Posts
If you are just checking into work and want a quick review of what is going in the world, here you go:
World:
Japan: Repair crews return to nuclear plant as Japan's disaster toll rises - LA Times
Nearly 10,000 people are now confirmed dead, with more than 13,000 missing as a result of the March 11 tragedy, Japan's national police agency reported late Tuesday.
Libya: US Warplane Crashes in Libya; Pilots Safe - WSJ
"As we are successful in suppressing the air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline…I assume in the next few days," Mr. Gates told reporters after meeting with his Russian counterpart in Moscow.
Local:
AT&T: Proposed wireless merger likely to impact Austin - Austin American-Statesman
"The AT&T labs in Austin are going to be front and center in the industry," Gillott said. That's because any device the labs say doesn't meet its testing standards will be shut out of a larger part of the U.S. market.
More AT&T: PhillyInc: 'Massive river of data' going through AT&T command center -- Philadelphia Inquirer
"A lot of us don't think about once we hit 'send,' what happens? It's just magic. And that's a good thing," said Tiffany Baehman, vice president and general manager of the Greater Philadelphia market for AT&T...There was little magic in evidence on the tour of the Philadelphia command center, but lots of noisy, brute-force technology that keeps a large part of AT&T's network running.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Morning Brief: Workers return to crippled nuclear plant; US loses jet in Libya; cities gage impact of AT&T merger
Monday, March 21, 2011
Afternoon odds & ends: Welcome Kindle Edition readers! Rogers Media releases CityNews; new Mac OS update
First, a big thank you to those who are reading this website on their Kindle! If you, too, own a Kindle and would like to read your industry news on that device, just go to Amazon.com to learn more about subscribing to the Talking New Media Kindle Edition.
Rogers Media, the major Canadian media company, has released an interesting universal app today, their first news app.
CityNews is the first iOS app released under the Rogers Media name, in that it represents Rogers Broadcasting Limited. Rogers Publishing, however, had previously released an app for its magazine Maclean's.
There are a couple of things that makes this one of interest. First, and I rarely say this, this one is really snappy on the iPad. While the app looks a lot like the NYT or Financial Times app, and is RSS feed driven, it just feels real quick when navigating. Also, although this is, as I said, a universal app, the iPhone version feels a bit different than the iPad version simply by utilizing a subtle difference in layouts. Both apps, for instance, give you weather and traffic, but the fact that those are included on the bottom of the mobile app gives it a different feel.
Rogers Media released this app without making this app AirPlay-enabled for video streaming, and odd choice for a broadcasting company. I suppose, like print publishers handicapping their web and app products to protect print, the broadcasters may have felt that they would prefer users watch their Citytv station rather than streaming video via the app.
As you can see from the screenshot, my Apple TV shows up in the app, but it will only stream the audio. Nonetheless, if you live in Toronto, or simply want to keep up with local news, the release ofd this app will be much appreciated, though the app is so new I do not see any reviews for it in either the Canadian or US app stores.
If you recently bought a new MacBook Pro, lucky you, you would be well advised to check your Software Update today and download the 10.6.7 Update. While the update is supposed to be for all Mac users with the latest OS (Snow Leopard) it appears to be especially important for MacBook Pro users who have encountered problems with their new computers.
For what it is worth: I cleared off a bunch of apps off my iPad. Despite deleting more than a dozen apps I still have more than 11 GB worth of apps on my tablet. In comparison, I have only 1 GB of music, thanks to being able to access the iTunes library on my computer through Home Sharing.
Brands see tablet publishing through apps as another way to reach consumers, unfiltered by the media
Here is another example of a brand launching an iPad app as part of their marketing efforts, the B2B example being the John Deere Mower Match app looked at last week.
The Crisco Mobile app comes in two flavors: Crisco Mobile is for the iPhone, and Crisco Mobile HD is for the iPad. Both apps are free for consumers to download, of course. The iPhone app was originally released last month and works pretty well on your phone.
The iPad version (the screenshots you see here) doesn't add anything other than scaling up the resolution for the tablet display. In fact, what makes sense on a phone ends up being a bit strange on a tablet in that the app only works in portrait (makes sense on an iPhone display) but then viewing video is in landscape (of course). On a phone this seems natural, but on a tablet it is cumbersome to have to turn your iPad around every time you want to see a video.
Having said that, there is quite a number of nice little features here that you can check out if you are so interested.
But the point of posting about product apps is not to review them but to continue to point out that many consumer product manufacturers are beginning to see the opportunity available to them to market their products directly using mobile and tablet platforms. Once again, like the web, most publishers have decided to not get directly involved with development, meaning that they can not assist their advertisers. The money spent here, on this app, has to come out of some marketing budget -- odds are it will come out of print (though it is bound to vary from company to company).
Crisco, for the record, is owned by The J.M. Smucker Company, which is also listed as the 'seller' of the app. For those interested in Android, I did not see any equivalent apps in the Android Market website.
A question: how long before T-Mobile pulls those ads featuring the iPhone owner which makes fun of AT&T?
I have a feeling that the latest T-Mobile advertising campaign -- you know, the one that makes fun of AT&T -- may be about to get shelved now that AT&T has announced that it is acquiring T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG. What do you think?
But before all those ads get deleted from the T-Mobile YouTube channel, maybe its worth a little review:
Media writers appear don't like, and are confused by NYT paywall approach; industry veterans are not surprised
The reaction from media writers to the details of the New York Times metered paywall were predictable; I am quite sure NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. expected this. There was no way any announcement, either instituting a paywall, or announcing that the paper was punting, would have resulted in a major of media writers approving of the move. Like Philadelphia sports fans, media writers would boo Santa Claus.
Most of the criticism centers around the math: why does it cost $5 more per four week period of time to acquire access to the iPad app versus the iPhone app? (Probably because the iPad approximates print more than does a smartphone app), why is it that it appears that the NYT doesn't appear to be charging for the web? ($15 for web + iPhone, $20 for web and iPad, $35 for both iPhone and iPad, as well as the web -- that makes it look like they are just charging for iOS and Android devices, and nothing for the web.)
GigaOM's Mathew Ingram writes that, in his view, the plan is backward-looking, protecting print at all costs (after all, you get all electronic versions of the NYT for free if you subscribe to the print paper). He is right, but he shouldn't be surprised.
In an early post on this site, back in January of 2010, I wrote about the rumor that there was an on-going turf war at the Times regarding iPad pricing. Circulation wanted the iPad app priced at print levels, while digital operations wanted lower pricing. Assuming the rumors were true as reported by Gawker's Valleywag, and they ring true to me, then the solution worked out in time for the iPad's launch April 3rd of last year, must have been totally unsatisfying: the iPad app launched with no cost attached to it at all, but the content was limited -- no one got what they wanted, especially readers.
Ryan Tate, the writer of that piece a year ago, seemed surprised at the level of bureaucratic infighting at the NYT. As I said then, and feel now, those that look at these turf wars must have never worked at a paper in management -- they are the norm.
At many papers, the circulation director has an oversized amount of influence: a paper's health is often associated with its increasing, or declining circulation numbers. While many like to point to the web as the source of the decline in newspaper print circulation levels, but major shifts in pricing, or distribution geography, can dramatically influence those final ABC numbers just as much as changes in reading habits. No circulation manager would like the idea of losing, say, 100,000 print customers to a tablet edition, no matter what the cost savings unless they can be assured that their ABC audit will look about the same.
(Disclosure: I was, briefly, a circulation director at a smallish daily newspaper in Northern California -- it was part of a bizarre experiment designed to train me to be a publisher, which I quickly became, elsewhere.)
So is Ingram right? Is the NYT paywall backward-looking? I wouldn't say that the management team at the Times is backward-looking, per se -- compared to most newspapers, the Times is one of the most forward-looking in the industry -- but the industry as a whole is not very creative outside its comfort-zone of print, and the Times is no different. At most papers, people with experience outside of the daily newspaper environment are looked at with distain; those who left the daily grind of the metro newspaper world to work in digital media, or other forms of print, are looked at with suspicion. No wonder then that decisions made regarding the web, mobile or tablets appear strange to outsiders, especially those consumers who are younger and more often than not looking for electronic media products rather than a home delivered one.
The problem the Times has, as do so many other newspapers, is that they continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. Launching their iPad app as a free app, with limited content was almost the identical move made by papers when they launched their websites. Not only were the sites free, but it took a while for editors to develop a web-first attitude towards getting the news online before it hit print.
Instead, the executives at the Times announced that they would institute a paywall sometime in the future -- one year later we know what it will look like.
Interestingly, the National Football League solved the problem faced by publishers long ago. A football game can only be seen locally if the game is a sell-out, otherwise it is blacked out. Imagine if the NFL ran the Times: web access would be limited to paying customers in the NY area, but would be free nationally. If enough local customers pay, then the website would be opened up locally.
Football fans complain about the system, especially when their teams are not very good and seldom sell-out the stadium, but they understand the system -- someone's got to pay for it to work.
More later, much more, I'm sure.
Morning Brief: AT&T and T-Mobile to merge, if FCC gives approval; Detroit News publisher issues apology; readers notice sensational news coverage of nuclear crisis
Assuming the FCC approves, a merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, announced yesterday, would create the largest wireless company in America, with around 38 percent of the market, just ahead of Verizon. Sprint would move up to third, but would trail both companies badly with only 11 percent of the market.
AT&T's announcement came yesterday afternoon, guaranteeing that the news would be the number one business story this morning. The deal, in which AT&T agrees to acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG for cash and stock worth approximately $39 billion, is being sold by AT&T as a way of helping T-Mobile achieve 4G LTE deployment.
"This transaction represents a major commitment to strengthen and expand critical infrastructure for our nation’s future,” Randall Stephenson, AT&T Chairman and CEO, said in the statement released Sunday. “It will improve network quality, and it will bring advanced LTE capabilities to more than 294 million people. Mobile broadband networks drive economic opportunity everywhere, and they enable the expanding high-tech ecosystem that includes device makers, cloud and content providers, app developers, customers, and more. During the past few years, America’s high-tech industry has delivered innovation at unprecedented speed, and this combination will accelerate its continued growth.”
Next comes the FCC approval process, something that could be contentious and may require some concessions on the part of AT&T. But AT&T is already gearing up for the fight as T&T's top policy executive Jim Cicconi was quickly quoted on several websites Sunday defending the deal.
"Obviously we understand the questions and the concerns and we feel we have good answers," Cicconi told The Hill yesterday. "We took a very hard and close look at this and we feel the facts support the deal."
Early Saturday the editor and publisher of the Detroit News, Jonathan Wolman, published an apology to News readers, and to reporter Scott Burgess for editing the online version of a review of the Chrysler 200 after the review had already appeared in print. The editing of the review occurred after a complain was received from an auto dealer who is an advertiser.
Journalists blasted the actions of editors in changing Scott Burgess's review, and Burgess himself "resigned in frustration", as Wolman put it in his apology. But others were less sympathetic to the snarky review that, it seemed to me, clearly crossed the line from review to sarcasm. The editing of a review after printing, and following advertising input struck a cord in many journalists who did not seem as concerned with the original piece itself.
Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall posted a letter from a reader that lambasted the US press, and to a certain degree Talking Points Memo, for its coverage of the Fukushima nuclear plant crisis. The reader, who was not identified, wrote that "the Japanese news coverage has been largely calm, rational, informed, and critical. Some of this is naturally to avoid creating panic, but it has been able to do that because as a whole it has answered many of the questions people have and thus gained a certain level of trust."
He then compared this to the US media's approach to the story: "It also just looks good because there is something so ugly beside it: the non-Japanese coverage. That, I am afraid, has been full of factual errors and other problems. This has not been just Fox News, but also CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and even the New York Times to differing degrees...I for one cannot understand why ABC, for instance, could feature Michio Kaku multiple times over several days when by the time his declarations of imminent disaster, the situation on the ground had already proven him wrong."
This is a subject I wrote about on Thursday morning in the Morning Brief. At the time I wondered if the New York Times's increasingly hysterical tone, using words like "bleak" and "ominous" to describe the situation, was the result of information it had from its sources, or if it was something else entirely.
Now with the military actions in Libya, it appears that suddenly the story in Japan is no longer worthy of such sensational editorial treatment.
