Wait, they spent 30 MILLION on developing a simple app that probably uses Webkit to render content?
Were the developers charging 1 million per hour or something?
Sorry, I mean THE developer.
News Corp's long-anticipated newsy iPad app, The Daily, has launched in the US. Today it's only on the iPad, but Murdoch & Co plan to expand its reach to other tablets. "New times demand new journalism," News Corporation's chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch announced during The Daily's roll-out event on Wednesday in New York City …
"The Daily's editor Jesse Angelo ticked-off what he sees as the advantages of e-published content over ink on that expensive paper that Murdoch talked about:"
It´s just as good as web-content but allows us to charge more.
Do they expect more payers than usual paywall-approaches? I mean, given the "great" success of magazines on the pad...
... just like people buy into Sky, HBO, etc despite free television being available, they can build up sufficient brand prestige that some people will sign up for a subscription, allowing them to pay proper reporters and/or famous name pundits to maintain the brand. They would argue that one of the problems with other iPad content is that Apple didn't have a subscription model before, meaning that users have to invest effort every time they want to buy an issue (analogous to going to the newsagent) rather than having to invest effort if they want to stop receiving issues (as with the sort of magazine subscription they want to sell).
Given that it's a US publication, although not a Fox spin off so I'm using these names just as examples, I can imagine they'd recoup if they carried exclusive content by Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Glenn Beck, etc. Vanity disclaimer: I don't actually like any of those people.
"...we are always going to say what we think is right for this country. We believe in free ideas, we believe in free people"
Should continue with:
"...and we're always going to dictate what you can put on your iPad. You'll read the news we want you to read. You'll listen to the music we think you should listen to. We'll prevent you from doing things we don't want you to do. We'll also cut out the competition from being able to provide you with the same things, since we already have a "built-in" function for it. Oh, and they'll have to pay us 30% anyway if we do allow them in."
Free ideas? Sure. Free people? Not a chance.
500'000 a week, is probably a low estimate but still ensures profitability in a year. All they have to do is aggreegate the news from all their other sources, a few people could easily do that.
Thanks but no thanks, I try to use multiple news sources from reputable places and form my own opinion. I do not want Ruperts ideology imposed any more than it it with the trash papers and Sky News etc...
Oh and 1 more thing thanks a lot for Buying Virgin 1 the only source of freeview trek with the sole intention of closing it down, tosser and enemy of fair competition in the UK.
(Virgin 1 was bought by bSkyB June - July , rebranded to Channel 1 and axed on 1 Feb without any notification in the UK)
One can only assume that Murdoch is looking for ways to extend his vitriolic bible-bashing propaganda into the heads of a fresh young generation of free-thinkers.
As much as I love Apple's technology, and forward thinking in general, I cant but help feel a little squeamish at the union between Jobs and Murdoch, which benefits journalistic freedom and openness, in much the same way as the union between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels did.
"1984"? or 1944?
I thought the article said this news shit :-) was only available on the fondle slab, ergo only available to mactards, who as any fule kno are incapable of independent thought, thats why steve was sent down to us, to do all our thinking.
will the presence of murdoch AND jobs ion the same scam sufficiently distort reality to suspend godwins law?
i rather think so
"...we love America, we are always going to say what we think is right for this country. We believe in free ideas, we believe in free people." The first and last parts of that sentence are close to being mutually exclusive.
Think I'll stick with my free BBC and Guardian news feeds rather than pay for jingoistic and reactionary American rubbish. I mean seriously if the editorial standpoint is openly "we love America" how can you even hope for unbiased content?
I read The Times app on my ipad every day. It is really, really good - it is fast to load (even over 3G), it doesn't care what country you are in, and has 99% the content of the regular paper (I've yet to see the 'funny' letter to the editor make it to the letters page. You know the one, bottom right of the page..)
I also have the Sunday Times app on my ipad. I never use it. It is slow to load (especially over 3G - 1 edition is ~400MB), constantly has problems loading content. It's basically a series of photos..
Interested to see if Apple continue to allow these newspaper apps, since the Times ones manage their subscription completely outside of itunes.
Cue comments about how I'm a fanboi, moron, Nazi, Murdoch lover..
>"...and we're always going to dictate what you can put on your iPad. You'll read the news we want you to read<
The daily is only for sale to the yanks
iBooks happily reads drm free ePub books on the iPad and PDFs
You can load whatever mp3s you have on your computer onto ipad
Dropbox negates the need to install everything thru iTunes
The Guardian are in the process of releasing an app for the iPad
Web browsing (minus flash) is available and uncensored on the iPad
Any type of mp4 video can be download onto the iPad (inc porn)
A £2 app allows you to stream any video type from your pc (inc porn) over wifi
BBCi app available, no 4od yet, but fingers crossed, TV catchup works
Other apps allow you to read ecomics, have better web surfers, control PCs, play games and basically have fun fondling slabs.
PS. Apple hater, iPad lover, sent from my non jail broken iPad.
PPS. Not that I would've bought The Daily, Murdoch obscenity that it is, but I would've checked out the two free issues.
I can do all those things on my £200 Acer Netbook running Linux without the need for any "apps" or itunes.
Does your pad thingy have any USB ports or a webcam built in?
Remind me again what you paid to be bent over and assimillated into the collective?
Dont get me wrong, the iPad is a lovely gadget and great fun for large screen angry birds but re read all the hoops you have to jump through to do basic every day stuff and explain the true benefit.
"I can do all those things on my £200 Acer Netbook running Linux without the need for any "apps" or itunes."
Yup, but just tell me how is your 200 quid Acer for curling up in bed and watching a movie? Does the keyboard stick out and catch your chin? Does it seem strange having to press the cursor buttons to move between pages on that book applications you have?
"Does your pad thingy have any USB ports or a webcam built in?"
Nope but that's not what it was bought for.
You think it is clever that you are slagging off people for having bought something that you can do for 200 quid... except you can't. The iPad is very good as a personal device for watching movies, reading and playing games. Prop it against a pillow in your bed and you have a very small cinema,. You just can't do that with a netbook.
"Yup, but just tell me how is your 200 quid Acer for curling up in bed and watching a movie?"
This would appear to be the main selling point for the iPad amongst fanboys: ooh, curl up on the couch and watch a movie where you have to hold or rest the device on something while watching 16x9 video in a letterbox on an unimpressive screen, if the few times I've seen iPads in active use - and only then as mere portable movie players - the screen quality, particularly the contrast and black level, has been a reasonable indication of what your money buys you.
And Apple didn't do themselves a favour with a shiny black casing showing up the shiny screen's limitations, at least when you're not using it in shiny "watch this kinetic scrolling!" elevated brightness mode.
Being able to curl up in bed wasnt one of the points I was answering in the OP so your additional caveat is at best moot and at worst just self justification for your purchase.
And secondly, my kids 5, 7 and 9 have netbooks and they seem quite happy curling up in bed watching cbeebies iplayer without any chin related injuries.
I can only assume you look like Jimmy Hill, which may go someway to explaining why your iPad is the most important thing you take to bed.
In conclusion then, you have a large chin, your single, and my 5 year old is more neuroligically adept in that he can watch a netbook without twatting himself in the face!
"It will definitely be part of the web discourse and the social world.".....
Yes. in years to come we'll be saying 'Remember How the dirty digger wanted us to download and pay for an app; instead of just having a decent website.. ROFL that was one of the best train wrecks ever!!
I've taken a good look at the first edition.
Regardless of your opinion of the Daily's content, the companies involved or the personalities - there is no doubt that this app is the first serious attempt to publish in a dedicated format suitable for a tablet instead of simply regurgitating the output of a newspaper. To do it properly you have to break the ingrained culture of newspaper publishing organisations that are all about getting tomorrow's print out. Easiest way to do that is to start a new organisation from scratch like they did.
I think they have done a good job too. The Daily is better than The Times app and will improve over time I'm sure. Seems like the way forward to me.
I hope some of the UK news organisations emulate this so we can have some better multi-media journalism on tablets over here and we can all choose our flavour just like with newspapers.
Was impressed by the amount of photo/video content. Seemed to work well for the most part, just a few grainy vids. Articles read well, one or two were leaned more to the conservative side. At first I watched a couple of ads and then realized I could just "swipe" through them to the next page. Interesting concept for the articles: after the intro screen shot, you turn the iPad to landscape and up come photos attached, keep it portrait and the next page is the article itself.
What I didn't like: I had to swipe through the entire sports section before I could find a sport other than American football and stories about the Superbowl. The summary/index section needs to be up front instead of last. The Daily needs to allow subscribers to move through an index of sorts to drill quickly to the articles they want to read, and that's true about every section. There is an overhead selection bar for the different sections, but it only takes you to the start of the section. So, if you move back and forth between sections, you have to start at the beginning of each section. At least that was my initial impression, there might be some trick/tweak that wasn't either obvious or intuitive.
Overall: Better than the other news sites/papers out there (NY Times, BBC, etc), but could be better and will have to improve if they want me to pay for it.
I have discovered a Killer App on my Nokia 5800 phone - it works just like those iPhone and iPad apps you see for websites, but it lets you view all websites. Better yet, it works even if the website hasn't released an app specifically for people to view the website! Revolutionary!
I also found that my tablet-with-keyboard (aka netbook) comes with a similar app.
Seriously though - this is going back to the bad old days of "Best viewed in 800x600 on Internet Explorer". But it's _worse_ than that, as that was only a recommendation, but Apple and Murdoch would prefer a world where you only receive content through specifically written apps, and only on their hardware. The whole point of the web was to make information available through an open standard, and let people choose their own clients, available on any platform.
And if an app has something that the website doesn't, why can't I get it for you know, Windows - let alone Android and Symbian?
I guess the walled gardens of Apple and Murdoch are a perfect match for each other. But I sure hope that this isn't the way things go. I want to read information on the Internet on a platform I choose. I don't want a situation where despite most people using Windows/Symbian/Android, content producers decide to force us with "Only viewed on an iPad in 800x600".
...why should I bother to read their magazine on my mobile device? Periodicals from El Reg to The Grauniad to the Beeb to the NY Times demonstrate that mobile websites can be clean, professional, and fast. Why on earth would I want to download a device-specific app just to view a single website's articles and advertising?
>I can do all those things on my £200 Acer Netbook running Linux without the need for any "apps" or itunes.<
So we're both happy, surely a 'good thing'.
>Does your pad thingy have any USB ports or a webcam built in<
No, would like an sdcard option, but can live without for now
>...and explain the true benefit.<
Emotional contentment, even adults need toys, and I love, LOVE, touch screens.
One thing does really piss me off, the lack of Flash, but I'm hoping that now Jobs is gone, Apple will finally relent, and if not <shrug>, my next tablet will be Android 3 (in a year or so should be some nice models out).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019