Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

iPad News Apps: 'NYTimes' Revamp, 'New York Post' In-App Subscriptions

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,271
11,586
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png

A pair of New York newspapers are making news themselves today with their recent iPad app releases, with The New York Times introducing a greatly-expanded application and The New York Post rolling out a new app with subscriptions handled via in-app purchasing.




The original NYTimes Editors' Choice has been reborn as NYTimes for iPad, offering a significant expansion of available content from the very limited selection that was present in the original version. Content from over 25 sections of The New York Times is now available to those who already have or register for a free account, although the paper is planning to begin charging for access early next year.
Introducing the enhanced New York Times app for the iPad –– free until early 2011. Now with all of the sections, articles, videos and photos you expect from The Times.

The NYTimes iPad app now includes over 25 Times sections, including Arts, Technology, Politics, Science, Style and more. Experience breathtaking new sections for Photos and Video. Read a selection of the latest Times blogs. Share articles, photos and video through Facebook, Twitter and e-mail.
Apple had been reported to be working closely with The New York Times on an iPad application even before the device was publicly unveiled in January, but Steve Jobs was reportedly extremely displeased with the limited content made available in the initial product.




Meanwhile, The New York Post has launched its own iPad app, breaking new ground by offering monthly, biannual, and yearly subscriptions to the paper's content via in-app purchasing after an initial 30-day access period granted with the $1.99 download. As noted by paidContent, the newspaper will then support subscriptions priced at $6.99 per month, $39.99 per six months, or $74.99 per year, roughly half the cost of print delivery subscriptions.

Apple and newspaper publishers have been working to launch subscription content, but the two sides have been at an impasse over revenue sharing and subscriber information. The use of in-app purchasing for subscriptions in The New York Post's new app suggests that that newspaper has at least ceded to Apple's demands that content subscriptions be administered through the App Store itself, where Apple presumably will take its typical 30% cut of revenue.

Article Link: iPad News Apps: 'NYTimes' Revamp, 'New York Post' In-App Subscriptions
 

saving107

macrumors 603
Oct 14, 2007
6,376
14
San Jose, Ca
I enjoy reading the NYTimes online, and the Editors Choice for the iPad was a good format, but very limited. If they decide to charge the same as The New York Post ($6.99 per month or $0.23 a day), I can see myself subscribing.
 
Comment

bankshot

macrumors 65816
Jan 23, 2003
1,272
89
Southern California
I honestly don't understand why newspapers and other websites think this approach is a good idea. Why would I want to download a separate app for each news source or website I want to read? Seems like a giant step backwards. And a big hassle for everyone.

Instead, they just need to make sure their websites are iPad-friendly. Isn't that easier for both them and us? If that's not the case, I generally won't bother to access their content on the device; I certainly don't want to download a special app for it.

It was supremely annoying on a recent trip when we were trying to get a map of the Wynn hotel on their website. It's all flash, so no iPad support. And no mention whatsoever that they had an app available. But I went and searched anyway, found their crappy iPhone-only app, and downloaded it. What a pain. And it had nothing that couldn't be done with a little slick html+javascript.
 
Comment

levitynyc

macrumors 65816
Aug 19, 2006
1,100
3,235
I don't own an iPad, but thats really not a bad deal for the Post. I live in an area in NJ where I can get home delivery of the Post, but I dont subscribe because I end up getting the early edition which misses all of the sports scores.

If I did own an iPad, I'd seriously consider it
 
Comment

roland.g

macrumors 604
Apr 11, 2005
6,854
2,194
Still waiting on MacRumors iPhone and iPad apps.
Holding breath... turning blue.

I understand there are mobile versions and that on the iPad, Safari is "Safari", but a dedicated app with excellent layout, graphics, options, etc. would be great. Unfortunately there is also no one involved in MR with the background to develop it and no one worth a their salt has approached them to do the project.

On another sidenote, ESPN is the most pitiful excuse for iOS apps out there. Their ScoreCenter and ScoreCenter XL apps are horrid and so behind what the devices and UI are capable of. Can't think of a poorer implementation of sports information.
 
Comment

rorschach

macrumors 68020
Jul 27, 2003
2,096
677
I honestly don't understand why newspapers and other websites think this approach is a good idea. Why would I want to download a separate app for each news source or website I want to read? Seems like a giant step backwards. And a big hassle for everyone.

Instead, they just need to make sure their websites are iPad-friendly. Isn't that easier for both them and us? If that's not the case, I generally won't bother to access their content on the device; I certainly don't want to download a special app for it.

It was supremely annoying on a recent trip when we were trying to get a map of the Wynn hotel on their website. It's all flash, so no iPad support. And no mention whatsoever that they had an app available. But I went and searched anyway, found their crappy iPhone-only app, and downloaded it. What a pain. And it had nothing that couldn't be done with a little slick html+javascript.


I don't see how separate websites are "easier" than separate apps.

Also, content in apps is (or at least can be) available offline. Not so with websites in Safari.

But I agree that their websites SHOULD be iPhone/iPad friendly, especially if they're going to have an app that may not have all the features/content/functionality of the website.
 
Comment

dave420

macrumors 65816
Jun 15, 2010
1,407
102
I like the NY Times app. It is well written and easy to navigate. I could see paying for a subscription, but I would hope that it will be cheaper than the rates quotes for the NY Post app. I don't read it enough to justify more than a few dollars per month.
 
Comment

Michael73

macrumors 65816
Feb 27, 2007
1,081
39
As far as I'm concerned, the iPad / iPhone apps should contain the same free content that is accessible through a normal browser. If a content publisher wants to create a richer experience, that's fine and their entitled to compensation, but I should have the choice whether I want the "lite" app with just free content or the "full" app with rich media (paid).
 
Comment

jayducharme

macrumors 68040
Jun 22, 2006
3,799
3,781
The thick of it
This is good news. The revolution is beginning, and the price is right. If equivalent iPad apps are developed for the four magazines I subscribe to, I'm there. Say goodbye to paper.
 
Comment

normwood

macrumors 6502a
Sep 12, 2008
664
22
In a house...duh!
This was a pleasant surprise this morning. I was up early and did the update and spent a goo 45 minutes reading the Times. Much improved over the Editors Choice version. I could also see myself paying for a reasonably priced subscription.

Steve
 
Comment

saving107

macrumors 603
Oct 14, 2007
6,376
14
San Jose, Ca
As far as I'm concerned, the iPad / iPhone apps should contain the same free content that is accessible through a normal browser. If a content publisher wants to create a richer experience, that's fine and their entitled to compensation, but I should have the choice whether I want the "lite" app with just free content or the "full" app with rich media (paid).

The problem with that is that the NYTimes.com is planning to go behind a pay wall in January 2011 allowing none subscribers limited articles. So this new NYTimes app for the iPad will go the same route next year. If you want to read the NYTimes either by app on the iPhone/iPad or through a browser, you will have to pay.

Starting in January 2011, a visitor to NYTimes.com will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/media/21times.html
 
Comment

Brinkman

macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2010
325
0
Really nice layout, I'd love to see all magazines and newspapers do this.
 
Comment

GQB

macrumors 65816
Sep 26, 2007
1,196
109
I honestly don't understand why newspapers and other websites think this approach is a good idea. Why would I want to download a separate app for each news source or website I want to read? Seems like a giant step backwards. And a big hassle for everyone.

Instead, they just need to make sure their websites are iPad-friendly. Isn't that easier for both them and us? ...

Like it or not, the browser-centric world (as opposed to an HTTP app centric one) is what Wired got unjustly mocked for when they declared that the 'Web is dead' last month.

When a publisher puts their content out onto the web, they're essentially giving it away for free. Distributing via apps makes piracy quite a bit harder, enough so that its defeated for all practical purposes.

Frankly, I'm gravitating to the side that says that the 'everything free' model of the browser-based web has essentially produced a course, ugly, and unreliable environment. I don't think its an accident that the rise of the 'democratic' blogosphere has accompanied the massive amount of ignorance and disinformation passing as public debate for the past 10 years.

I really want to see the return of editors and professional reporters, and perhaps a paid app environment is what it will take. Quality people deserve to get paid.

IMO.
 
Comment

Westside guy

macrumors 603
Oct 15, 2003
5,708
2,867
The soggy side of the Pacific NW
I honestly don't understand why newspapers and other websites think this approach is a good idea. Why would I want to download a separate app for each news source or website I want to read? Seems like a giant step backwards. And a big hassle for everyone.

This is the first thing that came to my mind as well. It's just such a stupid idea - the only thing I can think of is it's a concept being sold to people who still don't grasp the power of the web.

I am so tired of every entity trying to sell me on using their individual app to access stuff for which web delivery is already perfectly suited. I have no interest in, or intention of, downloading the B&H Photo app, any podcast-specific app (such as "The Digital Story" app), the LL Bean order app, the UPS tracking app, the New York Times app, etc. etc.

When a publisher puts their content out onto the web, they're essentially giving it away for free. Distributing via apps makes piracy quite a bit harder, enough so that its defeated for all practical purposes.

You're confusing the delivery mechanism with the charging mechanism. You can put a paywall on a website easily enough. If people aren't willing to pay for access to your website, there's no reason to believe they'll buy your app that does exactly the same thing.
 
Comment

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,052
159
Canada, eh?
Haha, I skimmed the article at first and misinterpreted.

I saw this quote:

but Steve Jobs was reportedly extremely displeased with the limited content made available in the initial product

And then I saw the cover with the massive JAIL BREAK headline right below it, and I put two and two together...

Oops. :)
 
Comment

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

At least they're doing it right. As subscriptions and iPad adoption grows they should continue lowering the subscription fee.
 
Comment

GCY

macrumors regular
Sep 5, 2006
162
0
NYC
whats the point of a newspaper subscription anyway? Do you get more content than going to their website?
 
Comment

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

GCY said:
whats the point of a newspaper subscription anyway? Do you get more content than going to their website?

The free news websites will eventually go dark, news agencies can't provide their service for free.

The iPad was the device needed to transition away from paper.
 
Comment

PhoneI

macrumors 68000
Mar 7, 2008
1,580
498
Couldn't resist. I bought the NY Post app this morning. It has a lot more info than whats available on their free website. In addition, my fingers wont get black anymore from reading the actual print version.
 
Comment

dingamahoo

macrumors member
Feb 25, 2007
67
1
Can't wait for the New Yorker app, as long as it has a discount or is free to print magazine subscribers. Also would be cool if it had a searchable back catalog. Every trip I take I end up packing like 3 pounds of old New Yorkers. To have them in full glory on the ipad would be a dream come true.
 
Comment

gertruded

macrumors 6502
Jul 5, 2007
302
1,044
Northwestern Illinois
So much news and articles only of interest to New York. In our area there is no ATT service at all, and no interest in anything that has to do with New York.

Why would anyone pay for information that is available free????
 
Comment

MrMoore

macrumors 6502
Nov 2, 2006
393
23
Arlington Heights,IL
I am not in the New York area, so I do not know how subscribing to the Times or Post would work if you are already receive their paper editions.

I don't think you should pay twice for the content. For example, I subscribe to the Chicago Sun-Times. I get it delivery to my house. Before, the Sun-Times offered on-line access to the paper through their e-paper service for free as a home delivery subscriber. A couple months ago they stop that service and now you have to pay for the e-paper.

I can understand asking for a charge if you don't get home delivery, but I shouldn't have to pay for the content twice.

This is the same issue with the magazines. I already get Time magazine delivered to my house. Why should I pay again to read it on my iPad.

This is the one thing stopping me from getting these on-line magazines and newpaper.
 
Comment

saving107

macrumors 603
Oct 14, 2007
6,376
14
San Jose, Ca
Why would anyone pay for information that is available free????

Your question has been answered like 3 times now. What is being offered for free now on the browser will soon go behind a pay wall and require that everyone who wants to view the content either in an app or a browser be a paid subscriber, otherwise the free content will be very limited.

What is free now will not be in the future, this is just the transitioning point.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.