or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › News Corp says iPad-specific publication coming soon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News Corp says iPad-specific publication coming soon

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
A News Corp. executive has confirmed that a news publication built specifically for tablets such as Apple's iPad will be coming soon, though it will initially be a U.S. product.

James Murdoch, who serves as News Corp. CEO for Europe and Asia, told journalists about the upcoming publication Wednesday at an investor conference in Spain, Reuters reports.

According to Murdoch, the new publication will be a "tablet-only product," though he declined to share exact details of the service. "You'll hear more about that soon," he said. He did, however, say that it would be largely a U.S. product.

The push for interactive news on tablet devices comes as part of a campaign to convince consumers to pay for news, rather than just reading it free on the Web, the report noted. Earlier this year, News Corp. placed its British newspapers behind "paywalls," which require users to pay for content.

Murdoch sees tablet-based journalism as the future of the industry. "The tablet in general, it lends itself to a type of journalism that is really new," Murdoch said. "These really are becoming our flagship products, even though they're very much in their infancy."

In July, rumors emerged that News Corp. was interested in starting a subscription service for tablet devices. The rumors picked up steam in late August when industry insiders suggested that a deal between News Corp. subsidiary Fox and Apple for 99-cent TV show rentals through iTunes may have been pushed through by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch. Reports alleged that Murdoch Sr. approved the deal to bolster his relationship with Apple in preparation for the rumored iPad-specific news organization.

The Wall Street Journal reported in October that parent company News Corp. was shelving plans to create a digital newsstand. The media conglomerate had reportedly invested $31.5 million on the tablet-focused initiative, known as "Project Alesia."
post #2 of 27
And nobody cares.\
post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

And nobody cares.\

There's an app for that.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

There's an app for that.

Apparently you guys don't understand just how BIG this could be. This is the beginning of the periodical and daily service that at least I have been waiting for. Also, I don't think they spent that much money on R&D just to scrap it...
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

There's an app for that.

It should be called "Tabloids for Tablets".

Brian
post #6 of 27
I would never give money to a corporation whos sole objective is to demonize Democrats.

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply

Six x 3.5GHz '14 MP, 64GB, 1TB PCIe, 16TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5S, 128 ATT iPad Air, 128 ATT iPad miniRetina, 16...

Reply
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

I would never give money to a corporation whos sole objective is to demonize Democrats.

Why not, Democrats just want to take your money and give it to someone else who has no desire to work, or illegal aliens. Might as well give it to a corporation that's actually paying people to work for them.
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

Apparently you guys don't understand just how BIG this could be. This is the beginning of the periodical and daily service that at least I have been waiting for. Also, I don't think they spent that much money on R&D just to scrap it...

Yes. And maybe there will be some topless girls on page 2 also.

Brian
post #9 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

Why not, Democrats just want to take your money and give it to someone else who has no desire to work, or illegal aliens. Might as well give it to a corporation that's actually paying people to work for them.

Political debates aside WSJ actually is increasing circulation while others decline. That means they are doing things right while NYT is in decline. This will probably be a success.
post #10 of 27
Tabloid & magazines hopefully will eventually be on the tablets. This may be the savior that the publiucation industry is looking for. And while everyone is trying to go for subscriptions, a per issue price might be more desirable for some. A perfect example would be if I'm looking to buy a new camera, I might want to read caamera magazines for month but not on a yearly basis.
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

Political debates aside WSJ actually is increasing circulation while others decline. That means they are doing things right while NYT is in decline. This will probably be a success.

The reason for the WSJ's increase is the same reason Murdoch can't be trusted. He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid. I been reading the Mac rumors sights since the internet began and I can not remember the WSJ being referred to as a source for a rumor regarding Apple until Murdoch took over. His publications pander to the lowest common denominator and bring the level of discourse into the mud. The fact that businesses and shareholder's investments are now held sway over by Rupert Murdoch should give anybody in American business pause. Caveat Emptor.

Brian
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

It should be called "Tabloids for Tablets".

Brian

Bingo.
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid.

Funny. I don't remember seeing Carly Fiorina in a bikini on Page 2....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

I been reading the Mac rumors sights since the internet began and I can not remember the WSJ being referred to as a source for a rumor regarding Apple until Murdoch took over.

Twenty years ago, the rumors the Journal ran were about who was going to buy beleaguered Apple. Have you noticed, though, that recent rumors in the Journal have tended to be accurate? That means good sources, which means enterprising reporters. I'm not quite sure what the problem is, unless you prefer Apple's being seen as not worth covering.

In any case, the biggest change in the Journal since Murdoch bought it is running more non-business news, especially from overseas. That's not particularly bad. Its conservative editorial page stance is hardly new.
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

The reason for the WSJ's increase is the same reason Murdoch can't be trusted. He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid. I been reading the Mac rumors sights since the internet began and I can not remember the WSJ being referred to as a source for a rumor regarding Apple until Murdoch took over. His publications pander to the lowest common denominator and bring the level of discourse into the mud. The fact that businesses and shareholder's investments are now held sway over by Rupert Murdoch should give anybody in American business pause. Caveat Emptor.

Brian

I would agree not to trust any journalist .... Conservative or progressive. But I have to be honest. When I read the Times lately I feel like I'm being preached to and told how to live my life. With WSJ I feel like I'm getting some good information. Far from perfect .. Far from trust worthy. But I feel they are more concerned about personal freedom. As far as technical news I like nyt and WSJ equally.
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee View Post

Funny. I don't remember seeing Carly Fiorina in a bikini on Page 2....



Twenty years ago, the rumors the Journal ran were about who was going to buy beleaguered Apple. Have you noticed, though, that recent rumors in the Journal have tended to be accurate? That means good sources, which means enterprising reporters. I'm not quite sure what the problem is, unless you prefer Apple's being seen as not worth covering.

In any case, the biggest change in the Journal since Murdoch bought it is running more non-business news, especially from overseas. That's not particularly bad. Its conservative editorial page stance is hardly new.

The WSJ back then reported on rumors causing a stir in business and affecting stock prices that were created somewhere else. The WSJ was not the publication creating the rumors as they are now the ones affecting the stock prices. The WSJ was about reporting what was happening in the business world not creating news in the business world. Again the difference between integrity and tabloid slop.

Brian
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

The reason for the WSJ's increase is the same reason Murdoch can't be trusted. He is turning one of the last bastions of pure journalism into a business tabloid.

Brian

You know Murdoch did endorse obama back in 08. He's not this flaming conservative they make him out to be. He's just a ver smart business man trying to make a dime.
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

I would agree not to trust any journalist .... Conservative or progressive. But I have to be honest. When I read the Times lately I feel like I'm being preached to and told how to live my life. With WSJ I feel like I'm getting some good information. Far from perfect .. Far from trust worthy. But I feel they are more concerned about personal freedom. As far as technical news I like nyt and WSJ equally.

Agreed. Read anything and try to gleem useful information from it. But take it with a grain of salt.
Brian
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

You know Murdoch did endorse obama back in 08. He's not this flaming conservative they make him out to be. He's just a ver smart business man trying to make a dime.

I in no way tried to bring politics into this discussion. This is about reporting facts versus spreading rumors. All he is trying to do is make a dime at the expense of journalistic integrity. Sensationalism vs. reporting. If Rupert Murdoch had owned the NYT or Washington Post in 1972, Watergate would never have been uncovered. I do not say that as a political statement. I mean he would have never allowed reporters the time and resources that were necessary to investigate and develop the story because there would have been a quicker, easier buck to be made.

Brian
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

The WSJ back then reported on rumors causing a stir in business and affecting stock prices that were created somewhere else. The WSJ was not the publication creating the rumors as they are now the ones affecting the stock prices. The WSJ was about reporting what was happening in the business world not creating news in the business world. Again the difference between integrity and tabloid slop.

Brian

I hope not Carli Fiorini. Maybe Erin Burnett.
BTW I'm also from Cincinnati.

Best
Brian
post #20 of 27
The Samsung Galaxy Tab is launching in Australia with trial subscriptions to some of Rupert's rags.

This is where it all started, remember.

Another Brian.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

Why not, Democrats just want to take your money and give it to someone else who has no desire to work, or illegal aliens. Might as well give it to a corporation that's actually paying people to work for them.

Assuming you're referring to corporate welfare, which has been advanced by Republicans and Democrats over many decades, there's something corrupt and dangerous about propping up for-profit businesses with policies that ultimately cost Americans their jobs by outsourcing to China/India, vs. regular welfare, or unemployment insurance, which temporarily keep people from becoming destitute (and a much greater burden to society, long-term) when the corporations restructure their jobs out of existence and/or outsource them to India/China. Just who are these people who have "no desire to work"? I've never met one. Unemployment is not enough to live on long term and it stops cold after 6 months in flush economic times, 2 years in times like these. Welfare is also temporary and only helps people with dependent children who would become wards of the state otherwise. These pennies that our bloated military-industrial-complex corporate-government throws at the debris left behind by post-industrial capitalism account for a very tiny percentage of the federal budget, compared to the military's share. Only Social Security compares in scale to the military (still only about half its size), and that is for _everyone_ when we retire from working, even the wealthy, and has nothing to do with "desire to work" - if you didn't work your adult life, you'd get no Social Security retirement, end of story.
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

Only Social Security compares in scale to the military (still only about half its size),

Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't your facts about 10 years old. Social Security spending is now more than defense spending. Unemployment/Welfare Spending is same as defense now. Combine medicare/medicade and that budget item well exceeds military. So not quite tracking your argument here.

Every american wants a safety net, but take a look at that entitlement budget. It' spooky. At this rate defense spending will become 2% of budget in 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy...y_category.jpg
post #23 of 27
deleted
post #24 of 27
Just wait until OLED-tvs become more common,
thats when OLED-publishing will really take off.

I also predict that iPhone4-journalists will soon be in higher demand than Iphone3-journalists. so all the universities better get their programs prepared for that.
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

Assuming you're referring to corporate welfare, which has been advanced by Republicans and Democrats over many decades, there's something corrupt and dangerous about propping up for-profit businesses with policies that ultimately cost Americans their jobs by outsourcing to China/India, vs. regular welfare, or unemployment insurance, which temporarily keep people from becoming destitute (and a much greater burden to society, long-term) when the corporations restructure their jobs out of existence and/or outsource them to India/China. Just who are these people who have "no desire to work"? I've never met one. Unemployment is not enough to live on long term and it stops cold after 6 months in flush economic times, 2 years in times like these. Welfare is also temporary and only helps people with dependent children who would become wards of the state otherwise. These pennies that our bloated military-industrial-complex corporate-government throws at the debris left behind by post-industrial capitalism account for a very tiny percentage of the federal budget, compared to the military's share. Only Social Security compares in scale to the military (still only about half its size), and that is for _everyone_ when we retire from working, even the wealthy, and has nothing to do with "desire to work" - if you didn't work your adult life, you'd get no Social Security retirement, end of story.


I agree with most of your statement but you are wrong if you thing every person in America has a desire to work. There are plenty of people in this country that become so use to federal support that they feel entitled to it. That bothers me. When they do get jobs, they lose them because they show up late, and/or don't work very hard. This is a very hard argument because there are plenty of people in this country that really need support (ie. young, single moms). But what bothers me is many people have seemed to lose self pride that I feel previous generations benefited from. When I hear a young man bragging that he does not have to do anything because he's collecting unemployment it really bothers me. I definitely see both arguments and there is no perfect answer to welfare.(done rambling)

Back to topic. I don't want to see every newspaper/ magazine with it's own app. I will hold out till apple has its own magazine/newspaper store and delivers one polished ui. I hope this happens soon rather than later because I fear once these news companies spend all this money developing apps they will be less likely to give in to apple. I think the compromise is that the news companies get my zip code, age, and sex that's it. I am fine with this because the worst they can do is try to target ads at me (ouch). As long as I don't start getting emails, phone calls or mail from advertisers I am ok. I know others disagree but this is where I stand on my privacy. ps. they only get this info if I subscribe, they get no info if I buy one at a time.
post #26 of 27
Murdoch, Keep your crap propaganda to yourself.
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post

I would never give money to a corporation whos sole objective is to demonize Democrats.

Fox actually has two objectives. The first is to make money. Imagine that, a corp that wants to make money. Heavens to Murgatroid! Whereas the NY Times and MSNBC - *whose* sole objective IS to demonize conservatives are purer as they continue to lose and lose and lose it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

His [Murdoch's] publications pander to the lowest common denominator and bring the level of discourse into the mud.

The clearest, most trustworthy journalism I find is often in the WSJ (I don't like ALL the changes, but on balance I'm not freaked out) and the Times of London. While over at the NY Times Op-Ed section it's all mud, all the time, and the editorial policy bleeds buckets of bias into virtually every news story.

He also hasn't mucked up Barron's or the National Geo Channel too badly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

Just who are these people who have "no desire to work"? I've never met one. Unemployment is not enough to live on long term and it stops cold after 6 months in flush economic times, 2 years in times like these.

I guess I hang out in "worser" neighborhoods than you do. As a performing artist, I know many other performers who keep jobs just long enough to qualify for their next round of unemployment as long as they can finagle their leaving to be a "reduction in force," so they can quality. As a landlord (ooo, I'm an evil landlord, so you can disregard me entirely!), one of my tenants tells me about how she does the same thing.

These folks are only taking lessons, though, from the Euros who've consented to support millions of layabouts, "artists" or otherwise for years on end, and, who, with their free schedule reliably turn out in the streets to peacefully or violently protest any attempts to cut any benefit ever conceived, no matter how draining to society as a whole.

Also, who says two years is the end of UI extensions? (*UI refers to Unemployment Insurance, not User Interface and extensions refers to time, not a FireFox plug in.* ;-p ) The Dems, unfettered, will continue to extend them ad infinitum (with borrowed money of course).

Finally, studies show that job-seeking activity increases markedly as someone's UI benefits are about to run out, and that most who get jobs get 'em around that time. Co-inky-dink? Ha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

Welfare is also temporary and only helps people with dependent children who would become wards of the state otherwise.

What planet are you on? Being on welfare is the DEFINITION of being a ward of the state.

And the goal of mega-gov't types is to make sure that every citizen is more and more one of 'em via dependency on gov't-run "entitlements."

Quote:
Originally Posted by resnyc View Post

These pennies that our bloated military-industrial-complex corporate-government throws at the debris left behind by post-industrial capitalism account for a very tiny percentage of the federal budget, compared to the military's share. Only Social Security compares in scale to the military (still only about half its size)

Bizarre non-stats! Even with two active wars, entitlements dwarf all national security activities (even the dubious ones like hapless TSA screenings), and their unfunded liabilities - which will ultimately collapse our currency - loom over the future like a debt Tsunami.

And I wonder if you can even define your word salad cliches of "bloated military-industrial-complex corporate-government" and "post-industrial capitalism." I mean those SOUND scary, all right - but what, e.g., makes "post-industrial capitalism" worse than its industrial predecessor? At least it's environmentally friendlier. And where's the real "bloat"? I say it's in all the nanny state programs and policies that are adding superstructure to gov't faster than they can put up buildings in Beijing - many of which will be as empty as our Treasury when the dreams of statist bureaucrats and politicians bring us down.

Ohh, and since this is AppleInsider, I will keep sending money to Apple, even tho' I believe Steve Jobs tends to vote a straight Dem ticket.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › News Corp says iPad-specific publication coming soon