While I wouldn't go near any 'news' produced by Murdoch with a 10 foot pole, the price at least seems to be getting into the 'reasonable' territory... $39/year or .99/week.
Now if a real news organization would follow suit, I'll be interested.
Although it would be interesting to question what news organizations you consider "real" news, let's put the political bent aside and critique this app for what it really is. A bold new (non legacy) media outlet that takes advantage of modern tech that delivers information via modern, media-rich methods that people like. All at a very attractive price.
I agree. This would be so much better if a "real" news organization with no bias were behind this like the NY Times, NBC News or MSNBC.........
The last "real" news operation went out of business in the mid 80's (broadcast news & newspapers that is). "News" in the sense of adherence to journalistic ethics/rules hasn't really existed for a long, long time IMO.
It used to be just a standard part of "doing journalism" but market pressures and the conversion of news into entertainment in the 70's and 80's killed it. I don't see it coming back unless the journalists themselves organise through a professional organisation and accredit each other or something, but I see no evidence of that happening anytime soon.
Sounds like they are being very smart about this, but then no one ever accused Murdoch of being dumb, just evil.
I still think a buck a week is too much for content that is essentially free elsewhere in slightly different formats. Also, it will probably have advertisements so you'd have to be pretty much a dumbass to buy into this thing.
The good news for Murdoch is that roughly 70% of the public falls into the "dumbass" category.
Imsuppose then, that you've never bought a single publication, because they all have advertising, and the information is available somewhere else if you want to spend the time looking for it.
I've subscribed to the NT Times and the WSJ for many years. I also subscribe to the NY Times as an app, and I also subscribe to other news and economic publications in print and as apps. I'm going to give this a try as well.
Possibly you don't value work done by others and are quick to condemn those who do, but I find that to be ostentatious, and rather snobby. I don't consider myself to be a "dumb ass" as apparently you seem to. I'll just put that down as childishness on your part.
Your sarcasm is noted, but keep in mind that survey after survey shows that FOX viewers consistently rank as the most misinformed in the world.
FOX is the propaganda arm of the Republican party. That is not up for debate. The question is whether or not the party is actually just the political arm of FOX.
Give up the 'liberal media' meme. Doesn't exist, and you know it. At best its 'corporate media'.
Your sarcasm is noted, but keep in mind that survey after survey shows that FOX viewers consistently rank as the most misinformed in the world.
FOX is the propaganda arm of the Republican party. That is not up for debate. The question is whether or not the party is actually just the political arm of FOX.
Give up the 'liberal media' meme. Doesn't exist, and you know it. At best its 'corporate media'.
Consistently ranked by whom?
The NY Times, MSNBC, NBC and the AP are all the propaganda arm of the democratic party. That is not up for debate. You are just too misinformed and biased to know it.
The liberal media doesnt exist? Stop watching Bill Maher and reading the Daily Kos....
All liberal media is dying a slow death. Thank god.....
It will depend on how much content is included, my local paper was $150 per year delivered, if the content is similar in extent, obviously missing local content, it would be worth $52 to me.
www.thedaily.com just started rerunning the news event, if you want to listen in.
The annual subscription $39.99 = 77 cents per week and 11 cents per day
I wonder what Glenn Beck has to say about this. From his own boss nonetheless.
Beck does whatever makes him money, being a scarey boogie man on fox sells gold, being a nut on radio sells gold, guns and preserved food MREs, and at the end of the day Glenn cashes the check.
If Newscorps is more profitable then fox news is better off, then glen beck is better off.
Beck is a business man and an entertainer, no different than John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh.
Following up on the raging eBook controversy of yesterday...
It seems very likely that Apple and News Corp have negotiated terms other than the standard 30% for in-app purchases. And, most likely, these will become the standard terms for periodical publishers who wish to distribute content to iOS device apps.
It's also obvious that Apple can't allow app publishers to distribute content exclusively outside the app store since this would basically allow them to do an end run around the 30/70 revenue sharing plan they agreed to. (The old, distribute a free app and sell content from your website so you don't have to share any of the revenue ploy.) So, they need to a) crack down on the violators to put an end to this and b) force eBook distributors to negotiate acceptable terms.
In other words, they can't allow business as usual to continue or Sony, Amazon, et al. have no incentive to actually agree to reasonable terms. But, they also can't afford to not be available on iOS devices. So Apple needed to strictly enforce the terms of the developer agreement to bring them to the table. After all, it's not really reasonable that they get a free ride on downloadable content when other developers don't. I expect that it won't be long before there are new terms of service and a new developer agreement that carves out different revenue sharing plans for different kinds of in-app purchased content: periodical subscriptions, books, perhaps some other categories, and everything else which will remain at 30/70.
I would NOT compare John Stewart to the like of Rush and Beck... totally different animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
Beck does whatever makes him money, being a scarey boogie man on fox sells gold, being a nut on radio sells gold, guns and preserved food MREs, and at the end of the day Glenn cashes the check.
If Newscorps is more profitable then fox news is better off, then glen beck is better off.
Beck is a business man and an entertainer, no different than John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh.
Please provide references/links for any or all surveys you're alluding to.
Also, please define "misinformed" including what subject they are being misinformed on. \
Thanks in advance.
Since you ask, for example, more Fox viewers than the population as a whole incorrectly believe that a) President Obama is a Muslim, and b) that he wasn't born in the U.S.
But, generally speaking, pretty much any subject. One can make an argument that that only shows correlation, not cause and effect, but it's still significant.
Comments
While I wouldn't go near any 'news' produced by Murdoch with a 10 foot pole, the price at least seems to be getting into the 'reasonable' territory... $39/year or .99/week.
Now if a real news organization would follow suit, I'll be interested.
Although it would be interesting to question what news organizations you consider "real" news, let's put the political bent aside and critique this app for what it really is. A bold new (non legacy) media outlet that takes advantage of modern tech that delivers information via modern, media-rich methods that people like. All at a very attractive price.
I agree. This would be so much better if a "real" news organization with no bias were behind this like the NY Times, NBC News or MSNBC.........
The last "real" news operation went out of business in the mid 80's (broadcast news & newspapers that is). "News" in the sense of adherence to journalistic ethics/rules hasn't really existed for a long, long time IMO.
It used to be just a standard part of "doing journalism" but market pressures and the conversion of news into entertainment in the 70's and 80's killed it. I don't see it coming back unless the journalists themselves organise through a professional organisation and accredit each other or something, but I see no evidence of that happening anytime soon.
Sounds like they are being very smart about this, but then no one ever accused Murdoch of being dumb, just evil.
I still think a buck a week is too much for content that is essentially free elsewhere in slightly different formats. Also, it will probably have advertisements so you'd have to be pretty much a dumbass to buy into this thing.
The good news for Murdoch is that roughly 70% of the public falls into the "dumbass" category.
Imsuppose then, that you've never bought a single publication, because they all have advertising, and the information is available somewhere else if you want to spend the time looking for it.
I've subscribed to the NT Times and the WSJ for many years. I also subscribe to the NY Times as an app, and I also subscribe to other news and economic publications in print and as apps. I'm going to give this a try as well.
Possibly you don't value work done by others and are quick to condemn those who do, but I find that to be ostentatious, and rather snobby. I don't consider myself to be a "dumb ass" as apparently you seem to. I'll just put that down as childishness on your part.
Your sarcasm is noted, but keep in mind that survey after survey shows that FOX viewers consistently rank as the most misinformed in the world.
FOX is the propaganda arm of the Republican party. That is not up for debate. The question is whether or not the party is actually just the political arm of FOX.
Give up the 'liberal media' meme. Doesn't exist, and you know it. At best its 'corporate media'.
lol, you are so diluted. it's almost sad.
lol, you are so diluted. it's almost sad.
His comments could have been a little more strongly worded, but they weren't exactly watered down.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
The lover of all things Beatles/John Lennon now dancing with the dark side?
Weird.
Profits are profits but isn't this a little like sleeping with the enemy?
The lover of all things Beatles/John Lennon now dancing with the dark side?
Weird.
What's weird is that they haven't banned you yet, tekstud.
His comments could have been a little more strongly worded, but they weren't exactly watered down.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Well done! But see poor iLiver come in right after you, still trying to be part of the problem.
Edit: I see you already saw.
Your sarcasm is noted, but keep in mind that survey after survey shows that FOX viewers consistently rank as the most misinformed in the world.
FOX is the propaganda arm of the Republican party. That is not up for debate. The question is whether or not the party is actually just the political arm of FOX.
Give up the 'liberal media' meme. Doesn't exist, and you know it. At best its 'corporate media'.
Consistently ranked by whom?
The NY Times, MSNBC, NBC and the AP are all the propaganda arm of the democratic party. That is not up for debate. You are just too misinformed and biased to know it.
The liberal media doesnt exist? Stop watching Bill Maher and reading the Daily Kos....
All liberal media is dying a slow death. Thank god.....
It will depend on how much content is included, my local paper was $150 per year delivered, if the content is similar in extent, obviously missing local content, it would be worth $52 to me.
www.thedaily.com just started rerunning the news event, if you want to listen in.
The annual subscription $39.99 = 77 cents per week and 11 cents per day
lol, you are so diluted. it's almost sad.
He's watered down? Really?
..snip....but keep in mind that survey after survey shows that FOX viewers consistently rank as the most misinformed in the world.
...snip
Please provide references/links for any or all surveys you're alluding to.
Also, please define "misinformed" including what subject they are being misinformed on.
Thanks in advance.
Good, but not as intuitive as I expected.
His comments could have been a little more strongly worded, but they weren't exactly watered down.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I think what he meant to do was to make up a new form of the word delusional, not diluted, to sound more intelligent.
I wonder what Glenn Beck has to say about this. From his own boss nonetheless.
Beck does whatever makes him money, being a scarey boogie man on fox sells gold, being a nut on radio sells gold, guns and preserved food MREs, and at the end of the day Glenn cashes the check.
If Newscorps is more profitable then fox news is better off, then glen beck is better off.
Beck is a business man and an entertainer, no different than John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh.
It seems very likely that Apple and News Corp have negotiated terms other than the standard 30% for in-app purchases. And, most likely, these will become the standard terms for periodical publishers who wish to distribute content to iOS device apps.
It's also obvious that Apple can't allow app publishers to distribute content exclusively outside the app store since this would basically allow them to do an end run around the 30/70 revenue sharing plan they agreed to. (The old, distribute a free app and sell content from your website so you don't have to share any of the revenue ploy.) So, they need to a) crack down on the violators to put an end to this and b) force eBook distributors to negotiate acceptable terms.
In other words, they can't allow business as usual to continue or Sony, Amazon, et al. have no incentive to actually agree to reasonable terms. But, they also can't afford to not be available on iOS devices. So Apple needed to strictly enforce the terms of the developer agreement to bring them to the table. After all, it's not really reasonable that they get a free ride on downloadable content when other developers don't. I expect that it won't be long before there are new terms of service and a new developer agreement that carves out different revenue sharing plans for different kinds of in-app purchased content: periodical subscriptions, books, perhaps some other categories, and everything else which will remain at 30/70.
Sounds like they are being very smart about this, but then no one ever accused Murdoch of being dumb, just evil.
Plenty of people accused him of being dumb when he predicted that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would cause the price of oil to drop to $20 per barrel.
Beck does whatever makes him money, being a scarey boogie man on fox sells gold, being a nut on radio sells gold, guns and preserved food MREs, and at the end of the day Glenn cashes the check.
If Newscorps is more profitable then fox news is better off, then glen beck is better off.
Beck is a business man and an entertainer, no different than John Stewart or Rush Limbaugh.
Please provide references/links for any or all surveys you're alluding to.
Also, please define "misinformed" including what subject they are being misinformed on.
Thanks in advance.
Since you ask, for example, more Fox viewers than the population as a whole incorrectly believe that a) President Obama is a Muslim, and b) that he wasn't born in the U.S.
But, generally speaking, pretty much any subject. One can make an argument that that only shows correlation, not cause and effect, but it's still significant.