritten from

        • by mugnyte (203225)

          So you're saying you're in favor of companies paywalling information in a pretty frame that's freely available (in another pretty frame, actually dozens of them). (Psst: You're renting a browser, the content is still a feed)

          You sir, are betting on the wrong side of history. Let me introduce you to this idea again:
          - AOL, MSN, CompuServ all delivered news with "Value-add" sections that they fought long and hard to drill into customers minds: "This is special content you cannot get elsewhere". All

          • by gstoddart (321705)

            So you're saying you're in favor of companies paywalling information in a pretty frame that's freely available

            Nope. You said that -- I said:

            I have the free BBC news app on my iPad, as well as Reuters and several others. In fact, I've never paid for an app on my iPad (or a track from iTunes for that matter) -- there's so much free stuff out there it's amazing. It's so much nicer to use than a web page, because it's a user interface that takes into account the platform it runs on.

            I merely pointed out that a

    • by alen (225700)

      it's for the people that can't get past the quaint idea of media being delivered in "issues" where you have to wait a day, week or month to read information

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:41AM (#34642348) Homepage

      How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?

      Because it will be a native app instead of the web, for one. The web is a reasonable "lowest common denominator", but really, it still sucks for UIs, no matter how many advances we've made.

      The difference between a native app and a web-page on this kind of device is massive in terms of how much nicer the native interface is -- in part because it scales up things to be more "touchable" instead of "clickable". I'm glad to finally see a reversal of this trend of "everything as a web page" -- the usability of an app designed for the multi-touch is easily an order of magnitude better than a web page. It's a completely different kind of interface than one you'd do for the web.

      They also get Apple as a distribution and billing mechanism. Which I'm sure will also benefit them. However, I don't expect that I'll be making use of the "push" subscriptions, and least of all, for anything from News Corp. There are plenty of *free* news apps that run native on the iPad (BBC, Reuters, and others). Though, I'm sure there will be a fair few people who actually subscribe to this.

      I see lots of things on the app store which you could argue is largely the same as the content on a web page. The difference being, with an app instead of a web-page, it's a far better user experience overall.

      • by dachshund (300733)

        Because it will be a native app instead of the web, for one. The web is a reasonable "lowest common denominator", but really, it still sucks for UIs, no matter how many advances we've made.
        The difference between a native app and a web-page on this kind of device is massive in terms of how much nicer the native interface is -- in part because it scales up things to be more "touchable" instead of "clickable". I'm glad to finally see a reversal of this trend of "everything as a web page" -- the usability of an

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          While this is all true in theory, my experience is that low-usage proprietary formats have one huge usability disadvantage in practice: namely, it's expensive to produce content for them.

          I think it depends on how you want the content to look and be interacted with. XML could easily be used to drive both -- that's what it's for.

          Even the iPad 'showcase' version of Wired is basically just a bunch of high-quality image files with a small number of lame 'interactive' features.

          That has been true of most demonst

          • by dachshund (300733)

            I'm betting that my Reuters and BBC apps are all pulling the same info from the same sources as the web versions, it's just about presentation and how the interface works.

            I've never used those apps, but I do use the Engadget app which I imagine to be similar. It's definitely easier than using the browser, largely because the content is already neatly formatted for the screen and you can avoid some awkwardness from Safari's awful caching. There are a few controls and bells and whistles that work better in

    • Didn't apple say they were going to ban apps which basically did what their main website did ?

      In a related note surly apple would hit them with the ban-hammer as soon as they post an "android market share increasing" story. (or similar)

    • by vlm (69642)

      How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?

      Its important to specify the difference between a push web app news source, which could do all kinds of cool filtering and instant access (not high latency of streaming) of attached videos, and this specific app which is probably (just guessing) designed to little more than collect more money.

      A good news app would intelligently log how interested I am in a story, based on both how long I read and what rating I give it, and then in a Bayesian way filter my news for me. Also it would provide an intelligent m

    • by Mr_Silver (213637)

      How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?

      Well, for starters you can read it on the underground.

      Hell, it'll make reading it on the overland train better too given that access to the internet (at least on my route) is problematic thanks to all the tunnels, bridges and dead spots.

    • by Graff (532189)

      How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?

      Well, supposedly it will be more than the umpteenth regurgitated blog mess that is the current web-based media. You know what I'm talking about, when a "news" article is a blog talking about a blog that references a blog written by a guy who has an unnamed source.

      Whether or not this iPad daily "newspaper" is worth it is up to the subscribers to decide. I could easily see it working if the content is thoughtful, heavily researched and backed by facts, engaging, and entertaining. If it fulfills those sort of

  • by Laxori666 (748529) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:30AM (#34642184) Homepage
    This reminds me of the scene in minority report where everyone carried around a digital screen instead of a newspaper. When an arrest warrant went out for the main character, seconds later all their screens were updated with a News Flash saying to look out for the guy. It's, like, the future, today!
    • by blair1q (305137)

      Except now it won't be an arrest warrant, it will be an order to call Health Care Reform, "Government takeover of healthcare".

  • by Orga (1720130) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:34AM (#34642248)
    Who'd have ever thought such technology was feasible. Only in the world of a closed off iPad could this possibly be any kind of news. Please let us return to five years ago when things like this weren't newsworthy.
  • Oh goody (Score:5, Insightful)

    by southpolesammy (150094) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:43AM (#34642380) Journal

    Yet another monthly recurring charge that I'll never use, nor ever get around to cancelling. At least my idle gym membership won't feel so lonely now...

    • by Urkki (668283)

      Yet another monthly recurring charge that I'll never use, nor ever get around to cancelling. At least my idle gym membership won't feel so lonely now...

      Indeed, but don't feel bad. Things like that are what keeps the economy running. Like gyms, how else could they afford to keep gym equipment factory workers (in China) fed, if not for all the generous people with idle gym memberships?

  • by toby (759) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @11:54AM (#34642520) Homepage Journal
    If ever a story deserved that tag, it's this one.
  • by JThaddeus (531998) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @12:01PM (#34642612)
    That and a non-Murdoch paper could sell me on a iPad.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      That and a non-Murdoch paper could sell me on a iPad.

      BBC, Reuters and numerous others have news apps for the iPad that are free, and a fair few have subscription availability.

      You can get also crossword apps, again, some free.

  • by serutan (259622) <snoopdoug.geekazon@com> on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @12:03PM (#34642642) Homepage

    Just scrawl "Liberal Socialists Doing Scary Bad Stuff!" on the screen in permanent marker and look at it every five minutes.

    • by sa1lnr (669048)

      And there will be tits on page 3?

    • I actually listen to Fox sometimes, either for amusement or to get a different viewpoint. You're clearly about 3 years behind, the new Naughty Word is "Progressives". "Liberals" (i.e. "libruls", "libruhls") is so 20th Century.
    • by radionerd (916462)
      I think this is a great idea, I get to pay for my Fascist propaganda right up front!. My parakeet thinks it's a stupid idea, we still have to pay for it, and he ends up with no place to crap.
    • "Conservatives Doing Scary Bad Stuff!"

      Anybody who thinks ABCNBCCBSMSNBC is anywhere near neutral or balanced is fooling himself.

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        Up next on the conservatives-excuse Hotline, that golden oldie, "Well Clinton did it!"

  • by mrogers (85392)
    When the iPad was first announced, I dismissed it as an insignificant device - little more than a giant phone or a netbook without a keyboard.

    How wrong I was.

    What Jobs & Co have developed is nothing less than a fucking time machine. The iPad offers to transport us back to the comfort and safety of the mid-twentieth century. A time when citizens' minds were untroubled by pornographic smut or government leaks. A time when the news was delivered to your doorstep once a day, and you were happy to pay fo

    • What Jobs & Co have developed is nothing less than a fucking time machine. The iPad offers to transport us back to the comfort and safety of the mid-twentieth century.

      While you doubtless know the "safer more wholesome time" thing is a fiction, what's sad about this sort of thing is twofold:

      First, that cutting edge companies aren't taking a stand with an eye to the future. They could be setting themselves up as common carrier type companies that will carry any content that meets technical criteria and thus they don't have to explain why they'll do business with the KKK but not Wikileaks. No one is all that offended by neutral third parties and those that are, usually don

      • by mrogers (85392)
        I agree, there's a sad lack of vision in America today. The whole country seems bitter and afraid. Nobody talks about principles. Of course the same's true in Europe, but I feel like we've been suffering from that disease for longer - America used to be different. Perhaps it's a symptom of post-imperial decline, which America's only just beginning to enter. Or perhaps I've fallen for the golden age myth after all - Americans must have been bitter during the Great Depression, afraid during the Cold War - why
  • My money is on "The Hipster"
    • by Duradin (1261418)

      How can they call themselves "The Hipster" if they don't hate Apple enough to not be on an Apple device? Applehate is the hippest of hip.

  • Of course, comparing Rupert Murdoch to Gail Wynand [wikipedia.org] is a more generous comparison than Murdoch deserves.
  • by koan (80826)

    Propaganda pushed to my over priced hobbled tablet...yay?

  • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @12:58PM (#34643270) Journal

    How the hell am I supposed to wrap a fish in that?

    • How the hell am I supposed to wrap a fish in that?

      I've found that my iPad makes an excellent sushi plate.

  • Hmmm...news pushed automatically to a device overnight.... omg, I think I've woken up in 1992 [wikipedia.org]!

    But seriously, what value added service will this provide that users can't already get from one of the dozens of free online newspapers and news aggregator apps?

    (interestingly, the title in TFA is "iPad-only newspaper from Apple and News Crop set to launch on January 17" if they really are going to Crop out the fluff from the news, that may make it worth the money)

  • Whaddya know? I guess 2011 will be the year of mobile malware [slashdot.org]!
  • all that money and hate is not going to keep him alive. To be honest, it already looks like he has gone senile.
  • I'm assuming because this is being proposed by the same people who have watched the entire print newspaper industry slide down the toilet, while scratching their heads and wondering why, that this will fail miserably.

    Let's see...limited distribution to ipad only, paid subscription for same content people can get free elsewhere, combined with generally being a dumb idea. what could go wrong?

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...