Interactive comics. Imagine having a Burns Effect in certain panels or a very simple animation adding to the story. The trick will be to keep it subtle so it adds to the story without taking it over.
Yes and no - could be some cool stuff. But the power of comics is the hand drawn graphics mixed with your imagination. Add too many effects and you break the spell. Nothing wrong with spiffing things up a little, however. Besides, everyone can now have first edition Silver Surfer or Iron Man for next to nothing.
That's not a translation of what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, that's my job.
If they have to charge $40/month to keep the doors open, going digital won't save them. Not enough people are paying $40/month as it is, and you can't wrap a fish, start a fire, or wipe your ass with an online edition (insert iPad joke here). I don't know enough about their cost structure to know how much real savings can be achieved by eliminating the actual physical printing and distribution process, but if the publishers decide to get greedy like the music industry did and charge as much or more for reduced-quality content with lower distribution costs their paper will be taking that long dirt nap sooner than later. For all I know, they CAN get by on $1.99 per month per sub.
Let's be realistic here for just a moment. Newspapers delivered or bought off the newsstand cost a reader about $1.00 a day. So they can possibly as far as you call tell, cut that cost by 95% by going digital delivery? Or sell 20 times as many subscriptions? And pigs have wings, for all we know.
It's a bit disingenuous for someone who never subscribed to a newspaper to suggest that they know what one should cost. I might as well tell you what I think caviar should cost. I wouldn't be surprised if the people in the newspaper business believe that folks like yourself are never going to be willing to pay anywhere close to what it costs to provide the service, since you never have before. I think they'd probably be right. Most younger people are simply not in the newspaper habit. Never have been, probably never will be, at any price. Even if they're interested in the news (also a shrinking audience), they're used to getting it by milking through the fence.
So you probably should not be so glib as to suggest that the main issues is that newspapers have priced themselves out of the market, when by your own admission, you've never been in the market in the first place.
Charging $40/month for the daily paper doesn't even come close to keeping the doors open. They are dependent on advertising revenue to break even or profit. It simply won't work the same way with digital distribution. They'll have to find a new way to cover costs or find something else to do for a living. The music industry never depended on ad revenue in albums or songs, so they may not be able to learn much from them.
They're sold as full-page, half-page, no. of colums wide by no. of inches deep, etc. for print editions. That will be different in digital. I really don't know how it will work.
It's a bit disingenuous for someone who never subscribed to a newspaper to suggest that they know what one should cost....So you probably should not be so glib as to suggest that the main issues is that newspapers have priced themselves out of the market, when by your own admission, you've never been in the market in the first place.
Fair enough. But you've made the point for me. I don't have/want to spend $30/mo for a daily newspaper, so I don't have a subscription. So, in my case, newspapers have priced themselves out of the market. The fact I'm not in the market supports the opinion that fewer and fewer folks will pay $30/mo for an iPad subscription to WSJ, USAT, or whatever.
Personally, my threshold for a magazine or newspaper subscription is sub $5/mo. Charge more and I'll stick with the web. Charge less and I'm in. Hell, I don't even mind if you throw in some ads, that's fair.
It is just so "old tech" the way these print publishers talk about offering their publications on the iPad. What have they been doing with websites for the past 16 years? Websites can offer the same content in a format that is much better suited to the internet (and digital devices). Am I supposed to pay for a subscription just so I can read something that looks like a print publication (meaning that I will leaf through pages without the benefit of hyperlinks) and turn the fake pages with touch gestures? Give me a break!
That's because a subscription to something as basic as a newspaper typically costs around $40 a month.
We actually pay a bit over $50 at a time for 3 months so that number can change depending on where you live.
And I consider that a pretty good deal. SInce I bought my parents house from my sisters the local paper has been delivering a paper to our house since 1958.
As far as newspapers go, I'll pay more for the physical paper - I know that cost money. It also is obvious that the "paperboy" (a grown woman in our case) needs to be paid as she's the one getting the paper to us each morning.
And the internet? I can get more news than I can read in a day for free. They get the eyeballs for ad revenue, but little else.
Where they can build additional revenues from me would be from coupons. Those bloody coupons have helped pay journalists' salaries for years - no need to change that.
Fair enough. But you've made the point for me. I don't have/want to spend $30/mo for a daily newspaper, so I don't have a subscription. So, in my case, newspapers have priced themselves out of the market. The fact I'm not in the market supports the opinion that fewer and fewer folks will pay $30/mo for an iPad subscription to WSJ, USAT, or whatever.
Personally, my threshold for a magazine or newspaper subscription is sub $5/mo. Charge more and I'll stick with the web. Charge less and I'm in. Hell, I don't even mind if you throw in some ads, that's fair.
The point is, you've never been in the market for newspapers, so what they cost is not really relevant in your case. No matter what it is, you're not willing to pay it. Your threshold of value is so low that newspapers could not meet your price, and still provide the service.
I don't think the problem with newspapers was ever the price, which hasn't really changed much in decades. The real problem is that a steadily shrinking share of the population wants to read them (a trend which preceded the internet and the current recession). Clearly the internet model isn't workable because the ad revenue just isn't there to support news gathering and writing.
I get the impression that many people fail to realize how much of the so-called "free" news they get on the net is created by a news gathering infrastructure that they disdain, or at least, prefer not to support. As the newspapers continue to scale down and are shuttered, that's another news source on the net which is diminished or vanishes at the same time. Is anything meaningful left after this trend plays out?
I suspect not much. One day we'll wake up and find that all we've got left is the drivel which is supported by advertising alone. I hope we won't wonder then how it happened, since we already know now.
WSJ gets to play but the other devs who have built the 100K iPhone apps and made the platform what it is today have to wait in line like any other consumer.
Yes, the same devs who got their "inappropriate" apps booted while Penthouse, Victoria's Secret etc. were allowed to stay.
Apple has a way of thanking the small guy who helps them out (ask any independent dealer who pulled though the Bad Old Days of the 1990's, only to be greeted by the Apple Stores).
These are just the sort of safeguards necessary to protect the intellectual property, and who wouldn't be irate if a weak link in the chain of confidentiality was exposed?
yep. not to mention if it was stolen and turned up on ebay weeks before the release.
this is exactly why I don't buy all the rumors that the retail stores are getting an 'training' units early. or that the staff are getting free ones prior to the release or all the rest of the talk.
although if the training thing is true, they will likely be locked down somehow and if one goes missing, someone will be fired. maybe even a couple of folks (like the thief and the manager that let it happen by not paying attention)
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
I wonder who is going to 'blink first' Apple or potential clients who use Flash.
not Apple. adding Flash would take more than a single line of code.
also, in the case of newspapers, a major use of Flash is ads. pretty moving ads. but you can do a lot of that stuff with an animated gif or a small QT movie. it won't march across the screen etc but it will attract the eye.
The point is, you've never been in the market for newspapers, so what they cost is not really relevant in your case. No matter what it is, you're not willing to pay it. Your threshold of value is so low that newspapers could not meet your price, and still provide the service.
I don't think the problem with newspapers was ever the price, which hasn't really changed much in decades. The real problem is that a steadily shrinking share of the population wants to read them (a trend which preceded the internet and the current recession). Clearly the internet model isn't workable because the ad revenue just isn't there to support news gathering and writing.
I get the impression that many people fail to realize how much of the so-called "free" news they get on the net is created by a news gathering infrastructure that they disdain, or at least, prefer not to support. As the newspapers continue to scale down and are shuttered, that's another news source on the net which is diminished or vanishes at the same time. Is anything meaningful left after this trend plays out?
I suspect not much. One day we'll wake up and find that all we've got left is the drivel which is supported by advertising alone. I hope we won't wonder then how it happened, since we already know now.
Newspapers? Who even reads them anymore? And pay for them -especially in a recession?
I stopped subscribing months ago in that everything is now practically on the iPhone.
Yes and no - could be some cool stuff. But the power of comics is the hand drawn graphics mixed with your imagination. Add too many effects and you break the spell. Nothing wrong with spiffing things up a little, however.
i found the experiment into 'motion comics' to be interesting. a lot of them were basically just QT powered slide slows of the panels with voices added which wasn't too bad. the ones with too many Ken Burns and such were annoying and over the top.
After reading this headline, I get visions of the old iPhone 3G commercial....and came to the realization that it's probably not too far off of reality.
They're sold as full-page, half-page, no. of colums wide by no. of inches deep, etc. for print editions. That will be different in digital. I really don't know how it will work.
I suppose it could be different. There are digital equivalents, a column inch in a PDF is the same as a column inch in print. I suppose advertisers could reject that. We'll have to see how it works out.
Yes and no - could be some cool stuff. But the power of comics is the hand drawn graphics mixed with your imagination. Add too many effects and you break the spell. Nothing wrong with spiffing things up a little, however. Besides, everyone can now have first edition Silver Surfer or Iron Man for next to nothing.
Traditional comics will likely be ported and look traditional, just vibrant.
However, a whole new WORLD of comics has the potential to launch exclusively on the iPad, using the wealth of the iPad's technology.
I suppose it could be different. There are digital equivalents, a column inch in a PDF is the same as a column inch in print. I suppose advertisers could reject that. We'll have to see how it works out.
I believe there will be some confusion and some feet dragging as the change occurs, but in the end I see them landing on similar business models to what they've always had, and just acknowledge that the iPad is the same as paper, just better.
Comments
Interactive comics. Imagine having a Burns Effect in certain panels or a very simple animation adding to the story. The trick will be to keep it subtle so it adds to the story without taking it over.
Yes and no - could be some cool stuff. But the power of comics is the hand drawn graphics mixed with your imagination. Add too many effects and you break the spell. Nothing wrong with spiffing things up a little, however. Besides, everyone can now have first edition Silver Surfer or Iron Man for next to nothing.
That's not a translation of what I said. Don't put words in my mouth, that's my job.
If they have to charge $40/month to keep the doors open, going digital won't save them. Not enough people are paying $40/month as it is, and you can't wrap a fish, start a fire, or wipe your ass with an online edition (insert iPad joke here). I don't know enough about their cost structure to know how much real savings can be achieved by eliminating the actual physical printing and distribution process, but if the publishers decide to get greedy like the music industry did and charge as much or more for reduced-quality content with lower distribution costs their paper will be taking that long dirt nap sooner than later. For all I know, they CAN get by on $1.99 per month per sub.
Let's be realistic here for just a moment. Newspapers delivered or bought off the newsstand cost a reader about $1.00 a day. So they can possibly as far as you call tell, cut that cost by 95% by going digital delivery? Or sell 20 times as many subscriptions? And pigs have wings, for all we know.
It's a bit disingenuous for someone who never subscribed to a newspaper to suggest that they know what one should cost. I might as well tell you what I think caviar should cost. I wouldn't be surprised if the people in the newspaper business believe that folks like yourself are never going to be willing to pay anywhere close to what it costs to provide the service, since you never have before. I think they'd probably be right. Most younger people are simply not in the newspaper habit. Never have been, probably never will be, at any price. Even if they're interested in the news (also a shrinking audience), they're used to getting it by milking through the fence.
So you probably should not be so glib as to suggest that the main issues is that newspapers have priced themselves out of the market, when by your own admission, you've never been in the market in the first place.
Charging $40/month for the daily paper doesn't even come close to keeping the doors open. They are dependent on advertising revenue to break even or profit. It simply won't work the same way with digital distribution. They'll have to find a new way to cover costs or find something else to do for a living. The music industry never depended on ad revenue in albums or songs, so they may not be able to learn much from them.
Who said the ads were going to go away?
Who said the ads were going to go away?
Nobody.
They're sold as full-page, half-page, no. of colums wide by no. of inches deep, etc. for print editions. That will be different in digital. I really don't know how it will work.
It's a bit disingenuous for someone who never subscribed to a newspaper to suggest that they know what one should cost....So you probably should not be so glib as to suggest that the main issues is that newspapers have priced themselves out of the market, when by your own admission, you've never been in the market in the first place.
Fair enough. But you've made the point for me. I don't have/want to spend $30/mo for a daily newspaper, so I don't have a subscription. So, in my case, newspapers have priced themselves out of the market. The fact I'm not in the market supports the opinion that fewer and fewer folks will pay $30/mo for an iPad subscription to WSJ, USAT, or whatever.
Personally, my threshold for a magazine or newspaper subscription is sub $5/mo. Charge more and I'll stick with the web. Charge less and I'm in. Hell, I don't even mind if you throw in some ads, that's fair.
That's because a subscription to something as basic as a newspaper typically costs around $40 a month.
We actually pay a bit over $50 at a time for 3 months so that number can change depending on where you live.
And I consider that a pretty good deal. SInce I bought my parents house from my sisters the local paper has been delivering a paper to our house since 1958.
As far as newspapers go, I'll pay more for the physical paper - I know that cost money. It also is obvious that the "paperboy" (a grown woman in our case) needs to be paid as she's the one getting the paper to us each morning.
And the internet? I can get more news than I can read in a day for free. They get the eyeballs for ad revenue, but little else.
Where they can build additional revenues from me would be from coupons. Those bloody coupons have helped pay journalists' salaries for years - no need to change that.
Fair enough. But you've made the point for me. I don't have/want to spend $30/mo for a daily newspaper, so I don't have a subscription. So, in my case, newspapers have priced themselves out of the market. The fact I'm not in the market supports the opinion that fewer and fewer folks will pay $30/mo for an iPad subscription to WSJ, USAT, or whatever.
Personally, my threshold for a magazine or newspaper subscription is sub $5/mo. Charge more and I'll stick with the web. Charge less and I'm in. Hell, I don't even mind if you throw in some ads, that's fair.
The point is, you've never been in the market for newspapers, so what they cost is not really relevant in your case. No matter what it is, you're not willing to pay it. Your threshold of value is so low that newspapers could not meet your price, and still provide the service.
I don't think the problem with newspapers was ever the price, which hasn't really changed much in decades. The real problem is that a steadily shrinking share of the population wants to read them (a trend which preceded the internet and the current recession). Clearly the internet model isn't workable because the ad revenue just isn't there to support news gathering and writing.
I get the impression that many people fail to realize how much of the so-called "free" news they get on the net is created by a news gathering infrastructure that they disdain, or at least, prefer not to support. As the newspapers continue to scale down and are shuttered, that's another news source on the net which is diminished or vanishes at the same time. Is anything meaningful left after this trend plays out?
I suspect not much. One day we'll wake up and find that all we've got left is the drivel which is supported by advertising alone. I hope we won't wonder then how it happened, since we already know now.
WSJ gets to play but the other devs who have built the 100K iPhone apps and made the platform what it is today have to wait in line like any other consumer.
Yes, the same devs who got their "inappropriate" apps booted while Penthouse, Victoria's Secret etc. were allowed to stay.
Apple has a way of thanking the small guy who helps them out (ask any independent dealer who pulled though the Bad Old Days of the 1990's, only to be greeted by the Apple Stores).
Nothing new here.
These are just the sort of safeguards necessary to protect the intellectual property, and who wouldn't be irate if a weak link in the chain of confidentiality was exposed?
yep. not to mention if it was stolen and turned up on ebay weeks before the release.
this is exactly why I don't buy all the rumors that the retail stores are getting an 'training' units early. or that the staff are getting free ones prior to the release or all the rest of the talk.
although if the training thing is true, they will likely be locked down somehow and if one goes missing, someone will be fired. maybe even a couple of folks (like the thief and the manager that let it happen by not paying attention)
I wonder who is going to 'blink first' Apple or potential clients who use Flash.
not Apple. adding Flash would take more than a single line of code.
also, in the case of newspapers, a major use of Flash is ads. pretty moving ads. but you can do a lot of that stuff with an animated gif or a small QT movie. it won't march across the screen etc but it will attract the eye.
The point is, you've never been in the market for newspapers, so what they cost is not really relevant in your case. No matter what it is, you're not willing to pay it. Your threshold of value is so low that newspapers could not meet your price, and still provide the service.
I don't think the problem with newspapers was ever the price, which hasn't really changed much in decades. The real problem is that a steadily shrinking share of the population wants to read them (a trend which preceded the internet and the current recession). Clearly the internet model isn't workable because the ad revenue just isn't there to support news gathering and writing.
I get the impression that many people fail to realize how much of the so-called "free" news they get on the net is created by a news gathering infrastructure that they disdain, or at least, prefer not to support. As the newspapers continue to scale down and are shuttered, that's another news source on the net which is diminished or vanishes at the same time. Is anything meaningful left after this trend plays out?
I suspect not much. One day we'll wake up and find that all we've got left is the drivel which is supported by advertising alone. I hope we won't wonder then how it happened, since we already know now.
Newspapers? Who even reads them anymore? And pay for them -especially in a recession?
I stopped subscribing months ago in that everything is now practically on the iPhone.
Yes and no - could be some cool stuff. But the power of comics is the hand drawn graphics mixed with your imagination. Add too many effects and you break the spell. Nothing wrong with spiffing things up a little, however.
i found the experiment into 'motion comics' to be interesting. a lot of them were basically just QT powered slide slows of the panels with voices added which wasn't too bad. the ones with too many Ken Burns and such were annoying and over the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26WyHPBgng
Surely that quote should read "cheap journalism is not quality"? It is Murdoch speaking after all.
Nobody.
They're sold as full-page, half-page, no. of colums wide by no. of inches deep, etc. for print editions. That will be different in digital. I really don't know how it will work.
I suppose it could be different. There are digital equivalents, a column inch in a PDF is the same as a column inch in print. I suppose advertisers could reject that. We'll have to see how it works out.
Yes and no - could be some cool stuff. But the power of comics is the hand drawn graphics mixed with your imagination. Add too many effects and you break the spell. Nothing wrong with spiffing things up a little, however. Besides, everyone can now have first edition Silver Surfer or Iron Man for next to nothing.
Traditional comics will likely be ported and look traditional, just vibrant.
However, a whole new WORLD of comics has the potential to launch exclusively on the iPad, using the wealth of the iPad's technology.
I suppose it could be different. There are digital equivalents, a column inch in a PDF is the same as a column inch in print. I suppose advertisers could reject that. We'll have to see how it works out.
I believe there will be some confusion and some feet dragging as the change occurs, but in the end I see them landing on similar business models to what they've always had, and just acknowledge that the iPad is the same as paper, just better.