or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor - Page 2

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Outlandish you say. Not at all, especially for an electronic edition. The average news paper is hardly worth more than a dime a day, the NYT might be worth a bit more but hardly more than a quarter.

This isn't really about editorial content but rather the reality that news is a 24 hour a day business, since the advent of cable TV and then the web. So one element here is that the NEWS in Newspaper is no longer important as by definition it is always old news. So if the papers of tomorrow seriously want to be in the news business they need to deliver the news 24 hours a day. That is not impossible but takes a total change in the mind set of a paper.

In many ways the news is not journalism. That may shock many but think about it, the news is about the events and activities that make up our days. Journalism, especially investigative journalism is another beast altogether. It is the search for truths, opinions and other elements of a story to inform the community in general. In other words news is really a passive thing where as journalism is a more engaging activity. In order to compete a "newspaper" needs to compete on both fronts to give people a reason to spend their time with the distribution.

Sadly I don't really think that newspapers in general get it yet. One of the primary reasons for their existence has vanished to more timely and diverse mediums. As the electronic forms gather an ability to cover local scenes and actually employ reporters the dead tree based businesses will slowly wither away. Think about a world where Google, Yahoo or Bing employed reporters to compete directly with the likes of the NYT. Or for that matter Apple starting up a news bureau to work in conjunction with that massive data center they are building. Mind you these organizations would not be hiring people to report the news (which they already to effectively baring Apple) but rather to engage in true journalism. I don't know about you guys but the papers just don't get it.

Dave

Spoken like someone who has never read a paper. Journalism, as it is done by good journalists in newspapers, is much more in depth than the sound bites and headlines one gets from CNN and the likes.

If you try to get all of your information from TV or the headlines you find online, you will be sorely uninformed or worse, misinformed.

Newspapers provide a depth and balance which is impossible given the time constraints of TV and radio.

Newspapers also allow the reader the opportunity to pause and consider what is being said, reread what doesn't sink in, and review the total article in a thoughtful manor.

This is to say nothing of the shear art of journalism. A well written article is a pleasure to read, as apposed to most of the trivial BS one gets from other sources.

If newspapers give up on the ability to pay good journalists to properly investigate and report, we're doomed as a society.

News isn't old just because you saw the headline 15 minutes ago. News evolves as more information becomes available. More information becomes available because journalists go digging for it.

It's true that it sounds like there is an element within the NYT that is fighting to retain an old and unsustainable business model. Fighting to keep print alive is bound to be fruitless in the long or medium term.

$30 per month will surely price them out of existence. However, they do need to maintain a price which will allow them to continue to support a large staff of trained and experienced journalists.

End rant.
post #42 of 107
I look at NYT a lot, and figure that it's worth paying for.

At $30/mo it's dead. Monty Python time. Slid down the curtain of life. Snuffed it. Pushin' up the daisies.

About $60 - $75 per year is workable. Monthly a bit more of course.
post #43 of 107
The $30/month rumor is just to make you feel better about the $10/month they will end up charging you.
post #44 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Wow. You're so much better than the average person.

Consider, just for a moment, that he might be right.
post #45 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Why would I pay for a digital subscription when it is all availabloe on the 'web for free?

Because if nobody pays for it, professionally researched and reported news will disappear. In its place we will get pseudo-news that is basically gossip, hearsay, and an unhealthy helping of opinion. Yes, even in the news business, you get what you pay for.
post #46 of 107
There is an underlying issue on this subject about NYT subscriptions that is more serious than how much people will, or will not pay for the news. The issue is honesty. How can we believe a story posted on some online blog that quotes anonymous sources about unnamed individuals at the NYT expressing concern about the cost of subscriptions on the iPad? Think deeper people. This is not about the NYT or subscription rates or anything but undermining the iPad and Apple.

Yes, I am sure that there is a lot of "sturm and drang" going on at the Times. There is wailing and gnashing of teeth at EVERY newspaper and magazine being published. Printed material, especially news-related, is on a downhill skid. So what better screen to put up about "publishers being concerned about the impact of the iPad on online literature and bookselling." Makes a good cover story.

I didn't see one damned article about Amazon's e-books being the demise of physical book printing. No, but the minute Steve Jobs says that the iPad will have an e-reader function for the likes of NYT and the iBook store, the storm of venom started to flow. I have been reading a lot of blogs on tech sites in the past few months and I see interesting trends.

The trends are that non-Apple writers (i.e.: those who haven't used an Apple product since the Apple IIe in grade school,) are now suddenly Apple and Mac experts and know EXACTLY what is wrong with the iPad. One techinoblogger actually was stupid enough to make the statement that "the iPad is destined to fail because it cannot run Windows 7." WTF???

That is like saying the reason GM is struggling financially is because they can't use Ford motor parts. It is insane. But I see dozens of articles each day with a subtle underlying message... "Apple will fail" "Steve Jobs is a monster" "iPhones are of the devil." None of this true but the writers keep singing the negative song about all things Apple. Even some of the writers on this so-called Apple insider site write with such venom towards everything that Apple says, or does not say. If Apple doesn't say what these critics want to hear, they say there must be something Apple and the evil Jobs are hiding. And then they quote some unnamed source on some obscure blog, or some inside source close to one of the manufacturing partners in China to verify their point.

But the point is simple. If something is printed online or in print that is not verified by a credible, named source, it is a LIE. Hearsay, innuendo, half truths and myths are not allowed in legal proceedings but they can be sprayed all over so-called journalism. The NYT and all other publications need to worry more about credibility, and not whether people will pay $6, $15 or $30 a month for what they write. Right now, much of what is being written is not worth two cents.

Just for the hell of it, go out and read "news" articles about Apple and the iPad on five different information sources. Look for the facts, and who supposedly stated them. You will find that many of these articles are built on a presupposition, supported by vague projections of half-truths. Many of them have no facts at all nor do they point to real, traceable news sources.

I an not an Apple fan boy but I do think they make superior products to the Wintel computers and smartphones. But if real criticism of Apple and its products is going to be raised, base it on facts and sound philosophy. That is what real journalism is supposed to be. All the rest is just mindless raving.
post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason View Post

Newspapers are obsolete. Sorry, they are. The delivery of news is not. I don't watch cable news. I read multiple news source -- very few of which are actually 'news papers'. I read Reuters and AP -- the same source of the majority of 'news' in most news papers. I pay for it by allowing myself to be subjected to advertisements.

This is not about information and ignorance, it is about an industry who's time has past. News will still 'get out'. But newspapers, like most dying industries, are so trapped in their own idiom, and so deep in denial that they are incapable of foresight.

Boutique content shops, either advertiser supported or subscription based are the future. Newspapers are the past.

Ultimately, it is about ignorance. First, the AP and Reuters run only brief stories. Second, they run only brief stories about national or international events. They do not cover local or even regional news. Third, they do zero investigative journalism. I could go on, but the point is, if you are relying on those as sources, then you might as well stick to cable news.

Newsprint may be well on the way towards being obsolete, but if as you insist, journalism itself is obsolete, then a lot of things are also obsolete. Like for instance, democracy.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #48 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee View Post

The reason news content has been free is that it was subsidized by print or broadcast operations, and those aren't cutting the mustard any more. So guess what: It's time to start paying for information that costs money to collect, report, edit, and package. On the other hand, expecting readers to pay the same as print delivery when there are no newsprint, trucking, or associated personnel costs involved is ridiculous.

News content has never been free. Up till now, it was supported by the people who felt a need to know things.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #49 of 107
I can't watch cable news...the inanity of Hannity (high school education) and the blathering of obermanm it's all just crap! I read the WSJ, listen to NPR, especially the Diane Rehm show's podcasts while I run. Oh and Bill Maher's podcast too!

Used to get Time and Newsweek and still get our local paper, the AZ republic.

Have subscriptions to MacWorld, Foreign Affairs, AZ Highways, Runner's World, Sail, Scuba, Skiing, Food & Wine, Tennis and Soaring Magazines.

I would pay $30 a month for all the above, rather like cable....but not $30 just for the NYT...Sorry!

As a previous poster said, 'Dear Publishers.....it's 2010!'
post #50 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This. They bitch that newspaper quality ahs gone done then bitch that they get the same news for free. I only wish NYTimes wouldn't have stated their site is free until 2011.

I think a good model would be to give their loyal print subscribers access to the e-version for free. This will help maintain these customers which could be a problem as each drop will push distribution costs to every other account.

After that marketing will require bean counters but if they are still going to give away their website have to lessen the cost for the e-version, even if they make it as compelling as the print version. I would liked to see a newspaper and magazine section built into the iBook app. I don't want a separate app for each subscription with a separate login and account. I will be more likely to buy more if I can just use my iTS account. I'd also like it to auto-load so when I pick it up it's there waiting for me, like being delivered to my door. I don't want to have to go grab it first.

Overall, I'm disappointed that the focus on making a viable replacement for print media has not been thought out. It's the one thing that could have made the iPad a must have and potentially save publishers still dedicated to quality writing.

What amazes -- no, actually depresses me, is the attitude that everything should be free or not at all. Where did this attitude come from, I wonder? I have some theories, but I honestly wish I didn't.

If the newspapers I read daily were automatically delivered digitally to my iPad every morning, with the same content as the newsprint versions I've been reading for years, then I'd pay for that. I'm not sure I'd pay as much as I'm paying for the newsprint version ($10 a week, for the LA Times), but I'd have to see how it looked and felt to read. I think I could learn to live without the newsprint, and I could certainly learn to live without the trip down the driveway every morning in my bathrobe, but I don't think I could live without having a newspaper to read over breakfast. Maybe because I've been doing it ever since I learned to read, more or less.

Many people now, I suppose, have convinced themselves that a dose of cable news, an occasional perusal of a news digester site, and reading a blog written by somebody who always confirms what they already believe, is a substitute for knowing about what is going on in the world. The result is, well, what we've got now. Hell, it's "free," so it must be good.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #51 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undo Redo View Post

I would possibly pay $10 per year, if I bought an iPad, which I probably won't.

That's just it. It will be a challenge to get people to pay for online information they could get off of a blog, RSS or the free version via Safari. The market for subscriber supported e-newspapers and magazines is not quite there yet.

Also, something no one has adequately addressed yet... what the heck are they going to do with the flyers and coupons? The coupons alone often made the Sunday paper a worthwhile investment (I'm not referring to the NYT, in particular).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #52 of 107
I have a hard time believing someone who actually reads the paper would ask this type of question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Why would I pay for a digital subscription when it is all availabloe on the 'web for free?
post #53 of 107
That would be a much more reasonable and understandable deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filburt View Post

:
  • $30/month: unlimited full contents (including puzzles) with access to every single articles from its archive
  • $10/month: unlimited article read, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • $10/year: 5-10 articles per day, cannot access articles older than 1 month
  • Free: Just the top articles
post #54 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I have a hard time believing someone who actually reads the paper would ask this type of question.

Even more to the point, a lot of people have a hard time believing that anyone actually reads newspapers.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #55 of 107
The Times online edition is a national and international news source read all around the world. The so called print edition people reach only a fraction of the audience with their paper product. If they think they can amortize their cost of nineteenth century industrial production of the printed paper by charging the same for the simple act of elecgronic downloading, then they're truly nuts and out of touch. It doesn't take much in the online world for people to close the tab or window and turn elsewhere. They'll learn this lesson at their peril if they listen to the failing print side of their operation and try to milk the online, most of which is outside the New York area.
post #56 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotRs View Post

To have news, you must have reporters.. to have reporters you must pay them. If people quit paying for news... who will report it?.

Radio and TV staff get paid, but I don't pay directly for their specific content. They find other revenue streams. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for online content.
post #57 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, ....

I had a paper route as a kid. But those were more innocent times. Liability, subscription management, billing, sales tax, etc. among other issues has turned driveway delivery into a high school drop out occupation.

Back then our family also read the paper and discussed the news of the day. Average people today just don't read that much. They get their news from the MSN home page and the television.

That is going to be the big challenge for the the newspapers going forward even on the iPad. The iPad may be a big hit as a family computing device but I doubt it will save the newspapers.

Journalism is so fragmented today. The business model of world news, politics, finance, sports, classifieds, and local interest is difficult to house under one roof any longer. We are in an age of specialization and newspapers have to adapt to that trend as well. The NYT is quickly becoming a dinosaur.

I do still get the WSJ delivered to my office but I rarely find time to read it. Of course most of the time they toss it in the bushes or across the way on the neighbor's walkway.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #58 of 107
Interesting views. I'm from the UK and the printed media here is still well funded and very powerful. I currently pay $24 a month for my daily broadsheet. I'd happily pay $20 for an electronic version. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. Free news is free for a reason.

If there's no money to be made in written journalism then the only players left will be those in it to push an agenda.
post #59 of 107
Why are people quite happy to drop £x for an ipad, but then want to pay peanuts for their content? It's the content that adds value to an ipad, so it should be that the one off cost for the ipad is less, and the content more. However, I doubt that opinion will get much support here since it seems a lot of people prefer to line SJs pockets than the pockets of the content providers. Ultra cheap content with razor thin margins is NOT the way to build and develope a business. Just about everyone in here shouldagree with and support that unless you wish to appear hypocritical!
post #60 of 107
I definetly will pay for mag and newspaper subscriptions - I dont want them to get completely depending on the companies that pay for the adds - it is bad enough already if you ask me.
But for sure not 30$ a month.
Newspapers and such are in a bad situation these days:
They are within a transition phase:
They are able to deliver their content electronically - but they also have to provide it traditionally - for that reason they have the distribution costs for both ways.
But: I think they have to understand that prolonging the time where they have to provide their content traditionally will do them no good. They surely should encourage the new ways of distribution.
That said: for a well composed news App I will gladly pay 10$.
But for me it makes no sence to support a newspaper who misses the point where there business is obviously going.
10$ yes; 20$+ no


Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A new report citing an anonymous source suggests officials within The New York Times cannot agree whether to charge $10 per month or closer to $30 per month for a subscription to one of the world's most prominent newspapers.

The dispute, according to Gawker's unnamed source, lies between those with the company's print division, who view the iPad as "just another way to distribute the paper," and its digital operation, which would prefer to take a different, less expensive approach.

The source claims that those on the print side would like to see users charged between $20 and $30 per month to have the daily edition of the Times delivered to their iPad. Those with the company are allegedly "afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad," the report said.

On the other hand, those with the digital side of the Times would rather see users be charged about $10 per month for the iPad edition. The report alleged that those in the electronic business are "up in arms over print circulation's pricing."

The report also claims that New York Times Media Group president Scott Heekin-Canedy falls on the side of the print division, favoring pricing between $20 and $30.

"The internal fight might also determine how relevant -- and profitable -- the nation's most prominent newspaper can remain in the digital future," Gawker's Ryan Tate wrote. "Which is probably why there's reportedly so much sniping over who gets to control the iPad edition internally."

The news follows another recent report that some publishers are skeptical of Apple's iPad business model, which sees the company giving 70 percent of revenue to content providers, but not sharing any personal information about subscribers. Those in the publishing world, particularly in newspapers, view that information -- called "their most valuable asset" -- as crucial for selling advertising.



The Times played a significant role in Apple's introduction of its iPad, with company co-founder Steve Jobs browsing the official Web site when the hardware was unveiled. Later in the keynote, officials from the newspaper also demonstrated a daily iPad edition of the Times that will be available for download on the forthcoming device. No price for the subscription was given.

The Times Web site is also prominently featured in promotional videos demonstrating the iPad on Apple's Web site.

Days after it was unveiled, Jobs reportedly made a trip to New York City to meet with Times executives and pitch Apple's new hardware. It was said that Jobs demonstrated the iPad's functionality at the head of a restaurant table in what was said to be an "intimate, family-style gathering."
post #61 of 107
WELL SAID and i agree![


QUOTE=wizard69;1573919]Outlandish you say. Not at all, especially for an electronic edition. The average news paper is hardly worth more than a dime a day, the NYT might be worth a bit more but hardly more than a quarter.

This isn't really about editorial content but rather the reality that news is a 24 hour a day business, since the advent of cable TV and then the web. So one element here is that the NEWS in Newspaper is no longer important as by definition it is always old news. So if the papers of tomorrow seriously want to be in the news business they need to deliver the news 24 hours a day. That is not impossible but takes a total change in the mind set of a paper.

In many ways the news is not journalism. That may shock many but think about it, the news is about the events and activities that make up our days. Journalism, especially investigative journalism is another beast altogether. It is the search for truths, opinions and other elements of a story to inform the community in general. In other words news is really a passive thing where as journalism is a more engaging activity. In order to compete a "newspaper" needs to compete on both fronts to give people a reason to spend their time with the distribution.

Sadly I don't really think that newspapers in general get it yet. One of the primary reasons for their existence has vanished to more timely and diverse mediums. As the electronic forms gather an ability to cover local scenes and actually employ reporters the dead tree based businesses will slowly wither away. Think about a world where Google, Yahoo or Bing employed reporters to compete directly with the likes of the NYT. Or for that matter Apple starting up a news bureau to work in conjunction with that massive data center they are building. Mind you these organizations would not be hiring people to report the news (which they already to effectively baring Apple) but rather to engage in true journalism. I don't know about you guys but the papers just don't get it.

Dave[/QUOTE]
post #62 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

Because if nobody pays for it, professionally researched and reported news will disappear. In its place we will get pseudo-news that is basically gossip, hearsay, and an unhealthy helping of opinion. Yes, even in the news business, you get what you pay for.

So you see news organizations as charitable organizations? And a subscription as a contribution to a worthy cause?

Rupert Murdoch would love you. He is one of the richest men in the world.
post #63 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Ultimately, it is about ignorance. First, the AP and Reuters run only brief stories. Second, they run only brief stories about national or international events. They do not cover local or even regional news. Third, they do zero investigative journalism. I could go on, but the point is, if you are relying on those as sources, then you might as well stick to cable news.

That is why I don't rely on any one parochial source. I read the NYT, the Washington Post, LA Times, and hundreds more.

For free. They are all on the 'web, aggregated by Google News.

When I want perspective on a mideast bombing, I read both the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera. Domestic political news? NYT and the Washington Post. Tech news? I like San Jose Mercury News and NYT and WSJ.

All for "free". Right now. Updated and current.

IMO, subscribing to one source of news is inferior to reading 4,000 different sources.
post #64 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I have a hard time believing someone who actually reads the paper would ask this type of question.

What you believe is seemingly disconnected from reality.

I read the news, and not the "paper", unless I am going to enjoy a leisurely breakfast in a diner.

Indeed, my home page is Google News. I read newspaper stories all day long. I am a news junkie.

Your beliefs need calibration.
post #65 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

Spoken like someone who has never read a paper. Journalism, as it is done by good journalists in newspapers, is much more in depth than the sound bites and headlines one gets from CNN and the likes.

If you try to get all of your information from TV or the headlines you find online, you will be sorely uninformed or worse, misinformed.

Newspapers provide a depth and balance which is impossible given the time constraints of TV and radio.

Newspapers also allow the reader the opportunity to pause and consider what is being said, reread what doesn't sink in, and review the total article in a thoughtful manor.

This is to say nothing of the shear art of journalism. A well written article is a pleasure to read, as apposed to most of the trivial BS one gets from other sources.

If the NYT actually was what you describe, then I would pay $30 per month. But all too often it falls far short of your very impressive description. I am an economist and a computer technology enthusiast, so those are the two areas where I have some expertise. Frequently I will read articles in the NYT that expose serious, fundamental misconceptions on the part of the writer. Particularly in the case of economics, I think these misconceptions are actually dangerous and make people (and society as a whole) worse off than they would have been if the article never existed. The brightest spots are actually in some of the blogs that are written by actual experts in their fields. When you have a nobel laureate writing about economics -- that's pretty darned useful. If every article in the NY Times were written by an expert in the relevant field instead of some half-informed former journalism student, then I'd pay.
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

If newspapers give up on the ability to pay good journalists to properly investigate and report, we're doomed as a society.

I completely agree with you here - democracy only works if there is good quality journalism prepared and able to investigate what the politicians are upto. Conversely, democracy struggles as it is in the US now, where little is able to get done because politicians are too worried about the soundbite and short term journalism of cable news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

What amazes -- no, actually depresses me, is the attitude that everything should be free or not at all. Where did this attitude come from, I wonder? I have some theories, but I honestly wish I didn't.

The news sources caused this themselves in many respects. When the web came along, they all assumed that they had to be on the internet and they would figure out how to make money later. Now the genie is out of the bottle, they can't get it back in again. Furthermore, people are becoming as willing to accept things that will remain free, such as blogs, as opposed to valuing quality writing. I agree, it's depressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

Radio and TV staff get paid, but I don't pay directly for their specific content. They find other revenue streams. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for online content.

Indeed you don't, but with the exception of something like the BBC, which is paid for via a sort of tax, you pay for radio and TV news in the form of slanted journalism that has to meet the requirements of key advertisers.
post #67 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Ultimately, it is about ignorance. First, the AP and Reuters run only brief stories. Second, they run only brief stories about national or international events. They do not cover local or even regional news. Third, they do zero investigative journalism. I could go on, but the point is, if you are relying on those as sources, then you might as well stick to cable news.

Newsprint may be well on the way towards being obsolete, but if as you insist, journalism itself is obsolete, then a lot of things are also obsolete. Like for instance, democracy.

You know what. I wrote a long fairly reasoned response. And deleted it. There is no point. You are either too emotionally or financially invested in the current state of journalism to realize that the model is dying.

As for your assertion that 'newspapers = journalism = democracy' is false. The free exchange of information, opinions and ideas is important to democracy. The world of controlled editorial bias enforced on news rooms by the OWNERS of those newspaper is patently not part of democracy.
post #68 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

If the NYT actually was what you describe, then I would pay $30 per month. But all too often it falls far short of your very impressive description. I am an economist and a computer technology enthusiast, so those are the two areas where I have some expertise. Frequently I will read articles in the NYT that expose serious, fundamental misconceptions on the part of the writer. Particularly in the case of economics, I think these misconceptions are actually dangerous and make people (and society as a whole) worse off than they would have been if the article never existed. The brightest spots are actually in some of the blogs that are written by actual experts in their fields. When you have a nobel laureate writing about economics -- that's pretty darned useful. If every article in the NY Times were written by an expert in the relevant field instead of some half-informed former journalism student, then I'd pay.

You sir, are my hero :-) (I'm a Computer Technology professional and economics enthusiast).

You have hit the nail on the head. I respect good journalism when I find it. The lack of good journalism has made me a news grazer - going from source to source to try and distill the truth out of misconception, misinformation and editorial bias.

IMO - this is not about 'free vs. paid'. This is about the evolution of the information 'market'. In the beginning, Newspapers had a near monopoly, then the market began to fragment with news magazines, radio, television and now the internet all threatening the market incumbent. The Newsprint segment needs to either embrace and adapt to new distribution channels, or they will suffer the fate of all industries that do not adjust to changing market conditions.

Currently, I pay for the distribution channel (my internet connection). I would gladly pay for thoughtful, insightful, and trustworthy content.
post #69 of 107
Has anyone else seen the Safari walkthrough video here: http://www.9to5mac.com/ipad-safari-w...-video-4650470

The guy basically rebuilt Safari in Xcode since its all included just to demo it, and he shows both the very Cool Open Window Page, and the Bookmark Bar! Yes the Bookmark Bar appears under the address bar if you touch it.

This has to be one of the first NEW features in the iPad Safari that is not found on the iPhone. Good to know.
post #70 of 107
$30 a month??

Heck, I am already getting beaten down with monthly payments and fees for this and that.

I am sure the NYT has one of the highest subscription prices around but damn.

$10 tops. Thats even pushing the envelope.
post #71 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason View Post

The lack of good journalism has made me a news grazer - going from source to source to try and distill the truth out of misconception, misinformation and editorial bias.

I agree. I will often read the same story in a number of different publications, noting the similarities and the differences.

For example, I often read a story in the NYT, and then check out the same story in the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera. The differences are often illuminating.

I don't understand restricting myself to any single source of news. IMO, Google News is a great way to have thousands of newspaper subscriptions, all updated many times a day.
post #72 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.

What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.

Cable news isn't news at all. It's mostly advertising and propaganda.

Written Journalism, I'm sorry to say, is on it's way to being exactly that. They way the NYTimes advocates the illegal activity going on in the white house is more than enough evidence of that.
post #73 of 107
iPad = ready set go lifeline to old media.

Stuck dinos, old media will resist howling and screeching as they die.

New species will take over.

Evolution 101. The time is Now.
post #74 of 107
The reason digital is cheaper is because you don't have the charges related to print. People expect the savings to be passed down. If they charge $30 a month i give them a few years befor they go under. Sad to think of the New York Times gong out of business but it's the sign of the times.
post #75 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

I might pay for news on the iPad if all news on the internet that was free went away.

If all free online news did go away, I'd just go back to watching the 6 o'clock news. Eff 'em. They're not getting any of my money.

If all free news on the internet goes away, I recommend that you stop connecting to the internet from firewalls in China -and/or- open your own news website.
post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason View Post

The free exchange of information, opinions and ideas is important to democracy. The world of controlled editorial bias enforced on news rooms by the OWNERS of those newspaper is patently not part of democracy.

I have to respectively disagree, 'in part'.

As defined, "Journalism is the craft of conveying news, descriptive material and opinion via a widening spectrum of media. These include newspapers, magazines, radio and television, the internet and even, more recently, the mobile phone. "

Notice that this definition does not include 'blogging'. Thank goodness.

Whether or not editorial is controlled by owners or anyone else is in-material in a democracy. 'You always have a choice'. Unfortunately, not many people 'read' the 'other' sides points of view. Such is evidenced by the unwavering partisanism seen in the political arena in virtually all so-called democratic countries where the majority of government decisions are made based on pure ignorance and stupidity.

I find it unbelievable the ignorance displayed here. Stricking down the messenger service, i.e., newspapers, for the sake of the 'free' internet and worse, bloggers, is pure stupidity. The original source is created by journalists. Some are learned, other just plain idiots. The same journalists create all the other vehicles used to deliver the news.

How the message is delivered is only a means of convenience to the reader. Relying on a single source or one that satisfies a reader's outlook is simply-minded. That is the killer of democracy.

A couple of years ago on Jaywalking, it was asked, 'what is so special about today, i.e., June 14th. When they had to be told what Day it was, nobody could say what, where, when or how it came to be so special. Everyone that is, except a girl from Vancouver, Canada. Apparently, she had read it in one of the Canadian newspapers on her flight down to LA.
post #77 of 107
Part of the problem is that New Yorkers have a skewed view on life. The cost of living there is exorbitant. To them maybe $30 a month seems reasonable. Well, they need to step outside their big apple bubble and realize that to most people that is just too much money to pay. From reading these posts and thinking about what I would pay, I have to say that $5 is the right price. Tiered pricing would make the most sense though. Many would pay a little extra for archive access or for the Sunday puzzle. They could charge a la carte for those extras or as monthly add ons. There are all kinds of possibilities. They just are not being very creative in their thinking. They are being driven by fear instead of the excitement of salvation and innovation.

I know that this could not happen for a few years due to their lack of trust and incompetence, but I would like to see subscription packages available in the iPad iTunes section. You pay $30 a month and get 4 monthly subscriptions of your choice. There could be different tiered packages.

There are lots of very creative ways to do this. They just need to get their heads out of their...

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The news follows another recent report that some publishers are skeptical of Apple's iPad business model, which sees the company giving 70 percent of revenue to content providers, but not sharing any personal information about subscribers. Those in the publishing world, particularly in newspapers, view that information -- called "their most valuable asset" -- as crucial for selling advertising.

All advertisers need to know is that the ad will appear on the iPad. nuff said.
Apple customers have more disposable income, are better educated and exactly what most advertisers are looking for.
post #79 of 107
Apple customers have more disposable income, are better educated and exactly what most advertisers are looking for.[/QUOTE]

If they are better educated, why would they read the Times?
post #80 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShepherd View Post

Apple customers have more disposable income, are better educated and exactly what most advertisers are looking for.

If they are better educated, why would they read the Times?[/QUOTE]

Bingo!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor