Which part makes it more convenient - the inability to lend it or give it away to others? The inability to save old issues? Other DRM-imposed restrictions on fair use?
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.
Advertisers Gearing Up for iPad Editions of Magazines While Content Pricing Firms Up
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which part makes it more convenient - the inability to lend it or give it away to others? The inability to save old issues? Other DRM-imposed restrictions on fair use?
Advertising in media - it's EXACTLY the same thing. Both TV and internet ads can and have historically financed content. Both can be tuned out by various means. Both struggle to get attention by using increasingly intrusive measures because of the efforts to ignore them. Both TV and internet news content will continue to exist for FREE because advertisers are more clever and have more experience in getting their point across on more unique ways. Whether someone prefers to pay for no advertising or not is a personal choice. I happen to LIKE some advertising - if it's meant to be informative, so I'd rather have a free site. I would NOT pay for content that was previously free.
BTW - Nice choice with the personnel insults there.I assume I'm dealing with a 10 year old here - Right?
Tony
Tony, could you point out the personal insult?
That model has worked for some television. The glaring omission being cable television, which charges for access and has advertisements. You've also omitted the fact that even with advertising, newspapers and magazines charge per issue bought.
You also seem to think that because there is free access to these websites it should remain free even if people stop paying for the paper editions. That simply does not make any sense. Revenue has to be generated somewhere in order to hire people to produce that content that you enjoy reading so much.
The point being, there are very few examples where advertising alone carries the entire operation. It would take the naivete of a 10 year old not to realize that there are many different models and that very few of them are sustained through advertising alone.
This is also true. I imagine that the online version of these magazines will very much resemble their paper counterparts. For some magazines, the advertising is a large part of why people buy the magazine.
I was thinking more along the lines of the NYTs, where I primarily read it for the content.
Backpacker magazine has a lot of gear related advertising, and I don't mind that too much, especially when they review the products advertised.
The beauty of the iPad is that it can be every part as versatile as a paper magazine, in a lot of other ways, it can be even more versatile. Instead of static models advertising clothes, the models can be moving and speaking, for example.
Remember that google and yahoo are not news gathering organizations. They get their news from other sources.
This is a warning to all you iPad/iPhone developers: If you keep presenting Adds into your paid Apps and you will start seeing a backlash to your Apps.
Umm...you do know that most of the news you see on Yahoo and Google are from AP. Even if the links don't link directly to AP but to another newspaper site, the articles themselves are from AP or paraphrased from AP. When AP decides to stop free distribution (which they are planning to in 2010), basically all your Google and Yahoo news you see now will either gone or require an AP subscription.
It's interesting and shortsighted of those who say online distribution costs nothing. There are hosting fees, bandwidth fees and electricity bills all to pay for. Staff still need paying as well to create the content.
I guess this is the attitude to expect after 15 years with Internet users being able to copy material for next to no effort or cost on their part. There seems to be no perceived value in digital content, 18 bucks a month is cheap!
I guess this is the attitude to expect after 15 years with Internet users being able to copy material for next to no effort or cost on their part. There seems to be no perceived value in digital content, 18 bucks a month is cheap!
Usually, it's staff that's the biggest cost by far. Even with total incompetents gathering news, it's still the biggest line item by far....
$17.99 for a month of WSJ content is not appealing at all. I'm already paying $12.95 to access the content on my computer. I know for certain that I won't be paying $30+ to be able to see it on both devices. Plus, as per their recent changes, they also started charging for their iPhone content, which led me to promptly delete their app from my iPhone. If their greed continues, I may just get rid of it all....
Reading quite a few posts along the way until finding yours.
x200000 that.
People still think Internet will be a "self service kitchen with a free food shelve". I hope that mentality is going to end in my lifetime.
People create. People consume. Creations have to be payed for. Regardless of the material they are being distributed in.
Books. You do not pay the Paper. You pay the idea of the story.
News. You do not pay the Paper. You pay the gathering, editing, writing-expertise. You pay the life-risk some journalists take everyday to report from places in the world that you don't even know off.
Obviously you can go through the Internet pirating ideas. Stealing Software, Music and so on.
And it might seem like News are being distributed for free. But they are not. They are payed for by ads. And often the writing is inferior to the texts in the paper.
And i think a 10 Dollar discount on the digital version in comparison to the Paper is a bargain.
Ahhhh... A voice of reason amongst all the whiners, who I suspect would like to be paid for a days work.
A few posts up you talk about your "cheap" way of getting subscription rates down yet you feel perfectly fine calling other people out on the subject.
Perhaps you won't mind paying a premium on your subscription to iRony!
Lots of people think that this news will just keep showing up at the doorstep for free. Lots of those same people go to great lengths to also block any ads from showing up on their computer.
I am not sure what fantasyland these people are living in. I always chuckle when people say, "I will just get my news for free from yahoo or google."
Google doesn't have a single reporter.
Yahoo! reports on certain things, but not most of the things that show up in their news.
Why not actually understand what they are doing before you sit around ignorantly thinking that if all the sources where google and yahoo "borrow" their news from go pay, that somehow yahoo and google will still be able to magically present them to you.
It is not how it is going to work.
The only news you will get from Google will be from reading Matt Cutt's blog.
Wait, how exactly is a website going to charge someone browsing with an ipad to look at their site unless they do it for all internet users?
Someone sitting on the couch with their ipad is going to be redirected to a subscription portal, when they could go over to their computer and read the same site without any such requirement?
All it would take is for it to be jailbroken, a proxy, etc, and that is nullified. Hell even Google cache.
And advertisers paid money for this?
The magazines I can understand, since most are not available in their entirety online. But newspaper websites? Either you do it for all internet access or none at all, otherwise it fails completely. And even still, if a website does make all internet traffic subscription based....the daily newspaper issues will still find themselves onto torrents and the like.
Really don't see what all the "zomg 1984!" reactions are about.
Someone sitting on the couch with their ipad is going to be redirected to a subscription portal, when they could go over to their computer and read the same site without any such requirement?
All it would take is for it to be jailbroken, a proxy, etc, and that is nullified. Hell even Google cache.
And advertisers paid money for this?
The magazines I can understand, since most are not available in their entirety online. But newspaper websites? Either you do it for all internet access or none at all, otherwise it fails completely. And even still, if a website does make all internet traffic subscription based....the daily newspaper issues will still find themselves onto torrents and the like.
Really don't see what all the "zomg 1984!" reactions are about.
If they expect me to subscribe at all , they better have a price that is a lot lower than newsstand. there is so much information available for free on the internet they need to give me some incentive to subscribe, after all doing it electronically saves them lots of money and saves their bacon.