iPad Newspaper From News Corp Rumored in January 220
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."
*only ipad* (Score:2)
Does that mean they won't use the same sources as their other papers and channels ?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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:3)
Those who buy Apple products, such as the iPad, tend to be younger college student types, and to draw a correlation, overwhelmingly liberal.
I don't know what the iPad demographics are other than anecdote--they aren't just for younger people.
But to your point--Those younger people will be growing up after buying iPads will become more conservative as they age to 30 years old. http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx [gallup.com]
I say it's near perfect marketing if your hypoth
Re: (Score:2)
1. News Corp is in it to make money by targeting whoever will buy the product.
2. Just because News Corp is involved doesn't mean the product will be conservative. The FOX network (not FOX News) was very liberal when it started out.
3. Not everything has to have a left/right slant. Can't we have an article about gardening without any political commentary?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Does he think he can pay for this by subscription revenue only?
He may be able to pay for it with subscriptions revenue only, since the distribution costs and operational expenses are greatly reduced from that of a paper-printed daily publication.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but I'll bet the printing and distribution is a relatively small part of the total cost.
Re: (Score:2)
He pays for the content anyway (for his newspaper and tv channels), this is just another way of distributing.
Of course (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think there won't be ads?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sign me up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, no shortage [newyorkshitty.com] of douchebaggery [courthousenews.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately for you, reality has well-known a liberal bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does this bring to the table (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes Rupert Murdoch more money. Oh, you meant, "how is it better for the customer?" Does that actually matter?
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe that's his goal - one more piece of evidence that online news is a bad idea?
Re: (Score:2)
He can go looking for that evidence all day long. Meanwhile, his competitors will keep making money left, right, and center.
Cue CSS joke (Score:2)
There's no money to be made in the top, middle and bottom?
Re: (Score:2)
Not looking, creating
Re: (Score:2)
His competitors, in this instance, are all-internet news sources, not daily papers.
Unfortunately, the biggest players in the sphere (Gawker, TMZ, Radar Online) are all private corporations so no financial data is available. But in ten years, which group do you think will still be around: the ones making their content easily and readily available, or the ones trying to lock in their customers?
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox News and Rupert Murdoch aren't libertarians, they are authoritarians. And like authoritarians everywhere, they simply use libertarians as tools. It's as if the wolves have convinced a few sheep to go out and argue to the rest of a sheep that a wolf's stomach makes the best home.
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Insightful)
Fox News and Rupert Murdoch aren't libertarians, they are authoritarians.
I certainly wouldn't count Fox News as a libertarian channel (in what sense are they authoritarian though?) but rather as conservative both fiscally and socially, which is still closer to libertarian than any other main channels. Fox Business News is very libertarian though - see Stossel's show http://www.hulu.com/stossel [hulu.com] and Freedom Watch, the two most libertarian shows on television. Murdoch himself has a history of being anti-socialist more than anything else. In Britain, his newspapers, The Times and The Sun, supported Tony Blair against Conservatives because he defeated the long standing Labour party far left leadership (which almost destroyed the party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#The_.22Wilderness_Years.22_.281979.E2.80.931997.29) [wikipedia.org] and more towards the center-left.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is being socially conservative at all libertarian? Social conservatives want to legislate away our freedoms. That is authoritarian, not libertarian. I can understand that true fiscal conservatism is libertarian, but legislating against gays, abortion, science education, and drugs is about as far from libertarian as you can get. Not that I expect you to know what libertarianism is really about, most people who call themselves libertarians have no idea what the word really means, what the history of the m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is being socially conservative at all libertarian?
It's not, I meant the fiscal part. Fox is pretty consistent in calling for a smaller, less intrusive government, less spending, lower taxes etc. They also supported the Tea Party movement, while the likes of CNN started off by deliberately ignoring it, then switched to calling it racist and are now sulking as they realize none of the smears worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get this idea? It's nonsense. Social conservatives want *the government out of everyone's lives*, aside from the few areas where it is supposed to operate. i have seen far more liberals advocate authoritarian ideas and they are daily trying to legislate away my freedom. Obamacare, Cap and Trade, forced enviromentalis
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, what are social conservatives FOR, then? What does it mean to be a social conservative? I thought it meant that they want to prohibit gays from marrying, they want school prayer, they want to fund teaching of creationism, forbid sodomy and oral sex, outlaw recreational drugs, carry out as many executions of criminals as possible, and basically go back to the good old days when white men were men, and everyone else did what they were told.
Being a social conservative, as opposed to just a conservative san
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
If anybody could get it, the people who buy iPads would not want it.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Insightful)
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!"
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is somewhere between a rumor and a leak.
So you obviously aren't up to date with Apple's marketting techniques.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the whole comment, or just stop when your knickers got into a twist? Because I also said:
Of course the web is
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except for ChromeOS applications. And, applications that need to economically target a broad range of devices rather than being rewritten from
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You said that -- I said:
I merely pointed out that a
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, I stand in awe of the master debaters and wordsmiths posting on Slashdot.
You've clearly run rings around me with your astute points and finely crafted logic.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:What does this bring to the table (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That has been true of most demonst
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah.
Or, better than a regular paper newspaper delivered to the front door.
Have to check back next year and see if this one went anywhere......
I get the paper delivered daily. Often I will read an article that I would like to quote or reference online. Unfortunately, when I go to the publisher's online venue, the article is hard to find and often not the same.
IFF this is truly equivalent to a normal newspaper, and IFF the articles are easy to quote or reference, my hardcopy newspaper subscription will become part of history.
PS - $52 per year is less than the cost of a normal newspaper.
PSS - My paper, with the sucky website is the S.J. Mercury Ne
minority report (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except now it won't be an arrest warrant, it will be an order to call Health Care Reform, "Government takeover of healthcare".
Wow! News content delivered automatically!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh goody (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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?
DONOTWANT (Score:3)
Does it have a crossword puzzle? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's from News Corp? Save yourself some money (Score:4, Funny)
Just scrawl "Liberal Socialists Doing Scary Bad Stuff!" on the screen in permanent marker and look at it every five minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
And there will be tits on page 3?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And on the other networks just write (Score:2)
"Conservatives Doing Scary Bad Stuff!"
Anybody who thinks ABCNBCCBSMSNBC is anywhere near neutral or balanced is fooling himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Up next on the conservatives-excuse Hotline, that golden oldie, "Well Clinton did it!"
Time machine (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What will it be called? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We don't read Wynand (Score:2)
YAY!!! (Score:2)
Propaganda pushed to my over priced hobbled tablet...yay?
Curse you Rupert Murdoch! (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell am I supposed to wrap a fish in that?
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell am I supposed to wrap a fish in that?
I've found that my iPad makes an excellent sushi plate.
This sounds familiar (Score:2)
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)
Year of Mobile Malware (Score:2)
murdoch still going to die sooner or later (Score:2)
Finally, something that will SAVE print newspapers (Score:2)
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?
Re:In other irrelevant news ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This has no bearing on me, as I have no desire to own an iPad, and even less desire to read a single word penned in Murdoch's cesspool.
So you click on the slashdot article about a service you would not want on a device you don't have? Then leave a comments letting us know you don't care about it?
Re: (Score:2)
This has no bearing on me, as I have no desire to own an iPad, and even less desire to read a single word penned in Murdoch's cesspool.
So you click on the slashdot article about a service you would not want on a device you don't have? Then leave a comments letting us know you don't care about it?
What the fuck are you going to expect next? That he RTFA???
Re:In other irrelevant news ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So you click on the slashdot article about a service you would not want on a device you don't have? Then leave a comments letting us know you don't care about it?
So? Actually, what business is that of yours? This place is designed for everyone to comment on any topic. Even if you moderate him/her to -1, you can't stop them to express a point of view. That's a good thing, not a bad one.
Did you mean? (Score:2)
"you can't stop them" FROM EXPRESSING "a point of view."
Opine away, but avoid doing violence to the language.
I agree with you though: "That's a good thing, not a bad one.""
Re: (Score:3)
You click on the "Reply to this" link on an comment that apparently doesn't interest you, and passive-aggressively ask questions about the comment to which the answers are expressly stated in the comment to which you are replying.
Your point?
Re: (Score:2)
This has no bearing on me, as I have no desire to own an iPad, and even less desire to read a single word penned in Murdoch's cesspool.
So you click on the slashdot article about a service you would not want on a device you don't have? Then leave a comments letting us know you don't care about it?
Of course. We're all trying to win that word 'Insightful' next to our posts.
Re: (Score:2)
This has no bearing on me...
But it does.. People who read Fox also vote.. a dangerous combination.
Re: (Score:2)
You underestimate the number of hipster douches that are out there.
They are multitude.