Just think about it. iPhones (and smart phones in general) are more used by younger and better educated people who statistically indeed tend to vote for democrats. Southern rednecks on the other hand still use dumb phones.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
News Corporation Shutting Down Digital Newspaper 'The Daily'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just think about it. iPhones (and smart phones in general) are more used by younger and better educated people who statistically indeed tend to vote for democrats. Southern rednecks on the other hand still use dumb phones.
I liked it, and subscribed from the beginning. I hope other publications can learn from its brilliant interface. So many other news magazines and periodicals are little more than dressed up PDFs.
Why is it clueless? I totally agree with the guy. There is nothing wrong with having news sources/analysis of all political orientations. However, FOX New is a the only major new organisation that uses obvious lies for propaganda purposes. They brainwash their listeners and this is not good.
Oh, I'm crying so hard. Who the heck cares.
I'm sure Rupert's manager's didn't get enough clicks on the ads.
I'm sure Rupert's manager's didn't get enough clicks on the ads.
News Corp plays all sides. That's how you make money. While Fox News panders to one kind of mindset, you've got Fox Network whose top show for several seasons had an atheist protagonist, and their other two top shows are produced by vocal atheists.
And here's another interesting tidbit: The single largest shareholder of News Corp is someone Fox News branded as a "terrorist sympathizer". That's right, 7% of News Corp is owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz of the Royal House of Saud.
So, there you are. But go ahead and keep on flaming each other over absolutely nothing... by all means.
The Daily didn't fail because of any politics or news standards... it failed because the entire information economy is so ubiquitous now that the value of information has declined too sharply for large editorial guidance to compete with bloggers.
But the interesting conundrum will come when all the primary sources can no longer make money, whose feet-on-the-street reporting are the bloggers going to reblog? What articles will be left for them to regurgitate?
The joke is (and I say this as an online publisher myself), there's no money in blogging either...
And here's another interesting tidbit: The single largest shareholder of News Corp is someone Fox News branded as a "terrorist sympathizer". That's right, 7% of News Corp is owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz of the Royal House of Saud.
So, there you are. But go ahead and keep on flaming each other over absolutely nothing... by all means.
The Daily didn't fail because of any politics or news standards... it failed because the entire information economy is so ubiquitous now that the value of information has declined too sharply for large editorial guidance to compete with bloggers.
But the interesting conundrum will come when all the primary sources can no longer make money, whose feet-on-the-street reporting are the bloggers going to reblog? What articles will be left for them to regurgitate?
The joke is (and I say this as an online publisher myself), there's no money in blogging either...
Last edited:
For some reason, I don't see Mitt Romney reading the Daily to find out the latest news on Kate Middleton or the Kardashians. One of News Corporation's other publications such as the Wall Street Journal, but not the Daily. So again, the demographic probably wasn't conducive to it.
I dunno - I think the New York Times is seeing some decent returns off of their online initiative. 454,000 subscribers as of march of this year, alongside an increase in home deliveries, and no decrease in web traffic alongside increased use of the apps.
digital subscriptions and paid news works... when the content is worth the money. The Daily did not meet that criteria.
digital subscriptions and paid news works... when the content is worth the money. The Daily did not meet that criteria.
We get news live, almost the instant it happens. People are so plugged in, we know whats going on before many reporters do. With our connectivity, news is passed around the world by those who are there living it.
Pay for services like the Daily just aren't going to appeal to many when we have so many sources to get news live and at no cost.
Pay for services like the Daily just aren't going to appeal to many when we have so many sources to get news live and at no cost.
Agreed - When you do it right and offer something that the consumer wants it can work. The Times does interesting bundling too. Buy one and you get a price break on the others. Perhaps the right thing for Murdoch to do was to take one of the existing properties and make it work like that. Although perhaps the universal appeal of the Times or the Wallstreet Journal does not exist on his side.
I second the post by av3206. I purchased an annual subscription about 6 months ago. There should be some form of refund.
The problem is that the "News Corp" brand is tarnished among the likely buyers of The Daily. The type of person who would read a newspaper on their iPad is totally the opposite demographic to those who buy Murdoch's tabloids or watch Fox News.
The Guardian is doing very well on the iPad. The New York Times is doing well. I read both, along with the South China Morning Post.
But I draw the line at getting any news at all from Murdoch.
The Guardian is doing very well on the iPad. The New York Times is doing well. I read both, along with the South China Morning Post.
But I draw the line at getting any news at all from Murdoch.
Not to worry: it looks as though they will be refunding those of us who paid into a subscription:
TheDailyBlog said:
More here: http://blog.thedaily.com/
I agree that The Magazine's content isn't much, and it is only doing well because of very low overhead. But I like the format/design. It loads very fast, has nothing other than table of content and the articles, and is extremely easy to navigate -- doesn't have me puzzling over whether I scroll vertically or horizontally or tap the left edge to get to the next page. I wish all iPad magazines were as easy to use as The Magazine, and that other iPad magazines would hire Marco Arment to write their iOS apps for them. All iPad magazines I've tried seems to think that because they are on the iPad, they have to have multimedia content or have fancy swiping effects. But all I want is to READ THE WORDS. Multimedia and fancy swipes only get in the way. Marco understands this, and I hope more publishers see this, which is why I subscribe to The Magazine.
As much as I am left of center, I disagree with this claim.
The Daily's problem is not that it panders... Most news media pander to some demographic or another, and America is the only industrialized country that is upside down on beliefs about evolutionary theory, so I'm not buying the stereotype that all of us Mac users are a bunch of raging hard left liberals running off to our graphic studios in our Doc Martens and Swedish eyeglass frames to have a cappuccino while we read Alison Bechdel's latest op-ed.
The two examples you cite have other sources of revenue feeding into their business unit. New York Times and The Guardian are still large metropolitan papers and they're very established brands. The Daily was online only, and in the face of a weak online business paradigm for news media that just isn't the best strategy.
Newsweek is going to an online only format, and if they do better than the Daily the most plausible explanation will be that they've already got a deeply established brand with a dedicated audience. The Daily didn't.
I intensely dislike the Murdoch clan's methods and what News Corp appears to propagate, particularly in light of its recently uncovered dirty tricks and hacking, but liked the idea of The Daily.
I liked theidea of it but the news corps brands attachment to it hurt business. I do wonder if they wouldve seen more interest by simply announcing they were going to be a more academic with their news and analysis.
