eContent is having iPad growing pains

[samcraig]

Well we already know the iPad has created a bit of noise with Amazon and book publishers with pricing now most likely being raised to the consumer.

Now it looks (based on the front page here) that even the NYT which was "right on board" is having internal conflicts regarding pricing of their services.

It will be very interesting how this all plays out. What WILL and WON'T be available upon launch and whether or not/how that will affect buying decisions and/or Amazon's sales (Kindle or otherwise).

Yes, the iPad is much more than an eReader. But if that's what one of the primary uses are, and one of the big selling points is big full color magazines/newspapers. Well - it's an interesting situation that has to be cleared up.

Will eContent (the printed word) be too expensive to the consumer?

i.e. those complaining about AT&T charging for iphone data and ipad data - a similar scenario applies to, say the NYT. Would you give up the hard copy altogether? Or would you, indeed, pay for a printed copy and $30 a month for the iPad version (esp when the web content is free).

I suspect that most people won't want to pay 20-30 dollars a month and that they won't give up hard copies so easily at first. Sure - some might go all electronic. But I still think the portability/easy chuckability of a physical paper has it's allure for awhile amongst the commuter. At least here in NYC.

 

[niuniu]

Say they all got their way with the high-end price points. 20 to 30 dollar p/mo subscriptions and $14.99 per eBook and God knows what other charges. Who is really going to buy into all that? I have disposable income, and it's sure as hell not going on digital print at that price. They'll get the middle finger and I'll head over and get some pirated or indie print.

 

[thejakill]

Maybe for newspapers like the Times it would be better to have a Sunday Times edition or app. That way they could concentrate valuable content for a higher price but you wouldn't be suckered into a full subscription.

 

[melman101]

Honestly I never read the New York Times and I live in NYC ;-). For $20-$30 dollars a month, I would not even try it once. For $10 dollars I might.

 

[Michael CM1]

Honestly I never read the New York Times and I live in NYC ;-). For $20-$30 dollars a month, I would not even try it once. For $10 dollars I might.

I Would Read It More If They Didn't Capitalize Every Word In A Headline.

I also can't stand their second-grader references, like Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. The rest of newspaperland lives on AP style, but the NYT has some stuff like that which just bugs me.

I just read it for opinion pieces and some of the feature stories. I don't live in NY, so I don't really care much about the local items. I wouldn't give it a whirl for that much either. I think maybe $5/month is tops on what I think is fair for what I read.

 

[sammich]

I'm wondering how they are going to implement educational pricing for newspapers on the iPad.

In Sydney (Australialand) and the major newspapers all have uni student specials, they deliver on weekends, and everyday in the holidays, and you pick up during semesters at uni newsagents.

All this for $30 a year.

If they can offer something for students that would be amazing.

 

[MikhailT]

......

The problem is that people barely can afford their bills nowadays. They are just not going to put up with something that can be gotten for free elsewhere. A lot of people will just simply switch to something that's free or just give it up completely. While news is important for everybody to keep up with, it's not important part of our lives to spend our "working" wages with.

I honestly think digital libraries are going to get a lot of more people interested if they allow the ability to download books for a period of time on your iPad or/and iPhone. I know that NYC Public Libraries are doing this with ebooks.

 

[dave1812dave]

Well we already know the iPad has created a bit of noise with Amazon and book publishers with pricing now most likely being raised to the consumer.

Now it looks (based on the front page here) that even the NYT which was "right on board" is having internal conflicts regarding pricing of their services.

It will be very interesting how this all plays out. What WILL and WON'T be available upon launch and whether or not/how that will affect buying decisions and/or Amazon's sales (Kindle or otherwise).

Yes, the iPad is much more than an eReader. But if that's what one of the primary uses are, and one of the big selling points is big full color magazines/newspapers. Well - it's an interesting situation that has to be cleared up.

Will eContent (the printed word) be too expensive to the consumer?

i.e. those complaining about AT&T charging for iphone data and ipad data - a similar scenario applies to, say the NYT. Would you give up the hard copy altogether? Or would you, indeed, pay for a printed copy and $30 a month for the iPad version (esp when the web content is free).

I suspect that most people won't want to pay 20-30 dollars a month and that they won't give up hard copies so easily at first. Sure - some might go all electronic. But I still think the portability/easy chuckability of a physical paper has it's allure for awhile amongst the commuter. At least here in NYC.

NYT is so liberal I wouldn't read it if it were free.

 

[EssentialParado]

I really don't think many magazines will need to charge at all. Wired magazine is $12 per year for a physical, delivered to your door, subscription, but take out the printing and delivery costs and you've got a publication that could be given out for free, increasing customer base, increasing ad revenue. This is what the smart guys will do. Considering the App store is open to ANYONE; big, small, or indie, those who greedily price themselves out of the rest of the market can easily lose their readers to a competitor.

 

[Michael CM1]

The problem is that people barely can afford their bills nowadays. They are just not going to put up with something that can be gotten for free elsewhere. A lot of people will just simply switch to something that's free or just give it up completely. While news is important for everybody to keep up with, it's not important part of our lives to spend our "working" wages with.

I honestly think digital libraries are going to get a lot of more people interested if they allow the ability to download books for a period of time on your iPad or/and iPhone. I know that NYC Public Libraries are doing this with ebooks.

How is it so much harder for people today to spend a little money actually paying for news when that was the norm for more than a century? This is also ironic on a forum about a minimum $500 new gadget.

If you think news isn't important enough to pay for, puhleeze don't vote, like ever. OK, not really, but I can't stress how important it is to know what the heck is going on around you. Take a look at Iran to see how information affects a society. The younger people are learning more and more about the reality of their country and slowly starting to take it back. Here, every voter needs to make informed decisions about the best people to put in office.

 

[MikhailT]

How is it so much harder for people today to spend a little money actually paying for news when that was the norm for more than a century? This is also ironic on a forum about a minimum $500 new gadget.

If you think news isn't important enough to pay for, puhleeze don't vote, like ever. OK, not really, but I can't stress how important it is to know what the heck is going on around you. Take a look at Iran to see how information affects a society. The younger people are learning more and more about the reality of their country and slowly starting to take it back. Here, every voter needs to make informed decisions about the best people to put in office.

iPad is just one time fee except for the 3g access. The NYT app could cost 360$ a year. There are newspapers that charge just 15-30$ a year, not a month. But it's not the point, NYT is going to charge for the web access as well, would you pay 30$ a month for that if you could just read BBC for free?

I never said news is not important, I said it's not that justified to spend 360$ a year for most people who rather just get it somewhere else for cheaper or free. Read carefully. I rather people read news with advertisements than to be turned off by the high price.

Also newspapers aren't unbiased either. To be truly educated, people have to read at least 5 different newspapers from around the world. Imagine if every one of them require 30$ a month, that's 150$ a month.

iPad would in my opinion encourage more reading if people want to read news, books and magazines on it due to the ease of access and interactive content. I'm the person who thinks everybody needs to read more than 20-50 books a year, news/magazine daily and so on. If kids today would be encouraged to do that because of the way content is presented on iPad, that's well worth 500$ and 100$ a month for all the content. Hell, I'll pay taxes to have NYS provide free access to NYT and other newspapers for free on iPad for students on iPad, ebook readers, and the web.

 

[marksman]

iPad is just one time fee except for the 3g access. The NYT app could cost 360$ a year. There are newspapers that charge just 15-30$ a year, not a month. But it's not the point, NYT is going to charge for the web access as well, would you pay 30$ a month for that if you could just read BBC for free?

I never said news is not important, I said it's not that justified to spend 360$ a year for most people who rather just get it somewhere else for cheaper or free. Read carefully. I rather people read news with advertisements than to be turned off by the high price.

Also newspapers aren't unbiased either. To be truly educated, people have to read at least 5 different newspapers from around the world. Imagine if every one of them require 30$ a month, that's 150$ a month.

iPad would in my opinion encourage more reading if people want to read news, books and magazines on it due to the ease of access and interactive content. I'm the person who thinks everybody needs to read more than 20-50 books a year, news/magazine daily and so on. If kids today would be encouraged to do that because of the way content is presented on iPad, that's well worth 500$ and 100$ a month for all the content. Hell, I'll pay taxes to have NYS provide free access to NYT and other newspapers for free on iPad for students on iPad, ebook readers, and the web.

bbc and nyt are not the same thing maybe?

Why read bbc if you can just read the ap news wire?

 

[RazHyena]

Say they all got their way with the high-end price points. 20 to 30 dollar p/mo subscriptions and $14.99 per eBook and God knows what other charges. Who is really going to buy into all that? I have disposable income, and it's sure as hell not going on digital print at that price. They'll get the middle finger and I'll head over and get some pirated or indie print.

Exactly.

It's a simple rule of economics far beyond their comprehension. Which is kind of scary, actually.

 

[4DThinker]

My prediction is that eventually all periodic content (newspapers and magazines) will be ad supported. We'll get free duplicates of the digital original so long as the ads are impossible to turn off or skip.

 

[Babybandit]

bbc and nyt are not the same thing maybe?

Why read bbc if you can just read the ap news wire?

I think some of you don't realize this, but newspaper companies, magazines, many media have long chosen a side to 'fight' for in the political world. One reason why people reading the AP News won't read the BBC, is because AP is institutionally right winged, whilst BBC is left winged.

By the same token, News Corporation [The group that Murdoch owns, and the group that runs New York Post, Times, Wall Street Journals, Vogue and so on] (Which is famous for being Biased, yet still American's most trusted news source) is politically right winged.
That's a reason people won't change their post. It's also why Editorials can't be changed all of a sudden in the Media world, because people read something that appeals to their own political bias.

The most neutral news source, is probably Twitter and other Social Networks, and they might be the only news source that remains free (Since Murdoch and many others have been considering a Freemium / Pay Model) - but how do you filter a news source where everyone can freely write 'news'? And at only 140 letters?

People are going to pay for the news one day, and these companies are trying to set a price, which won't get them screwed like App Developers are - they don't want their news to be only worth 0.99 a day, nor do they want to charge more than what they current do a day (since they'll need to balance out - by giving Apple 30%). This is a battle between two powerful Media corporations, and trust me - the loser will end up being the consumer or Everyone not Apple.

Remember, Steve Jobs has 51% of Walt Disney, not just Mickey Mouse and Wolverine (OS X 10.7 Wolverine or Black Cat anyone?) - but ABC, ESPN (Get why there's an ESPN app on the App Store?) - Jobs is going to use all these powers to FUEL the iPad (ABC has 27% share of Hulu) - why is why it won't fail. And Publishers know this, I know personally some Creative Directors in the Publishing industries who are going 'Crap! We have to follow the tide of Interactive News, instantly updated, blah blah' - but they lack money. In the world, Money is everything.

 

[skubish]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

I get my news for free now. I certainly won't pay $30/yr for it on the iPad.