Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS?
I have often wondered the same thing myself: why does Apple continue releasing devices that only work on iOS? They should be making Android device because the world is 80% Android. /s
$8 per month for this junk? Where was NYT in the lead up to the war? Thank God for privately held publications like The Guardian. Only for the few journalism would be dead.
I understand why publications such as the Time have to charge what they do. I do t have to like it, but I do understand it.
If you read the Times, the WSJ and others, you'll notice all of the Ads. Anyone who thinks their subscription pays for the publication is living in a dreamworld. The advertising pays for most of it.
But what do we see in the digital publications? Many fewer Ads. I'm not talking about magazines that are just the galleys of the paper magazine, Ads and all. I'm talking about newspapers with as many pages of Ads as copy. Actually, more pages of ads than copy. And most of those Ads are local, and want Ads. The digital issues can't do that. We continue to subscribe to the weekend edition of the Times. We dropped the weekly subscription. But even so, the Times app is free on my iPad and iPhone. Unfortunately, only for the subscriber. But it's cheaper than subscribing to the paper seven days a week by a long shot.
Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS? United Airlines did the same thing with in-flight video services. What’s up with that? Don’t these people understand that Apple is doomed and their efforts are in vain? AndroidFTW!
I would mark this as sarcasm but, incredibly, there are people actually asking these questions.
Really, who cares? The Times is mainly for USA readers. Here, 42% of smartphone owners have iPhones. I'd bet that that skims off the majority of those who read the Times as well.
Got that right. And speaking of the death of journalism, who here has seen CNN recently? It's an ocean of garbage out there.
Speaking of which, all CNN reporting for past week has been about (literally) an ocean of garbage, in the Indian Ocean. Every blurry satellite photo gets about 5 hours of airtime each day.
Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS? United Airlines did the same thing with in-flight video services. What’s up with that? Don’t these people understand that Apple is doomed and their efforts are in vain? AndroidFTW!
I would mark this as sarcasm but, incredibly, there are people actually asking these questions.
CNN online, that wonderful 'news' site that 'lets' you watch 30 second ads before getting to a 20 second clip. NEW IMPORTANT EARTH SHAKING EVENT...right after two 15 second clips. Since CEO Jeff Zucker took over in 2013 ads proliferate, news evaporates unless kittens stuck in _____(take your pick) is your go to news for the day.
Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS? United Airlines did the same thing with in-flight video services. What’s up with that? Don’t these people understand that Apple is doomed and their efforts are in vain? AndroidFTW!
I would mark this as sarcasm but, incredibly, there are people actually asking these questions.
$8 per month for this junk? Where was NYT in the lead up to the war? Thank God for privately held publications like The Guardian. Only for the few journalism would be dead.
Amen. First they lost Frank Rich, then Nate Silver. Only reason left to go there is Krugman.
I understand why publications such as the Time have to charge what they do. I do t have to like it, but I do understand it.
If you read the Times, the WSJ and others, you'll notice all of the Ads. Anyone who thinks their subscription pays for the publication is living in a dreamworld. The advertising pays for most of it.
But what do we see in the digital publications? Many fewer Ads. I'm not talking about magazines that are just the galleys of the paper magazine, Ads and all. I'm talking about newspapers with as many pages of Ads as copy. Actually, more pages of ads than copy. And most of those Ads are local, and want Ads. The digital issues can't do that. We continue to subscribe to the weekend edition of the Times. We dropped the weekly subscription. But even so, the Times app is free on my iPad and iPhone. Unfortunately, only for the subscriber. But it's cheaper than subscribing to the paper seven days a week by a long shot.
and I dropped my sunday edition as well. I like the NYT, but $32/month for just the sundays (out in the hinterlands) to get a tactile edition of the 'soft stuff' and electronic access to everything else was borderline for me. I was fine at $16/month. I'm stuck now just with my NPR and BBC, which aren't as in-depth as the grey lady.
And Like you I understand this. We are seeing a swing in the pendulum of professional journalism against the market forces. I don't think the 'internet' is there yet, but eventually it will be. I just hope it's print journalists that make web news work... as I can't stand cable news heads blathering in front of me. If that is the model the internet takes on... heaven help us.
Install more than one browser on your device of choice.
Select one for the purpose of accessing paywalled media.
When you reach the 10 article limit, completely clear the browser cache.
Now you get 10 more articles for free.
Most paywalled WSJ articles can be read for free by (1) copying the headline to your clipboard (2) completely clearing the browser cache (3) pasting the headline into news.google.com and clicking 'search'.
Using a VPN service (ipredator $7 month) will also let you mix up your IP address if they are a little sneaky.
All this also limits ad tracking significantly.
News is a product. Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron. As a wise man once said, "killian is lying to you"...
I hope that real journalist does survive, so I hope this does well. as for the comparison between the Guardian and the NYT, I much much much prefer the NYT. The Guardian is a whiny self satisfied mess. I live in Ireland and England but would love to the Sunday NYT. This may help.
$8 per month for this junk? Where was NYT in the lead up to the war? Thank God for privately held publications like The Guardian. Only for the few journalism would be dead.
It amazes me that newspapers and similar content providers think they can charge nearly the same or a higher price for electronic editions than print editions. Even when they add a few (meaning minimal) content additions, they expect the public to see that as justification for the premium.
They don't want the public to think about how expensive paper, printing and delivery really is or what a large proportion of the total cost printing really is. And, for many, the quality of electronic publishing is a bit lower because it often does not get quality copy editing.
However, in counterpoint, if the electronic editions result in decreased ad revenue, that could justify the price increase. But, perhaps, they need to look at cost and revenue profiles more closely.
For as long as newspapers want to keep a print edition as well as digital, they're going to struggle.
Comments
I have often wondered the same thing myself: why does Apple continue releasing devices that only work on iOS? They should be making Android device because the world is 80% Android. /s
Headline "$8.00 month is what led to end of a famed NY newspaper."
If you read the Times, the WSJ and others, you'll notice all of the Ads. Anyone who thinks their subscription pays for the publication is living in a dreamworld. The advertising pays for most of it.
But what do we see in the digital publications? Many fewer Ads. I'm not talking about magazines that are just the galleys of the paper magazine, Ads and all. I'm talking about newspapers with as many pages of Ads as copy. Actually, more pages of ads than copy. And most of those Ads are local, and want Ads. The digital issues can't do that. We continue to subscribe to the weekend edition of the Times. We dropped the weekly subscription. But even so, the Times app is free on my iPad and iPhone. Unfortunately, only for the subscriber. But it's cheaper than subscribing to the paper seven days a week by a long shot.
Really, who cares? The Times is mainly for USA readers. Here, 42% of smartphone owners have iPhones. I'd bet that that skims off the majority of those who read the Times as well.
Speaking of which, all CNN reporting for past week has been about (literally) an ocean of garbage, in the Indian Ocean. Every blurry satellite photo gets about 5 hours of airtime each day.
Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS? United Airlines did the same thing with in-flight video services. What’s up with that? Don’t these people understand that Apple is doomed and their efforts are in vain? AndroidFTW!
I would mark this as sarcasm but, incredibly, there are people actually asking these questions.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/united-airlines-to-roll-out-free-in-flight-video-streaming-service/#!BsKQR
Because Android users are too poor to pay the $8/month for a crappy app. IOS users will take one look at the price and immediately subscribe.
You had me going for a second. I feared the worst; that you had contracted Odoitis.
If that was the case, I'd recommend hari-kari.
Got that right. And speaking of the death of journalism, who here has seen CNN recently? It's an ocean of garbage out there.
I haven't, but that was deliberate. If I watch TV news I get a headache.
Amen. First they lost Frank Rich, then Nate Silver. Only reason left to go there is Krugman.
I understand why publications such as the Time have to charge what they do. I do t have to like it, but I do understand it.
If you read the Times, the WSJ and others, you'll notice all of the Ads. Anyone who thinks their subscription pays for the publication is living in a dreamworld. The advertising pays for most of it.
But what do we see in the digital publications? Many fewer Ads. I'm not talking about magazines that are just the galleys of the paper magazine, Ads and all. I'm talking about newspapers with as many pages of Ads as copy. Actually, more pages of ads than copy. And most of those Ads are local, and want Ads. The digital issues can't do that. We continue to subscribe to the weekend edition of the Times. We dropped the weekly subscription. But even so, the Times app is free on my iPad and iPhone. Unfortunately, only for the subscriber. But it's cheaper than subscribing to the paper seven days a week by a long shot.
and I dropped my sunday edition as well. I like the NYT, but $32/month for just the sundays (out in the hinterlands) to get a tactile edition of the 'soft stuff' and electronic access to everything else was borderline for me. I was fine at $16/month. I'm stuck now just with my NPR and BBC, which aren't as in-depth as the grey lady.
And Like you I understand this. We are seeing a swing in the pendulum of professional journalism against the market forces. I don't think the 'internet' is there yet, but eventually it will be. I just hope it's print journalists that make web news work... as I can't stand cable news heads blathering in front of me. If that is the model the internet takes on... heaven help us.
Select one for the purpose of accessing paywalled media.
When you reach the 10 article limit, completely clear the browser cache.
Now you get 10 more articles for free.
Most paywalled WSJ articles can be read for free by (1) copying the headline to your clipboard (2) completely clearing the browser cache (3) pasting the headline into news.google.com and clicking 'search'.
Using a VPN service (ipredator $7 month) will also let you mix up your IP address if they are a little sneaky.
All this also limits ad tracking significantly.
News is a product. Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron. As a wise man once said, "killian is lying to you"...
Amen. First they lost Frank Rich, then Nate Silver. Only reason left to go there is Krugman.
To be fair though Silver's 538 stuff was always free to read. It was never behind their weird firewall
I hope that real journalist does survive, so I hope this does well. as for the comparison between the Guardian and the NYT, I much much much prefer the NYT. The Guardian is a whiny self satisfied mess. I live in Ireland and England but would love to the Sunday NYT. This may help.
Amen. First they lost Frank Rich, then Nate Silver. Only reason left to go there is Krugman.
Please mark this as sarcasm. Krugman is just another NYT party Apparatchik. NYT? American version of Pravda, without the serious journalism.
"Print is dead." - Dr. Egon Spengler
Damn, gonna miss that guy..
The Grauniad? Lol.
For as long as newspapers want to keep a print edition as well as digital, they're going to struggle.