Posts
In a report late this afternoon (Tuesday), Gawker's Valleywag is reporting that there is a turf war brewing at the New York Times over pricing of its new iPad tablet content pricing.
According to the report, circulation management wants to price the upcoming tablet product at newspaper print levels, while the digital operations side want a lower price, more fitting to digital products.
(With all rumor based stories such as this, I recommend one take the news for its entertainment value first, news value second. )
The SVI states that "the dispute has apparently escalated all the way to the top of the Times Building, and top executives — presumably the same ones who secretly dined with Apple CEO Steve Jobs — are now debating which way to go.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Gawker's Valleywag claims NYT turf war over iPad content pricing; old story, protect print or drive innovation
Wired magazine reveals its vision for tablet publishing: The Wired Tablet App
Wired magazine has produced a new video that shows the magazine's enthusiasm for the future of tablet publishing -- for one thing, they actually have a tablet team. "It explains why the tablet is such a groundbreaking opportunity for magazines such as ours," wrote Chris Anderson on Wired.com.
Wired Reader was designed for the Adobe Air platform, which runs natively on Macs, as well as PCs. "Adobe has created tools that allow us to easily convert it for major tablet and mobile platforms," Anderson wrote.
Virginia passes "Amazon" online retail tax bill; symbolic move or a real threat to affiliate programs?
The Virginia Senate passed legislation that would require the state to collect a 4.5 percent tax on online transactions conducted on online sites with a physical presence in the state.
The legislation is expected to die in the Virginia house, but if passed, may be vetoed by the new governor, Bob McDonnell, who has vowed to veto new taxes.
Are newspaper publishers really leery of Apple's new iPad? or is this just Financial Times nonsense?
Damon Kiesow at Poynter links to Kenneth Li's story in the Financial Times, iPad deals with publishers face hurdles, and includes a few other negative stories to boot -- a good example of aggregation with a viewpoint.
But Li's story is utter nonsense, and worse, feeds into the myth that newspaper people are ignorant about New Media and future publishing models.
☜ The FT registration process.
According to the FT story, newspapers publishers are leery of dealing with Apple in negotiating deals for their new iPad. Apple's policy of safeguarding consumer data is supposedly preventing some publishers from completing deals with Apple. Publishers, it is inferred, want that data!
FT: "Is it a dealbreaker? It’s pretty damn close,” said one senior media executive of a US metropolitan daily newspaper.Yet is this even true? Not by a long shot. First, no one is negotiating to appear on the iPad. That is simply not how it works. The issue is selling apps through the iTunes story. A publisher submits their app to Apple, it get approved, and Apple services the transactions.
Do publishers complain when the newspaper vendor on the corner of some New York street accepts a quarter (OK, it's more like $1.25 now, but stay with me)? What is the poor schmuck to do, have the consumer fill out a form for the circulation department? And are newspaper execs shutting down their web sites because anyone with a browser can read the news? What about the WSJ? They're gathering tons of demographic information, right? Oops, when forced to subscribe online they appear more interested in my credit card number than my income, profession or ethnicity.
And what about the idea of registration? One of my favorite apps is from Instapaper, ReadLater. The first time I opened the app it required me to sign in. It is all a free service to iPhone users -- provided you register online with the company.
Of course, the FT story is full of the same old anonymous quotes. "Some publishers are also griping about Apple’s compensation model." (My emphasis.) None are quoted by name; in fact, none are quoted at all. Is Li auditioning for a spot as Pentagon reporter?
I suppose it is possible that newspapers publishers are a spineless breed in mortal fear of big, bad Apple. But being a former newspaper publisher myself I'd certainly like to think better of our profession -- in fact, I do.
In the end, newspaper publishers will adopt tablet publishing in a big way -- either by jumping into the iTunes store asap, or by being forced to when more computer manufacturers start to compete with Apple by bringing out their own tablets. And even if they resist then, third party vendors will emerge to make sure every newspapers has an iPad app available. (And finally, there are the aggregators -- more on them later.)
So, in the end, it is the Financial Times that fears Apple, right?
Well, no. The FT currently has two iPhone apps in the iTunes store -- one for news, one for travel. And lo and behold, the apps state that subscribers, that is print subscribers, have unlimited access. Plus "free registration" allows 7 extra free articles per month.
Gee, sounds like the Financial Times has figured it out. So why does their reporter think no other newspaper publisher will?
Monday, February 15, 2010
MWC demonstrates Wild West nature of mobile market; publishers will likey stick to the sure bet formats
Adobe Systems Incorporated unveiled today at the Mobile World Congress Adobe AIR for mobile devices, and said a beta of Flash Player 10.1 will soon be made available to content providers and mobile developers. Mobile platforms that Adobe said will support the Flash Player include Android, the BlackBerry platform, Symbian OS, Palm webOS and Windows Mobile -- though word out of the Barcelona event was that the new Windows 7 mobile platform does not support flash, or multitasking.
Mobile platforms are beginning to resemble the Wild West as major software and mobile device manufacturers jockey for position. Today Microsoft announced an major revision of its mobile OS, a consortium was announced of major players, Samsung unveiled is own Bada mobile OS, and Intel and Nokia have announced a new software platform, MeeGo, that will be not only for smartphones but also home phones, cars and computers.
Far from simplifying the process of getting web content onto mobile devices, this is crowding the field and becoming very confusing for content providers.
In another move designed to boost its Flash platform, Adobe announced that they had joined the LiMo Foundation, a group working to bring the Linux-based operating system to mobile devices. Adobe and Apple appear to be in a blood feud over Apple's decision to not include Flash support in its iPhone or iPad OS. Flash is not only used for advertising and video, but is the software solution of choice for magazine flip book vendors.
In the end, the safe play for publishers may well be the same as it was before the Mobile World Congress: stick to the leaders in the field, Apple and Google, and force the others to conform. Additionally, there will no doubt be third party vendors willing to port media content to the various platforms and devices . . . for a price.
Mobile World Congress: phone makers unite to create unified apps community; Handmark lands UK paper
The Mobile World Congress got underway today in Barcelona with the announcement that 24 mobile operators will unit to create a ‘Wholesale Applications Community’. Those joining the effort to create a wholesale platform for mobile apps includes AT&T, China Unicom, Deutsche Telekom, Telecom Italia, Sprint, and others. Vodafone, China Mobile, SoftBank and Verizon Wireless, part of the Joint Innovation Lab, will also join in.
The goal is to make it easier for developers to create apps across many product lines and is widely seen as an attempt to compete with Apple's iPhone app store. While this appears to be a wise move it does appear to be an attempt to jump into the game late.
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, writing on his ZDNet blog asked "Will it work? Well, consortiums like this usually form when companies feel threatened. Problem is that while companies feel that the consortium looks good on paper, problems develop because each member still wants to have the upper-hand over the competition, and this in-fighting usually weakens, and ultimately neuters, the consortium . . . That said, this is a good thing for users because it will encourage developers to make more apps available across a variety of platforms."
(Quote taken from blog slightly altered to correct grammar.)
Handmark announced they will be launching a mobile app for the London Evening Standard which will feature automatic refreshing of content, and offline browsing. “Our goal is to deliver our readers a quality extension to their reading experience when they don’t have immediate access to the paper or the London Evening Standard website,” said the parper's GM of digital, Tim Smith.
The London Evening Standard is owned by former KGB agent and Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev who is attempting to buy UK papers the Independent and Independent.
Of course, what would a Mobile World Congress be without lots of new cell phone introductions. But two of the biggest players in the world, Nokia and Apple are missing from the event. Apple is not there because, well, they are Apple. Nokia has decided to put a half-Apple by holding a simultaneous event in Barcelona.
Meanwhile, Samsung has decided to launch its own mobile platform: Bada. The first phone introduced that will run the Bada OS is the Wave S8500. The new phone won't be coming to the US anytime soon, and the go-it-alone strategy Samsung has chosen makes it unlikely Bada can grow outside of the Samsung cell phones. (In contrast, Apple's iPhone OS, based on OS X, is being used in a modified form for Apple's new iPad. As a result, it is easier to create apps for the iPhone, then modify them for use on the new tablet.)
