Apple Tablet interface for NYTIMES?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by smartaleck, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. smartaleck macrumors newbie

    Apr 26, 2008
    This is a new browser function on the ny times website... it looks a lot like something that could be ported to the tablet. As NYTIMES has been working with Apple, it's a good bet that their app would look something like this on the tablet:

  2. miles01110 macrumors Core


    Jul 24, 2006
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
  3. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604


    Dec 29, 2006
    dallas, texas
  4. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Mar 26, 2008
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    And how much would the subscription fee to the NYT cost? Lots stories about the NYT going to charge for access later this year.
  5. robj macrumors regular

    Dec 23, 2009
    Madrid, Spain
    That is a really proof of concept that what a tablet could be, and what you could use for.

    But, It's presented by Blackberry at all :D
  6. smartaleck thread starter macrumors newbie

    Apr 26, 2008
    yeah it is ironic that it's presented by blackberry, but still, it looks like the kind of thing that would work well to touch and slide around with your fingers. Like it's a very atypical interface for traditional web browsing. That is why, dear above poster who doesn't care, it is interesting: it gives insight into possible UI's of the tablet
  7. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Feb 4, 2008
    I think Kindle charges $14/month. That doesn't sound far off.

    As for the Web site, what I read is the NYT is going to develop a new system in 2010 and launch it in 2011. Casual readers could read one or two stories a day, but after that you would have to subscribe. That sounds like a good idea to me, especially as a newspaper employee.

    The best pay plan I see is where newspapers join collaboratives that would run stuff together. You can read a few articles per day for free, but when you start reading the whole darn thing, you gotta pay. I'm hoping the rest of the industry will move toward something like the NYT soon. Too much time and effort goes into the news for it to be totally free.
  8. hitekalex macrumors 68000


    Feb 4, 2008
    Chicago, USA
    Meh.. the moment NYT (re)erects a paywall is the moment I move on to other news sources.. And they are plentiful on the Intrawebs.. Salon, Slate, Huffington Post, The Atlantic.. there will always be plenty of free quality news/commentary content on the web.

    NYT, News Corp and others need to realize once and for all - their content is a commodity. The Internet has made it that way. No point of fighting it and iTablet won't change a thing.

    It would be a hugely self-destructive move for NYT to jeopardize its huge online readership by erecting a paywall and pushing its online readers elsewhere.
  9. gibbz macrumors 68030

    May 31, 2007
    This is old news. Released Dec. 2 and mentioned re: the tablet by Apple Insider at that time.
  10. robfromabove macrumors regular

    Jan 14, 2010
    That's not bad, considering the Sunday edition (at least here in MI) is $6. The only thing I prefer in traditional newspapers vs. online content is the format of it. You read it a section at a time, and it's coherent. Although online content provides stories by subject (sports, etc.) it's still scattered and has no tangible end like a traditional paper. I think if the NYT were to present their paper on the rumored tablet like a traditional newspaper, I would definitely fork over $14 a month to read it.
  11. marksman macrumors 603


    Jun 4, 2007
    This is the problem these papers faced. They tried this same thing when the internet first became public and it failed. It will actually be worse now, because as you noted most people will use alternate sources.

    I do appreciate the fact that they will continue to allow everyone to access a couple stories a day for free. Without this they would certainly be dead as nobody would link or promote any of their stories, because people would be annoyed to being sent to a payment required link.

    I just think they need to figure out a better way to monetize their sites without requiring these paid subscriptions for the web access.

    We will see what this tablet does, and it might change things and allow them to provide expanded coverage, worth something, but like you noted, there is a lot of competition out there, and short of having amazing and uniquely talented writers there would be little reason for someone to go there over other sources if it is pay to read.
  12. smartaleck thread starter macrumors newbie

    Apr 26, 2008
    I understand this argument, but I must disagree. It seems like there is a limitless supply of free news, a commodity as you say, but things are not as they appear. That is because the dynamics of the industry as itis are not apparent to the average consumer. Slate, Salon etc are still being funded by VC money, or are virtually broke, or are wards of larger corporate bodies. They are not profitabel in and of themselves, and eventually said corporations or VC firms will pull the plug.

    Similarly, large newspapers are running on fumes, and no one has figured out how to monetize online content through ads. While I can't fault someone for getting something that is free and legal over something that costs money, this is not sustainable. Sure, you can go to a million different news agencies right now for free, but someone--an investor, another arm of a corporation that is essentially subsidizing--is paying for it, and they will stop paying for it when they learn it's not profitable, then the consumer will have to pay once again.

    I for one don't want to rely on bloggers and forum posters for my news. I'm willing to pay for it. I'm in the minority right now, but at some point we'll have to pony up. Music is trending the same way believe it or not.

    Media industry is sort of like that story about the blind men all grabbing a different part of the elephant. No one really knows what it is or how it's going to go.
  13. MT0227 macrumors 6502

    Jun 16, 2009
    When the internet first became public the weren't portable readers that were 9.0 x 11.0 x 0.25, weighing about a pound.

Share This Page