I never liked the interface. You had to navigate too many bells & whistles to get at the content. USA Today has a much simpler and more efficient interface to navigate all their content quickly.
It's not natural to read. Click this to expand that. I don't want to watch a video. Men's Heath magazine does the same thing and I let my subscription lapse.
I have yet to find a single magazine that's worth the effort of putting it into NewsStand.
The content is almost zero for most magazines, they cost a relative fortune, and they are full of advertisements even though you've paid for the "content" outright already.
Magazines, digital or "regular" also have the same problem they've had for years now which is that all of the information they do contain is months old. The Internet will continue to demolish magazine sales regardless of the fact that they are now digital. Why buy a computer magazine when the articles are all about things that are already old news on the web? Same with Politics and most every other subject.
Magazines are just for old people to read about stuff that everyone who has the Internet (or any real active interest in the topic), knew about months ago.
That's an absurd statement. You might be somewhat correct about newspapers, but magazines, especially quality magazines, contain content that is not necessarily time sensitive. An in-depth investigation into fraud, an analysis of how an elective office was won, a biography, an article about the international sex or drug trades, trends in the fashion world, an analysis of a company, etc. are all topics that magazines serve well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } News Corp's Rupert Murdoch has admitted that the only reason he became an 'American' was so that he could attempt to take over our media and affect public policy.
I wouldn't give a dime to this tabloid hack and corporate propagandist.
Good riddance.
Don't give him so much credit. Murdoch wants money, power and relevancy. I think affecting public policy is secondary to his motivations. People give Murdoch's properties far too much credit. If Fox News has so much power, then how have Republicans lost two elections in a row? The fact is that while Fox News might be the #1 cable news channel, only about 4% of the total audience actually watches it. And no one takes anything the New York Post does seriously - it's considered to be a joke.
Insiders claim that Murdoch actually is embarrassed by much of what Fox News does, but he won't change it because it does make a lot of money. Anyways, I give him another three years tops in an active role and I think News Corporation will change drastically after he's gone.
I will give him credit for getting into portable device publishing early, even if not all the properties have been huge successes. I don't think it's been a quality issue, I think it's more that most consumers are satisfied searching for free news on Google and/or simply reading headlines. And even though I don't agree with the editorial board of the WSJ, I think both the print and electronic publications are quite good.
I liked "The Daily" as an iPad App but canceled the subscription because it has too much "conservative" slant. Opinions pieces are fine, just liked to read with different perspectives.
If it is true what they say regarding a "man's hand size"? If you look at the Tyrannosaurus's hand versus its overall size, one could probably understand why T-Rex was always sooo grumpy! I mean look at T-Rex... a big head and little hands, what to do... what to do.
I'd say arm length was probably the more important factor here. Along with a lack of internet access. Thankfully, evolution sorted that out.
Magazines are just for old people to read about stuff that everyone who has the Internet (or any real active interest in the topic), knew about months ago.
I think there is a case for the appification of information content as it allows publishers to bundle a group of well-edited, well-researched content together and charge for it. The trouble with good editorial is that it takes time and it's a race against the clock to get breaking news out there.
Then there's cross-linking. A lot of blog sites will quote or link to another site. That's difficult to do in a magazine without jumping into a browser anyway.
There's so much online news that paying for one source isn't worthwhile. It has to be an aggregate. I don't particularly like the ad-supported model of websites and multiple sites having different layouts. There's an app called Summly that's pulls snippets of news together but there's still the issue of making people pay enough to support the contributions.
I think Newsstand's biggest problems include a lack of free-to-view content and failing to rethink the magazine concept enough on the digital platform. Interactivity isn't enough because websites have it already.
One thing that's compelling with a local paper at least is local news. That can't be done on a website easily but you could add regions of interest and get information from multiple local sources, including local ads.
Rather than Newsstand being a collection of magazines, I'd rather it was an aggregate of articles from multiple sources along with local news. You'd subscribe for free to feeds you'd be interested in and they'd populate a space. You'd be able to delete articles like Tyrannosaurus Sex and it would learn that you aren't interested in this (or if you are, report you to the authorities). This information would be passed back to the publisher so they can learn what people like. The 'space' would become your personal feed of information and you'd pay to view articles but articles would be charged at flat rates e.g 1c per article.
Either that or Apple charges a flat subscription to use newsstand and the distribution of the profit in that fee is based on whose articles you read most but publishers might not like as they can't ever make more than the subscription fee from one reader.
I liked "The Daily" as an iPad App but canceled the subscription because it has too much "conservative" slant. Opinions pieces are fine, just liked to read with different perspectives.
So, what replaced The Daily that isn't as 'conservative' or, dare I ask?
That's an absurd statement. You might be somewhat correct about newspapers, but magazines, especially quality magazines, contain content that is not necessarily time sensitive. An in-depth investigation into fraud, an analysis of how an elective office was won, a biography, an article about the international sex or drug trades, trends in the fashion world, an analysis of a company, etc. are all topics that magazines serve well.
Don't give him so much credit. Murdoch wants money, power and relevancy. I think affecting public policy is secondary to his motivations. People give Murdoch's properties far too much credit. If Fox News has so much power, then how have Republicans lost two elections in a row? The fact is that while Fox News might be the #1 cable news channel, only about 4% of the total audience actually watches it. And no one takes anything the New York Post does seriously - it's considered to be a joke.
Insiders claim that Murdoch actually is embarrassed by much of what Fox News does, but he won't change it because it does make a lot of money. Anyways, I give him another three years tops in an active role and I think News Corporation will change drastically after he's gone.
I will give him credit for getting into portable device publishing early, even if not all the properties have been huge successes. I don't think it's been a quality issue, I think it's more that most consumers are satisfied searching for free news on Google and/or simply reading headlines. And even though I don't agree with the editorial board of the WSJ, I think both the print and electronic publications are quite good.
Every liberal just loves to single out Fox News, it's like their "Notification Center" the Android crowd harps over constantly in iOS comparisons. Republicans lost the last two elections because they have one cable outlet to plead their case while the liberal media force feeds lies and deliberately downplays important issues until after these elections via vast their arsenal of media outlets. Take your pick: ABC, CBS, NBC (especially NBC and CBS), CNN, formerly MSNBC, and NY Times just to name a few. That this dingbat got re-elected is a testament to how ignorant the American people have become. "It's the rich!" "Pay their fair share!" have become the war cries of the liberals. "They can afford it, tax them more!" Like that will ever happen. The "rich" will simply keep their money overseas like today and this will all be for naught. Pretty soon, the definition of "rich" will drop from the $250K per year level it is currently arbitrarily assigned and will include more and more from lower income individuals (the ones that still pay taxes) to fund all of their wasteful spending. It is the primal mob mentality and class warfare uprisings liberals always drudge up come election time instead of looking at personal accountability. They would rather throw other people's money at a problem as long as it gets votes every election. "We need more teachers!!" How about better well behaved students? How about parents teach their kids how to behave? How about more kids staying in school and graduating? Instead, we have to lower testing thresholds just so enough students will actually be promoted to the next grade. Again with the accountability. As for this rag, I could care less. If it is a failure, let it fail. It happens. Something new will come up to take it's place. Or should we bail them out too THEN let them file bankruptcy, since that line of thought "saved" the auto industry? I am not a republican, but am a conservative, and tire of the constant Fox News barrage. Current republicans like that nut-less speaker of the house who folds like a cheap lawn chair when he has any leverage at all to get anything done keep me from actively supporting that party, but it is the lesser of two evils. As for the Fox News thing, get some new material, geez.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I have yet to find a single magazine that's worth the effort of putting it into NewsStand.
The content is almost zero for most magazines, they cost a relative fortune, and they are full of advertisements even though you've paid for the "content" outright already.
Magazines, digital or "regular" also have the same problem they've had for years now which is that all of the information they do contain is months old. The Internet will continue to demolish magazine sales regardless of the fact that they are now digital. Why buy a computer magazine when the articles are all about things that are already old news on the web? Same with Politics and most every other subject.
Magazines are just for old people to read about stuff that everyone who has the Internet (or any real active interest in the topic), knew about months ago.
That's an absurd statement. You might be somewhat correct about newspapers, but magazines, especially quality magazines, contain content that is not necessarily time sensitive. An in-depth investigation into fraud, an analysis of how an elective office was won, a biography, an article about the international sex or drug trades, trends in the fashion world, an analysis of a company, etc. are all topics that magazines serve well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
News Corp's Rupert Murdoch has admitted that the only reason he became an 'American' was so that he could attempt to take over our media and affect public policy.
I wouldn't give a dime to this tabloid hack and corporate propagandist.
Good riddance.
Don't give him so much credit. Murdoch wants money, power and relevancy. I think affecting public policy is secondary to his motivations. People give Murdoch's properties far too much credit. If Fox News has so much power, then how have Republicans lost two elections in a row? The fact is that while Fox News might be the #1 cable news channel, only about 4% of the total audience actually watches it. And no one takes anything the New York Post does seriously - it's considered to be a joke.
Insiders claim that Murdoch actually is embarrassed by much of what Fox News does, but he won't change it because it does make a lot of money. Anyways, I give him another three years tops in an active role and I think News Corporation will change drastically after he's gone.
I will give him credit for getting into portable device publishing early, even if not all the properties have been huge successes. I don't think it's been a quality issue, I think it's more that most consumers are satisfied searching for free news on Google and/or simply reading headlines. And even though I don't agree with the editorial board of the WSJ, I think both the print and electronic publications are quite good.
Originally Posted by buckalec
News Corp's editorial integrity was always a barrier for me - not surprised.
Yes.
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
I think the headlines on the sample cover are perfectly emblematic of why this venture failed.
Yes.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Now if only Apple would let me stick newstand in a folder since I rarely ever use it.
And again yes!
Create a page at the end of your list where you can dump all the junk that you can't delete.
Originally Posted by jsnively
This is the best image.
"Artist shows how dinos did it"
Gotta wonder what goes through that guy's head on a regular basis.
Ralphdaily reads The Daily, daily? There's something you don't see every day. No wait...
I'd say arm length was probably the more important factor here. Along with a lack of internet access. Thankfully, evolution sorted that out.
I think there is a case for the appification of information content as it allows publishers to bundle a group of well-edited, well-researched content together and charge for it. The trouble with good editorial is that it takes time and it's a race against the clock to get breaking news out there.
Then there's cross-linking. A lot of blog sites will quote or link to another site. That's difficult to do in a magazine without jumping into a browser anyway.
There's so much online news that paying for one source isn't worthwhile. It has to be an aggregate. I don't particularly like the ad-supported model of websites and multiple sites having different layouts. There's an app called Summly that's pulls snippets of news together but there's still the issue of making people pay enough to support the contributions.
I think Newsstand's biggest problems include a lack of free-to-view content and failing to rethink the magazine concept enough on the digital platform. Interactivity isn't enough because websites have it already.
One thing that's compelling with a local paper at least is local news. That can't be done on a website easily but you could add regions of interest and get information from multiple local sources, including local ads.
Rather than Newsstand being a collection of magazines, I'd rather it was an aggregate of articles from multiple sources along with local news. You'd subscribe for free to feeds you'd be interested in and they'd populate a space. You'd be able to delete articles like Tyrannosaurus Sex and it would learn that you aren't interested in this (or if you are, report you to the authorities). This information would be passed back to the publisher so they can learn what people like. The 'space' would become your personal feed of information and you'd pay to view articles but articles would be charged at flat rates e.g 1c per article.
Either that or Apple charges a flat subscription to use newsstand and the distribution of the profit in that fee is based on whose articles you read most but publishers might not like as they can't ever make more than the subscription fee from one reader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
I liked "The Daily" as an iPad App but canceled the subscription because it has too much "conservative" slant. Opinions pieces are fine, just liked to read with different perspectives.
So, what replaced The Daily that isn't as 'conservative' or, dare I ask?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Artist shows how dinos did it"
Gotta wonder what goes through that guy's head on a regular basis.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }His need to feed his children?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo
That's a darn shame. If a digital newspaper can't survive on the iPad, I guess it won't survive on any tablet platform.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Are you saying that the iPad is the anti-New York? "If you can't make it there, you'll not make it anywhere!"
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
That's an absurd statement. You might be somewhat correct about newspapers, but magazines, especially quality magazines, contain content that is not necessarily time sensitive. An in-depth investigation into fraud, an analysis of how an elective office was won, a biography, an article about the international sex or drug trades, trends in the fashion world, an analysis of a company, etc. are all topics that magazines serve well.
Don't give him so much credit. Murdoch wants money, power and relevancy. I think affecting public policy is secondary to his motivations. People give Murdoch's properties far too much credit. If Fox News has so much power, then how have Republicans lost two elections in a row? The fact is that while Fox News might be the #1 cable news channel, only about 4% of the total audience actually watches it. And no one takes anything the New York Post does seriously - it's considered to be a joke.
Insiders claim that Murdoch actually is embarrassed by much of what Fox News does, but he won't change it because it does make a lot of money. Anyways, I give him another three years tops in an active role and I think News Corporation will change drastically after he's gone.
I will give him credit for getting into portable device publishing early, even if not all the properties have been huge successes. I don't think it's been a quality issue, I think it's more that most consumers are satisfied searching for free news on Google and/or simply reading headlines. And even though I don't agree with the editorial board of the WSJ, I think both the print and electronic publications are quite good.
Every liberal just loves to single out Fox News, it's like their "Notification Center" the Android crowd harps over constantly in iOS comparisons. Republicans lost the last two elections because they have one cable outlet to plead their case while the liberal media force feeds lies and deliberately downplays important issues until after these elections via vast their arsenal of media outlets. Take your pick: ABC, CBS, NBC (especially NBC and CBS), CNN, formerly MSNBC, and NY Times just to name a few. That this dingbat got re-elected is a testament to how ignorant the American people have become. "It's the rich!" "Pay their fair share!" have become the war cries of the liberals. "They can afford it, tax them more!" Like that will ever happen. The "rich" will simply keep their money overseas like today and this will all be for naught. Pretty soon, the definition of "rich" will drop from the $250K per year level it is currently arbitrarily assigned and will include more and more from lower income individuals (the ones that still pay taxes) to fund all of their wasteful spending. It is the primal mob mentality and class warfare uprisings liberals always drudge up come election time instead of looking at personal accountability. They would rather throw other people's money at a problem as long as it gets votes every election. "We need more teachers!!" How about better well behaved students? How about parents teach their kids how to behave? How about more kids staying in school and graduating? Instead, we have to lower testing thresholds just so enough students will actually be promoted to the next grade. Again with the accountability. As for this rag, I could care less. If it is a failure, let it fail. It happens. Something new will come up to take it's place. Or should we bail them out too THEN let them file bankruptcy, since that line of thought "saved" the auto industry? I am not a republican, but am a conservative, and tire of the constant Fox News barrage. Current republicans like that nut-less speaker of the house who folds like a cheap lawn chair when he has any leverage at all to get anything done keep me from actively supporting that party, but it is the lesser of two evils. As for the Fox News thing, get some new material, geez.
Originally Posted by igriv
His need to feed his children?
"Daddy, what did you do at work today?"
"I drew dinosaurs having sex."
"What's sex?"
"Oh, boy…"