Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 3, 2012, 08:56 AM   #26
Macist
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Shows again that 'old world' knowledge is no guarantee of success online.
Macist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 08:56 AM   #27
flavr
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Yohe View Post
I might have considered reading it if I wasn't immediately turned off by the terrible performance of the news "carousel" you were first presented with.
AGREED! Its doesn't matter how great the content you are trying to deliver, if the user experience is bad, people will not use it, period.
flavr is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 08:59 AM   #28
Saladinos
macrumors 68000
 
Saladinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
I was never put off by the price -- more the content.

For breaking news, I'm typically over BBC and Google News. They pretty much tell me what's going on with a little bit of analysis.

For more in-depth analysis, I'd rather pay more for something genuinely interesting like The Economist.

The Daily seemed to me more of a magazine than a newspaper - It was just full of wishy-washy superficial junk. Not really anything thought-provoking. Also not very much to appeal to the non-US audience.
Saladinos is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 08:59 AM   #29
iReality85
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyngo View Post
Now if I could just disable the Newsstand app :/. I can't even put it into a folder to "hide" it.
This, so much. And that goes for any Apple app. I get it, Apple wants to include in-house apps on their platform, that's fine. Weather, Clock, Stocks... it would be nice if I could choose for these to remain in iTunes or have on my phone, as there are much better alternatives out there. As for Newsstand, let me at least put the damn thing in a folder!

As for The Daily, while nice, again there's better alternatives out there. I give Murdoch credit for trying, but its tough to complete with free. After all, the internet is all about the free flow of information.
iReality85 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 08:59 AM   #30
AppleZilla
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
News Corp's Rupert Murdoch has admitted that the only reason he became an 'American' was so that he could attempt to take over our media and affect public policy.

I wouldn't give a dime to this tabloid hack and corporate propagandist.

Good riddance.
AppleZilla is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:10 AM   #31
Intarweb
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2007
Good riddance. Now if we can get rid of all of News Corp news outlets we would be making strides as a civilization.
Intarweb is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:11 AM   #32
Krazy Bill
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post
News Corp's Rupert Murdoch has admitted that the only reason he became an 'American' was so that he could attempt to take over our media and affect public policy.

I wouldn't give a dime to this tabloid hack and corporate propagandist.

Good riddance.
Very true. After all, The objective of most media outlets is to merely earn an honest buck and serve their readers.

LOL.
Krazy Bill is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:15 AM   #33
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by slstern View Post
Besides the fact that there are a number of other sources from which to obtain information, free and otherwise, I could not bring myself to contribute financially to Rupert Murdoch's empire any more than I had to. I think there were a number of potential subscribers who shared concerns about the way the Daily's coverage might be skewed. I get enough "Fair & Balanced" news on the local FOX station.
What exactly is "fair and balanced"? How is it possible for anything to be "fair and balances" when everyone has their own opinions and biases. I'd rather have news organizations admit their biases and cut the "fair and balanced" crap. In the USA we know MSNBC and CNN lean left whereas FOX leans right. Why don't they just admit it and quit pretending they're something they're not?
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:16 AM   #34
canyonblue737
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrose Chapel View Post
Meanwhile, Marco Arment's The Magazine proved its financial viability after one issue. Eventually one of the traditional publishing companies will figure this out, right?
Totally different things. First off I subscribe to "The Magazine" but I am not sure I will continue to... the content is very thin (average four articles that each are quite brief) and while I admire many of the "writers" (mostly bloggers in the Apple community) the actual articles are pretty weak with totally scattered topics. It may do well if only because a one or two man operation has extremely low overhead.

As for "The Daily" I subscribed to that for a bit and I don't agree with many articles this morning saying it is the web that killed it etc. What killed "The Daily" was a tabloid mindset with salacious articles written in the form of weak cliff notes to the news. The average owner of an expensive tablet who actually wants to read a newspaper on it did not want to see catchy headlines like "This is your Captain freaking!" (Jetblue pilot threatens crew) and "Lo-Down Shame!" (Lindsay Lohan news) etc. This was like selling The National Enquirer as a real newspaper it was a joke, that is why it is dying.
canyonblue737 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:18 AM   #35
Donut4000
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
I think in principle The Daily was a good idea - I don't have a problem paying a bit for my news. I use the Guardian app every day, and really like it's layout and that it updates as stories roll. I am slightly disconcerted however, over how they can make money from this model where they charge a few quid for the whole year. Print papers cost that if you buy them for just a week. (as I understand, the Guardian are losing money in this sphere). Anyway - this all has nothing to do with The Daily; I simply cannot stand Murdoch and the way he has been, and is operating. That was the sole and over ridding issue for me. That the content was panned from a good few corners (and other posters above) didn't help..., but the Daily was DOA for me.
Donut4000 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:18 AM   #36
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyngo View Post
Now if I could just disable the Newsstand app :/. I can't even put it into a folder to "hide" it.
Can't you? Maybe they since fixed the exploit, but you used to be able to move it in right when a new folder was created or something like that. But don't try opening it or springboard (the iOS home screen application) crashes.
ArtOfWarfare is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:22 AM   #37
eShinn
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2005
A year-long experiment

Business Model:
1. Work with Apple on producing iOS app.
2. Work with Apple on recurring billing.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!

...on year later.

Executive Brief:
1. Money Spent > Money Pocketed
2. It's APPLE's fault!!!
eShinn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:27 AM   #38
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazUK View Post
Hang on..... I think I see it...


Yep, there's your problem. A perfectly capable web browser.
However, news is increasingly going behind a paywall. The NY Times successfully pulled it off, as did the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal. Now even papers like the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel are trying it.

My guess is that the Daily, as a purely paid subscription, wasn't particularly compelling since it didn't offer as much information as the NY Times or WSJ (though at $39/year it was cheaper). The right-wing bent of Murdoch's publications probably also doesn't play well with the target audience. The Fox News crowd, who might have found the content appealing is probably also less likely to own an iPad.

That said, we certainly haven't seen the last of electronic newspapers. Maybe News Corp will emphasize the digital versions of the WSJ and Post. The former is better suited to the actual news and business crowd, while the latter is perfectly capable of satisfying the "Page 6" crowd online.
KPOM is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:28 AM   #39
Jessica Lares
macrumors 604
 
Jessica Lares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Near Dallas, Texas, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrose Chapel View Post
Meanwhile, Marco Arment's The Magazine proved its financial viability after one issue. Eventually one of the traditional publishing companies will figure this out, right?
The problem with that example is that it's a magazine targeted to a certain niche and he's just a one man show who can just grab a few writers, have them write, and then pay them royalties. It's a side project, and it works because of the very small amount of content and very few writers.

But then for that very same price, I just got Rolling Stone, Time, and a few others (for doing a customer satisfaction survey, it was my reward from a company). They have much more articles and writers. I get this sort of price at Zinio too, sometimes even like $3 per year.

If everyone was approached to pay that kind of pricing, then these publications wouldn't be able to exist, because it's not *JUST* about writing, it's about having a desk to sit at, a computer to type on, a notebook to write notes in, it's about having the money to send your employees out to do interviews, and to afford the insurance if something happens while people are out doing these interviews. Time has about 10,000 employees. Even if 20 million people subscribed digital only, it wouldn't be very profitable due to upkeep. And that is why most magazines not only cost a lot, but also have LOTS and LOTS of advertising.
__________________
Have You Hugged Your Mac Today?
Daily Expressions | iMac G4 | Late 2011 13" MacBook Pro | iPod Nano (7G) | iPad Mini | iPod Touch (5G) | iPhone 5S
Jessica Lares is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:32 AM   #40
charlituna
macrumors G3
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrose Chapel View Post
Meanwhile, Marco Arment's The Magazine proved its financial viability after one issue. Eventually one of the traditional publishing companies will figure this out, right?
Better content perhaps. Or name recognition

The Daily could reclaim some money if it was turned into a kind of template for others to use to build their magazines. Early on they had some hiccups with the UI but most of those were worked out so it would be a decent starting point for companies with little or no clue
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:33 AM   #41
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Meh who gives a crap. It was a silly idea to begin with. Why pay for news you can read for free, and from more reliable sources than NewsCorp?
rmwebs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:34 AM   #42
charlituna
macrumors G3
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMin View Post
For me the problem was the content. It was lousy. This was not great journalism and IMO they were aiming at the wrong crowd for early adopters. They needed to set the sights a little higher and leave out all of the People magaziney type stuff.
Or they needed to make that the focus. Trying to appeal to everyone was a huge risk and yes likely where the content failure happened.

Had they created three or four more focused titles they might have done much better. But trying to do everything particular with only their own budget, did not work so well
charlituna is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:34 AM   #43
kup1986
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
I enjoyed the content, and subscribed far longer than I thought I would. However, the celebrity gossip seemed to become a higher focus as time went on, and I can't stand that kind of stuff. That was why I dropped it. But for a long time, it was a part of my morning routine.

Good idea, just needed some tweaking.
kup1986 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:34 AM   #44
matty.p
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
I have to agree with a lot of the other posters, it was a terrible first impression. You received a free month but loading the app was terribly slow and if there was any type of breaking news the app wouldn't be updated for hours after the event.

I subscribed for a few months but the typically Murdoch skew was a complete turnoff for me. I couldn't justify supporting someone who's views I'm so diametrically opposed to.
matty.p is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:35 AM   #45
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
What exactly is "fair and balanced"? How is it possible for anything to be "fair and balances" when everyone has their own opinions and biases. I'd rather have news organizations admit their biases and cut the "fair and balanced" crap. In the USA we know MSNBC and CNN lean left whereas FOX leans right. Why don't they just admit it and quit pretending they're something they're not?
The "balanced" aspect comes from the FCC's since-repealed "fairness doctrine" that required TV broadcasters to present both sides of a political discussion. They had to at least pretend to show both sides or they could lose their license. MSNBC uses "Lean Forward" now. CNN still pretends they are objective. Fox actually owns the "Fair and Balanced" trademark but don't really emphasize it.

Some version of the "fairness doctrine" exists in the UK as far as TV broadcasts are concerned. That said, in the UK newspapers are blatantly more biased than American papers, and far more open about their editorial bent.

The Daily's issue was likely that sites like TMZ do a better job of covering what used to be tabloid material, and that the rest of its news content had a conservative bias that probably didn't play well with the iPad demographic.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:35 AM   #46
wolfshades
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Whoa!

I'm a little shocked at this news. ("Little" because of TheDaily's earlier money problems).

I've been a long-standing subscriber who has enjoyed the hell out of this paper and am sad to see it go. For those who think simple web pages are better, let me tell you: they're not. The Daily had a lot of great technical dyamics to it not found on most websites, one of which includes nested commenting that is far superior than any website I've seen (outside of WordPress blogs).

It was a trip.
wolfshades is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:39 AM   #47
johncrab
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
It may have been great for all I know but I never looked at it because of the manipulative, race-baiting, hard-right-wing owner and publisher. I'm not going to give that charlatan any of my money. Period.
johncrab is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:41 AM   #48
Westside guy
macrumors 601
 
Westside guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The soggy part of the Pacific NW
Quote:
Originally Posted by KdParker View Post
Why pay for news that you can get for free somewhere else.
Because once the last paid reporter loses his job, the spigot of "free" news will have pretty much dried up.

Social media coverage of major news events is, at best, spotty. It's generally a mess, and it lacks both substance and perspective.
__________________
Your post count is insufficient to view signature
Westside guy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:41 AM   #49
ictiosapiens
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2006
I don't know in America, but outside of it, the name Murdoch is toxic, and nobody looking for real news would even consider anything with that name attached to it. In Britain, the only Murdoch paper with some respectability, is The Times, and that's because Murdoch keeps reminding us of how "independent" its editorship is... Personally I wouldn't touch that either.
ictiosapiens is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:43 AM   #50
184550
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Absolutely amazed another Murdoch rag crashed and burned.
184550 is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On the brighter side in Iran - reformist newspaper relaunches as a daily LizKat Politics, Religion, Social Issues 0 Feb 17, 2014 09:57 PM
The Daily Shutting Down - Best Replacement? legaleye3000 iPad Apps 1 Dec 4, 2012 12:17 AM
MacRumors makes the front page of the Daily Mail Newspaper! iFanboy iPhone 6 Sep 22, 2012 04:26 PM
News Corp. Considering Canceling 'The Daily'? MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 41 Aug 4, 2012 02:52 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC