Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Apple News

News Corp. and Apple Unveil The Daily 249

Posted by samzenpus
from the foxy-apps dept.
RedEaredSlider writes "The Daily, the digital publication designed specifically for Apple's iPad, is now available on the App Store. The publication's launch came during a press event at New York's Guggenheim Museum. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch and Apple Vice President of Internet Services Eddy Cue were joined by The Daily's Editor-in-Chief Jesse Angelo. The Daily, which copies the look and feel of a newspaper or magazine, is aimed at embracing the multimedia capabilities of Apple's iPad. Rupert Murdoch said that The Daily offers 'unthinkable innovations' to the world of publishing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

News Corp. and Apple Unveil The Daily

Comments Filter:
  • by N3tRunner (164483) * on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:14PM (#35083112)

    I'm not sure why Apple would want to get involved in this manner with the greatest evil in our world today, News Corp. If they want to make an app for the iPad, that's fine, but I don't see why Apple would want to publicize this new app as forging some kind of relationship between the two companies.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by frizop (831236)
      This is exactly how I feel. What in the world would make you want to be a purveyor of obviously one sided misinformation?
    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:34PM (#35083454) Homepage

      the greatest evil in our world today

      I agree that News Corp is evil, but it's hard to call them the "greatest evil in our world today".

      Yes, when governments imprison people without trial, torture people, shoot unarmed citizens, encourage companies to fire people for their political views, build a massive surveillance state, etc etc, News Corp is there to cheer them on, hire on their political leaders, and propagandize the population into going along with these measures. But they aren't the ones actually doing it. They are part of the machine, but they aren't the machine, and they definitely aren't the ones controlling the machine.

      • by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:37PM (#35083486) Journal

        rupert murdoch is basically the heart and soul of everything that's wrong with things online for the past 10 years, so I don't find i wrong to put a focus on things he owns as being the problem.

        go google rupert murdoch failures and the list is amazing. a rich man who does nothing right, is too old for his times, and thinks making artificial scarcity is the way to run a business.

        • IE has been the heart and soul of all that was wrong, and unless he had any part in that, Murdoch is not the most evil thing to the web. He's still at least 1 or 2 steps behind the RIAA and MPAA.

      • by Romancer (19668)

        They are the gatekeepers for the masses. If Google were altering search results for Egypt because of its political beliefs and a large portion of the population were thus kept ignorant of facts or at a minimum, oblivious of opposing opinions because of the filtering; the damage caused could be much more wide spread and dangerous than the incidents themselves. Remember, the slow steady changes are hardest to guard against. The tides of public knowledge and opinion can be diverted slowly to great effect and w

    • by alvinrod (889928)
      They get a cut of the sales most likely and with traditional newspapers having a lot of financial problems, people are looking for new ways to repackage news and information and make money off of it. If this venture is successful it's likely that others will offer various organs through the App Store, making even more money for Apple.

      Also, News Corp has been one of the few companies to actually try different revenue streams. They'll eventually get one right and then the rest of the papers, magazines, etc
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:49PM (#35083680) Journal
      They didn't actually want to; but what they needed from News Corp cannot be bought with mere money...

      Here is what is really going on: News Corp has a problem: its congenital inability to appeal to anybody under 45 who isn't to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Apple also has a problem: its charismatic overlord is dying.

      Now here is where they synergy comes in: Given the fact that Rupert Murdoch has managed to maintain an unnatural state of demi-life since approximately 1347(incidentally, the year the Black Death reached Europe. Coincidence? We report, you decide.), New Corp obviously possesses the knowledge of dark Necromacy that Apple's board needs in order to preserve their most valued corporate asset in near-perpetuity. Apple, for their part, possesses a nigh-hypnotic power over the consumer segments that News Corp cannot reach.

      Now you see the real bargain being made here...
      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        Given the fact that Rupert Murdoch has managed to maintain an unnatural state of demi-life since approximately 1347

        Is Rupert Murdoch some sort of Australian vampire? It's just a question, it's not like I'm insinuating anything.

    • I'm not sure why Apple would want to get involved in this manner with the greatest evil in our world today.

      Answer: Money.

    • News Corp is one of the largest media companies around and, love it or hate it, the Fox News Channel has been wildly successful. It has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. Slashdot is but a small microcosm of the world and when it comes to American media, Fox and News Corp are the most desired by consumers. You and I don't have to agree ideologically with News Corp, but this is a numbers game making this a huge win for Apple.

    • by Frangible (881728)
      Yes, because Apple is deeply ashamed of already having the WSJ on it. Oh, wait... (for those of you not getting the sarcasm, the WSJ is a highly-regarded publication by News Corp that also has an iPad app)
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        It used to be a highly regarded publication, now it is just one more News Corp garbage echo chamber rag.

    • Absurd word to describe the issue.

      Here is a clue for the fanbois, Apple is out to make money, make lots of it, and they are doing very well at it. They are using News corp more so than News Corp is using them. See there is this little issue of Apple getting 30% of the take for doing nothing more than selling the platform to consumers. Its the best of both worlds for them.

      Apple wants this publicized so OTHER companies join in so they can maintain their cash cow. The iPad and their new business model is m

    • I'm not sure why Apple would want to get involved in this manner with the greatest evil in our world today, News Corp.

      You aren't? I thought its obvious: money.

      If they want to make an app for the iPad, that's fine, but I don't see why Apple would want to publicize this new app as forging some kind of relationship between the two companies.

      Because they want other publishers to take a look at what the Daily offers for News Corp and also choose to do the same kind of thing partnering with Apple.

    • by Viceice (462967)

      One might go so far as to argue that Apple IS one of the greatest evils in the world today. Remember that when you buy an iDevice, you are actually paying them a premium for the privilege to access their revenue generation system (Give them more money) on their terms.

    • by lennier (44736)

      I'm not sure why Apple would want to get involved in this manner with the greatest evil in our world today, News Corp.

      Because they don't want to settle for being the second-greatest? ;)

  • Walled Paradice. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Beelzebud (1361137) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:16PM (#35083156)
    Now the people telling you exactly what apps you can and can't use, partner with people that tell you exactly what to think.

    1984 indeed. iTelescreen.
    • by H0p313ss (811249) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:30PM (#35083372)

      Now the people telling you exactly what apps you can and can't use, partner with people that tell you exactly what to think.

      1984 indeed. iTelescreen.

      1) Total BS, you can choose not to buy the iPad, or the app, or you can use one of a plethora of other news apps including anything with a website.

      2) Paradise

      FUD much?

    • What's a pair o' dice got to do with it?

    • Yeah, honestly my first response is, "Can we get this from a reputable news outlet?" Honestly I don't mind paying for some kind of news subscription if it's well done and useful, but I don't trust News Corp.

    • by openfrog (897716)

      Now the people telling you exactly what apps you can and can't use, partner with people that tell you exactly what to think.

      1984 indeed. iTelescreen.

      Agreed. The 1984 Apple commercial, originally shown in... 1984 during the SuperBowl and beautifully shot by Ridley Scott is worth watching again. I am actually surprised at how little Apple value the goodwill they have generated over the years as the small guy holding on against IBM and Microsoft. It seems to me that they are forfeiting vast opportunities over short term gains:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 [youtube.com]

    • by dfghjk (711126)

      Here's a comment that genuinely earns it's insightful rating.

    • by LodCrappo (705968)

      When Apple said 1984 wouldn't be like "1984", everyone just assumed this was because Apple was against the idea.

      As it turns out, they are totally into it. They just didn't have the tech ready then.

  • I'm sure these 'unthinkable innovations' will include such wonders as...
    • Printed, movable type! Quick, hide that lest the serfs see it...
    • Embedded images
    • Hyperlinking!
    • Moving pictures, aka animation!
    • [insert other web 0.1 technology here...]

    It seems like marketing speak for 'We found out that newspapers aren't making money anymore. Let's hop on this new bandwagon!'

    • I'm sure these 'unthinkable innovations' will include such wonders as...

      When I read "unthinkable innovations" I figured it'd be more along the lines of He Who Lies Dead But Dreaming partnering up with Apple, thusly conjoining two of the five greatest evils ever to beset this Universe.

      FWIW, the idea that Murdoch could be an acolyte of Cthulhu doesn't seem that far-fetched, anyway. I mean, while he's a bit easier to cast your gaze upon than one of the Old Ones, something's not quite right with that man.

      • by Polumna (1141165)

        I mean, while he's a bit easier to cast your gaze upon than one of the Old Ones

        You think so? I know I lose some of my sanity every time I see him.

      • by Drishmung (458368)

        I mean, while he's a bit easier to cast your gaze upon than one of the Old Ones

        If you do in fact speak from experience, then you are, presumably, irredeemably insane.

    • by blair1q (305137)

      "We found out people were getting information from these devices, instead of through our filters."

  • by Joe Snipe (224958) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:19PM (#35083210) Homepage Journal

    Click to become a fan of slashdot on facebook? Really?

    • by click2005 (921437) *

      Yes!!! Why converse with slashdotters on slashdot when you can chat on Facebook.

    • Click to become a fan of slashdot on facebook? Really?

      Yes.

      If you click to become a fan of slashdot on Facebook by the end of this month, you'll be given free lifetime membership to slashdot when they roll out slashdot v4.0 in March.

      Fortunately, all the bugs and UI problems will be fixed in v4.0. Unfortunately, this is because v4.0 is when slashdot moves entirely to Facebook, and all stories and comments will be posts on Slashdot's Facebook wall.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:20PM (#35083214)

    Rupert Murdoch said that The Daily offers 'unthinkable innovations' to the world of publishing.

    In other words, if there are innovations here, they haven't thought of them yet.

    All kidding aside, it looks like a return to the "hypercard" fixed width and height presentation that's been on the backburner since the web first beat out print in popularity. (Web articles typically scroll up/down, of course.) In that case, the innovation is "we finally found a way to get you to page through an article with all the ads again - no more 'printable version' for you - muh ha ha ha ha ha!"

    • by skids (119237)

      Maybe he meant "unsinkable" but his forked tongue confused the reporter.

    • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

      Yup, frames are hot this season, it's 1998 all over again!

      io9.com recently went to that format, and imagine the rest of Gawker will follow. If anyone still reads their crap, I imagine they won't be for long.

      I think the future will regard "web 2.0" as a colossal failure, at least at producing a sustainable infrastructure. People tried to make applications out of a document viewer, and people tried to turn documents into applications, and all they really got out of it was a tangled mess of glue code and marku

  • What's so new about this corp?

    Do you perhaps mean NewS corp?
  • he must be a technology genuis. Not like myspace just laid off half their work force.
  • by macraig (621737) <mark.a.craig@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:31PM (#35083388)

    Lemme guess: all of those innovations involve revenue generation strategy, right? Knowing Murdoch, it couldn't possibly mean anything else.

  • I'd like less innovation, and more honesty.

  • Indeed.

  • by Baseclass (785652) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @03:51PM (#35083714)
    I for one do NOT welcome our information distorting, control freak, overlords.
  • Others have called News Corp. Evil, etc. I have no love of Rupert Murdoch, and I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment to a degree, but I think it goes a bit far.

    The thing is, that's my opinion. And your opinion. But you have to recognize that not everyone shares it.

    That said, I am very, very surprised that Apple is in bed with News Corp. Not because I think Apple should oppose them, or because I think Apple management has any particular political ideology.

    But surely Apple must recognize that News Corp

    • I'm not quite sure they are "in bed with" News Corp. Besides, without News Corp, when I go to NYC every other month, how would I read the Post, with it's awesome sports section? And the WSJ isn't a bad periodical. And for sure, FNC reaches an audience that was starved for cable news that fit their ideals. Whether or not you agree with it, if FNC shut down tomorrow, I'd want to open a channel just like it - lots of money there to be made!

      To me, I will download it. It's free for two weeks. So I'll check it
  • The Daily Fanboy, the digital publication designed specifically for Apple's iPad, is now available on the App Store...

    FTFY :-)

  • Tread lightly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I remember back in November, a bi-monthly Android magazine was rejected from the App store for no reason other than it was "just about Android"

    In fact, here's the exact reason the app dev was given: "“You know your magazine, It’s just about Android. we can’t have that in our App Store.”

    Now, you may say "So what? Of course Apple wouldn't want a magazine like that on their store." But think about it; Apple rejected a perfectly good App, for no reason other than the content it reported

  • new slogans (Score:2, Funny)

    by blair1q (305137)

    "We've got a paranoid delusion for that."

    "We decide. You download."

  • Rupert Murdoch said that The Daily offers 'unthinkable innovations' to the world of publishing.

    Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation: always setting out to do the unthinkable.

  • What exactly can you do with an app that you can't do in a web browser with Flash, AJAX, or HTML5?
    • by Nidi62 (1525137)

      What exactly can you do with an app that you can't do in a web browser with Flash, AJAX, or HTML5?

      Sell it?

      • by Locke2005 (849178)
        Let me rephrase that: what value does putting the content in an app instead of a web page provide to me, the consumer?

        You can sell access to web pages too, you know.
    • by Chapter80 (926879)

      What exactly can you do with an app that you can't do in a web browser with Flash, AJAX, or HTML5?

      I did this analysis last week, and summarized it for management in a nice pretty table that I can't easily reproduce here. But I'll do my best:

      Regarding Standards: Web Apps will generally run on multiple platforms, but the technology is less mature. Smart Phone Apps need to be developed for each platform (iPhone vs Android, for example)

      Regarding App Wake-up: Web app User must start the app by visiting the web page. but Smart Phone apps, Once installed, app can run in background and be awoken from serve

      • by Chapter80 (926879)

        I should clarify that my analysis is comparing web apps on mobile devices to smart phone apps.

        So when I say that the technologies for web apps are less mature, for instance, I mean that there are certain things (like HTML 5 specifications for accessing Location, Camera, etc) that just aren't there yet. They are well specified in the APIs for Android apps and iOS apps, however.

  • You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means! Usually the word "unthinkable" is used in the context of the type of acts the typical slashdot reader would like to perform with Natalie Portman!
  • Read the website? Or a multitude of different news websites. How is this even remotely worth a buck a week when everything else is free?

  • Don Corleone (Marlon Brando) said:
    "And, Angelo, make sure it's an offer they can't refuse."

  • The Daily offers 'unthinkable innovations' to the world of publishing."

    Well said Emperor Palpatine.

  • by Invisible Now (525401) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @07:50PM (#35086114)

    I like tablets. I own an iPad and develop for it.

    So, many think Murdoch is the Devil. Clearly he can pay some talented developers and designers. (Journalists, too, but I want avoid politics for this post.)

    I downloaded the app and liked some features:

    It's pretty and doesn't look like a website, or the NYTimes black and white no pictures (mostly) app.

    It's effortless to skim through. Just flick your thumb on the screen. Like you thumb through a magazine in your dentist's waiting room.

    Ads are easy to skip, (full pages) just flick past them, and content pages don't look like patchwork quilts of doubleclick drop ins.

    Easy to trigger streaming video ads, like the full page (HD-ish) trailer for "Rio" are more than print will ever deliver, and since you opt-in by hitting play if you are interested, they are big plus.

    I'm incorporating Daily's new full page, no menu bars, etc, zeitgeist, into a conventional site I'm working on today. The design approaches being a new paradigm for web design so I'm trying to learn and copy as much as I can.

    I think Daily's weakest at knowing where you are and returning there, though the progress bar - a surrogate for the thickness of real pages helps. And searching. Maybe I just haven't seen it. The slide spinner is so-so for this...

    Finally: 99 cents a week (or whatever, as a recurring micropayment subscription) is something I might want to see some worthy but struggling clients try...

  • by reboot246 (623534) on Wednesday February 02, 2011 @10:16PM (#35087144) Homepage
    Nothing but a lot of Fox News bashing by a very left-leaning slashdot crowd.

    I don't know why the hell I come here.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...