More on Apple's Plans for a 'Digital Newsstand' for Newspaper Content

[Piggie]

Whilst I'm sure many won't agree and some may think I'm talking rubbish here.

But personally I think the iPad (or another version of the iPad) needs really to have a physically larger screen with a higher resolution to make newspaper and magazine reading an enjoyable and relaxing experience.

You don't want to have to zoom in and scroll around to be able to see a page clearly enough to easily read the writing.

Whilst I'm aware a lot of youngsters will have been brought up squinting as tiny Nintendo DS, Sony PSP and mobile phone screens. Often at quite a low resolution.

In the real world of grown ups, this is not great, or offers the most relaxed viewing/reading experience.

Whilst if the iPads screen resolution was doubled in both directions, which is something I think most people feel it the most lightly and easiest option for Apple when hardware speed allows, a physical screen size increase would be welcome for reading also.

No way a physical newspaper of say 2 feet by 18" when opened up can be read on a 9.7" screen without a total overhaul and way less information on a page.

Unless, as I say you are doomed to having to zoom in, scroll around ans hope you don't miss something as you can only see a fraction of the real page at any one time.

 

[nelmat]

No cost on trucks for delivery
No wages to pay for truck drivers for delivery
No costs to the printing company for their labour and materials.
No need to buy paper (with all the costs that incurs)
No mark up needed for the actual store that displays and sells the physical magazines.

The question should be "Why shouldn't it be cheaper?"

And unlike now you can't pass the magazine onto your friends, family or workmates after you have finished with it as a lot of people do.

Create the magazine digitally as is done now, and rather than start the whole physical process as I highlighted above, all that needs to be done is to send Apple a copy to host on it's servers.

Well I work in print media. I can tell you that printing and logistics make up less than 5% of the price you pay. To convert to a digital version and server space is going to cost around the same 5% - so where is the difference?

You pay for the content - normally subsidised by advertising revenue, you don't pay for the means of delivery.

As far as the ability to pass onto third parties - that's irrelevant, that's not accounted for in the price of the publication. If people can't afford 30p - £1.00 for a daily newspaper online, then they need to look at their fiscal priorities - it's nothing.

Ed. Stores don't make a mark-up, they're paid a fixed fee/percentage based on unit sales or other contract. The price is printed on the front of the publication by the publisher so there's no room for that. I'd imagine someone somewhere will be taking a commission for these sales also, so again you're argument is cancelled out.

 

[nelmat]

Whilst I'm sure many won't agree and some may think I'm talking rubbish here.

But personally I think the iPad (or another version of the iPad) needs really to have a physically larger screen with a higher resolution to make newspaper and magazine reading an enjoyable and relaxing experience.

You don't want to have to zoom in and scroll around to be able to see a page clearly enough to easily read the writing.

Whilst I'm aware a lot of youngsters will have been brought up squinting as tiny Nintendo DS, Sony PSP and mobile phone screens. Often at quite a low resolution.

In the real world of grown ups, this is not great, or offers the most relaxed viewing/reading experience.

Whilst if the iPads screen resolution was doubled in both directions, which is something I think most people feel it the most lightly and easiest option for Apple when hardware speed allows, a physical screen size increase would be welcome for reading also.

No way a physical newspaper of say 2 feet by 18" when opened up can be read on a 9.7" screen without a total overhaul and way less information on a page.

Unless, as I say you are doomed to having to zoom in, scroll around ans hope you don't miss something as you can only see a fraction of the real page at any one time.

Of course it will be typeset and designed differently to fit onto the screen - you're not suggesting the iPad has to be the same size as a newspaper. Design has been repurposed depending on final display media for decades, this is nothing new.

 

[cilliano]

Isn't this like figuring out a better way to sell horseshoes just as Henry Ford built his first assembly line?

Horses still need horseshoes, so there is some light at the end of this metaphor.

 

[Piggie]

Well I work in print media. I can tell you that printing and logistics make up less than 5% of the price you pay. To convert to a digital version and server space is going to cost around the same 5% - so where is the difference?

You pay for the content - normally subsidised by advertising revenue, you don't pay for the means of delivery.

As far as the ability to pass onto third parties - that's irrelevant, that's not accounted for in the price of the publication. If people can't afford 30p - £1.00 for a daily newspaper online, then they need to look at their fiscal priorities - it's nothing.

Ed. Stores don't make a mark-up, they're paid a fixed fee/percentage based on unit sales or other contract. The price is printed on the front of the publication by the publisher so there's no room for that. I'd imagine someone somewhere will be taking a commission for these sales also, so again you're argument is cancelled out.

I have heard this before and could accept it, apart from the fact this seems to change depending on the type of argument you are trying to make.

For years, when people have complained about the cost of an item in a store we have been told how much all the shipping and costs and store costs bundle so much onto the price of the final product the consumer has to pay.

Now all of a sudden it costs almost nothing to do all of that.

It's like the rules are being changed to suit the argument all the time.

Most people will expect a electronic version to cost less than the real thing and that's that, as they don't feel they are actually getting a real item for their money.

It's like ebooks.

People buy books from all over the place, often with discounts from main retailers. They may buy them from charity stores (second hand) When they have finished reading the book they pass it on to friends, and the friends pass their books to them to read. People give books away to sell at a flea market.

Even buying books as gifts for christmas.

The ebook has none of this apart from a quick means to buy.

It has to cost less to reflect it's many disadvantages.

 

[nelmat]

I have heard this before and could accept it, apart from the fact this seems to change depending on the type of argument you are trying to make.

For years, when people have complained about the cost of an item in a store we have been told how much all the shipping and costs and store costs bundle so much onto the price of the final product the consumer has to pay.

Now all of a sudden it costs almost nothing to do all of that.

It's like the rules are being changed to suit the argument all the time.

Most people will expect a electronic version to cost less than the real thing and that's that, as they don't feel they are actually getting a real item for their money.

It's like ebooks.

People buy books from all over the place, often with discounts from main retailers. They may buy them from charity stores (second hand) When they have finished reading the book they pass it on to friends, and the friends pass their books to them to read. People give books away to sell at a flea market.

Even buying books as gifts for christmas.

The ebook has none of this apart from a quick means to buy.

It has to cost less to reflect it's many disadvantages.

When you're talking about buying a washing machine, i agree.

This has argument has never been applied to print media.

You pay for the content, not the method of delivery.

What about the advantages? Why just talk about the disadvantages?

Portability, easier to store, longer lasting ability to share content via digital methods without having to scan?

There are as many advantages as any disadvantages you can see and any savings from not printing will be eaten up in server space, repurposing content to a different media etc etc...

 

[Piggie]

When you're talking about buying a washing machine, i agree.

This has argument has never been applied to print media.

You pay for the content, not the method of delivery.

What about the advantages? Why just talk about the disadvantages?

Portability, easier to store, longer lasting ability to share content via digital methods without having to scan?

There are as many advantages as any disadvantages you can see and any savings from not printing will be eaten up in server space, repurposing content to a different media etc etc...

My major dislike is that all the pro's seem to be on the side of the publishers.

I like having an item for my money that I can do as I wish with, and when I have finished with the item, then I am also free to do as I like with.

I can give the item (book) to a family member, a friend, a work mate, give it to a charity store, or sell it to a stranger either online or at a flea market.

I can keep it, I can give it away in a generous manner or I can sell it to recoup a little and pay towards a new book.

With an eBook I can do none of that.

Now, ALLOW me to do those things with eBooks and perhaps I will be happier.

Why should we not sell on our eBook to others when we have finished with them (as we do computer games when we have got bored with them?)

Or perhaps just send them free to others with eBook readers and they can do the same in return (swap eBooks we both have paid for)

The publishers are going to be rubbing their hands with glee that no-one can do this.

Which is why I say the price should be considerably lower as all there normal options that have existed since the beginning of the printed word are being shut down to us.

The same argument goes for Movies and Albums on the iTunes stores.
They should all be cheaper to reflect their heavily constrained usage options.

I can accept anyone In the business of creating content will love this new way of making extra money.

What I cannot understand would be any consumer saying the prices should be the same. It's like helping to make the bullet they are going to shoot you with.

Just to say I LOVE the idea of eVersions of everything. Just the price should reflect their set constraints.

 

[mackiwilad]

This is exactly what I've been waiting for since the iPad launched and I bought one. I would love the ability to subscribe to magazines and newspapers and have them automatically downloaded to my device as they are released. I could then use the new print function coming soon to print occasional pages for hardcopies as I need.

I understand a lot of people can find news for free on the internet, but for a dollar or two per week for quality news publications, I'd be more than happy to pay this than sifting through dozens of rubbish blogger articles for something properly put together.

Apple, take the Zinio model and make it better.

Free Journalism = Crap Journalism.
The old adage of paying peanuts and monkeys is very applicable here.

I love reading well researched, intelligent articles (that at least attempt to be impartial) from professional journalists. I can count the number of quality bloggers I read regularly on one hand.

Steve J understands this and the importance of the press to democracy. I hope he can push the publishers to take the right steps here.

 

[Popeye206]

makes sense...

Obviously, this all makes sense and will happen. It's just a matter of business negotiations. Publishers would be fools not to do this.

Now to comment on the "Free info on the internet so who needs newspapers".

Obviously, we need reporters and writers. Without them there is no news reported and no "free" content to be had except for blogs and such. News and content is a business and there is a market for specialized content. People want to learn more about what interests them and most magazines have specialties that attract specific types of consumers. There is a market for it. The big question now is, how to make money under the new emerging digital market?

We need professional writers and new people. We want them too. So they need to make money and get paid. Just like software development, we want to make money doing what we love so we can live. So do they.

This will happen... it's the natural progression of technology and distribution in the digital world. But what will news content look like in the future? That is yet to be determined. It could go 100 different ways. But many publishers are struggling... this is the industry we make software for.

 

[nelmat]

My major dislike is that all the pro's seem to be on the side of the publishers.

I like having an item for my money that I can do as I wish with, and when I have finished with the item, then I am also free to do as I like with.

I can give the item (book) to a family member, a friend, a work mate, give it to a charity store, or sell it to a stranger either online or at a flea market.

I can keep it, I can give it away in a generous manner or I can sell it to recoup a little and pay towards a new book.

With an eBook I can do none of that.

Now, ALLOW me to do those things with eBooks and perhaps I will be happier.

Why should we not sell on our eBook to others when we have finished with them (as we do computer games when we have got bored with them?)

Or perhaps just send them free to others with eBook readers and they can do the same in return (swap eBooks we both have paid for)

The publishers are going to be rubbing their hands with glee that no-one can do this.

Which is why I say the price should be considerably lower as all there normal options that have existed since the beginning of the printed word are being shut down to us.

The same argument goes for Movies and Albums on the iTunes stores.
They should all be cheaper to reflect their heavily constrained usage options.

I can accept anyone In the business of creating content will love this new way of making extra money.

What I cannot understand would be any consumer saying the prices should be the same. It's like helping to make the bullet they are going to shoot you with.

Just to say I LOVE the idea of eVersions of everything. Just the price should reflect their set constraints.

OK, so having to repurpose content, make major investment in servers is not a consideration on the side of the publishers?

Ease of purchase, portability, shelf life and the advantages of multimedia over print media aren't advantages for the consumer?

You demonise the publisher too easily - they have a right to make money, they're the ones bringing the product to market. If prices are 5 - 10% less as a sweetener then so be it, but a consumer is not entitled to something for free or at a significant saving simply because they don't value the work that goes into bringing a product to market.

New staff will need to be employed, new work flows put in place, new technologies adopted and understood both in terms of hardware/software purchase/upgrade and training time.

The myth that producing an electronic version of anything is cheaper or easier than a physical product needs to be dispelled. In the case of print media, you're paying for content and editorial, not the paper it's printed on, it's such a small percentage of overheads as to be negligible.

Although eContent may become less expensive over time, the initial transition for many large publishing houses is an expensive and time consuming process that people on the outside simply don't understand.

 

[bobbleheadbob]

Cool. I'd love to be able to read the Boston Globe, downloaded automatically, on my iPad. I tried it on the Kindle, but didn't care for that version of the paper. I think reading a newspaper on the iPad would be a much better experience.

 

[Dr McKay]

Let me guess, iNewsStand?

 

[jb1280]

In theory this would be great. I love newspapers content, but I hate newspaper. The form factor is just not very good.

Some things I think that are needed:

1. Everything is stored locally. I guess this should be obvious, but I have a general lack of faith in the news business at the moment.
2. There should be the whole paper, and only one version of the paper. I don't want different pay scales depending what edition you get. I also don't want value-added features to be an excuse to drive up the cost.
3. They should have competitively priced annually, monthly subscriptions with the ability to buy daily issues for the same price as the paper at a newsstand,
4. The whole thing needs to eventually be transnational. I would love to pick up my ipad in the morning and have the New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, Die Welt, and Le Figaro waiting for me.

 

[Stella]

Hilarious: additional leverage.

Apple selling 3+ million iPads a quarter, upwards of 2 million or more per month.

Android tablets available: none. At least that I know of.

Sure to get them shaking. A deal to sell to no one. 5 million iPads and counting.

Apple were pitching iBooks before the iPad was released - no difference really - and there were zero devices sold. Android has momentum, something which isn't going to go unnoticed by potential 'tablet' content providers.

Google have a good opportunity to get content providers on board while offering better terms than Apple. Android phones are selling well and there's no reason why Android tablets shouldn't also ( assuming the hardware is 'good enough' ).

Apple are realizing they can't get everything they want and will have to give concessions, especially if other platforms get the content that Apple are targeting also.

 

[muncyweb]

Alright! More options than just propaganda and news about the fiat currency market!

 

[Piggie]

OK, so having to repurpose content, make major investment in servers is not a consideration on the side of the publishers?

Ease of purchase, portability, shelf life and the advantages of multimedia over print media aren't advantages for the consumer?

You demonise the publisher too easily - they have a right to make money, they're the ones bringing the product to market. If prices are 5 - 10% less as a sweetener then so be it, but a consumer is not entitled to something for free or at a significant saving simply because they don't value the work that goes into bringing a product to market.

New staff will need to be employed, new work flows put in place, new technologies adopted and understood both in terms of hardware/software purchase/upgrade and training time.

The myth that producing an electronic version of anything is cheaper or easier than a physical product needs to be dispelled. In the case of print media, you're paying for content and editorial, not the paper it's printed on, it's such a small percentage of overheads as to be negligible.

Although eContent may become less expensive over time, the initial transition for many large publishing houses is an expensive and time consuming process that people on the outside simply don't understand.

Why don't Microsoft give you a nice FAT manual when you buy their operating systems any more (and perhaps Apple are the same)

If the cost of printing and shipping a decent manual to you are such a small price it's not worth even mentioning it, then why don't they do it like they used to?

Potential (long way off) major job losses in the printing sector.
Much less for need to purchase and use printing machinery.
People who make printing machinery major job losses.
Hi street Book retailers going out of business due to reduced sales.
Distribution companies struggling to survive.

Not that this is going to happen anytime soon of course.

But just being able to click UPLOAD of a file to servers is a lot easier for publishers.

The reason I never like any publishers/distributors/retailers in general is that the origin artist gets very little why they all sit down the line and take a nice fat chunk for themselves.

If the original artist could upload their work direct to the consumer (which has happened) it would make a nice change.

Too many fat cats in the world taking money from others talent IMHO.

 

[nelmat]

Why don't Microsoft give you a nice FAT manual when you buy their operating systems any more (and perhaps Apple are the same)

If the cost of printing and shipping a decent manual to you are such a small price it's not worth even mentioning it, then why don't they do it like they used to?

...

Too many fat cats in the world taking money from others talent IMHO.

With the greatest of respect.

There's a difference between printing 400 - 500, 000 user manuals as a one off to a custom die/number of pages and perfect binding them and printing 100, 000+ editions a day to a standard format on a dedicated (normally in-house) press.

If you don't understand those massive differences, you really shouldn't be commenting as you don't understand print and logistics.

You also aren't aware of the fact that most journalists are on a fixed wage, so if the publication sells less copies, the only people suffering are the top end. Freelance journalists would be completely unnaffected by this change to digital media, they sell a story for a price, nothing changes there.

You also aren't aware of massive cutbacks and redundancies in the print sector already occuring.

I could go on, but I think it might be pointless.

And, seriously - you just click upload and upload the files? Are you serious? Have you any experience in publishing or design at all? You think you convert to PDF from quark and click "upload" when moving from a tabloid/braodsheet (portrait) comp to a 1024 x 768 (landscape) framework.

And how much bandwidth do these servers require in order to deal with a 40 - 50 page document compressed to PDF (and I'm not suggesting the media here will be as simple as flat PDF) is around 4 - 5 meg (if the images are massively compressed). This 4/5 meg would hopefully be delivered to 200, 000+ people daily. Are servers to achieve this cheap? Does the cost of setting up dedicated servers and maintaining these factor anywhere in your nonsense?

What experience do you have to make these statements?

 

[SeattleMoose]

I Would LIke To See A "Magazine Stand"

So I can read PC World on line.....or even...well....er...um....you know

 

[Full of Win]

The fact that Apple did not launch the iPad with something like this is shocking. They really need something like Zinio as a hub for subscriptions if they want the iPad to be a contender.

 

[cmaier]

Why should it be cheaper?

It's an inferior product. You can't lend it, keep it forever, give it away, etc. Often you can't copy or make excerpts for fair use. You probably won't be able to print it, either.

 

[bluefox9er]

fantastic news!

this means we can pay $10 a newspaper just so we can read them on our iPads

 

[chris200x9]

When you're talking about buying a washing machine, i agree.

This has argument has never been applied to print media.

You pay for the content, not the method of delivery.

What about the advantages? Why just talk about the disadvantages?

Portability, easier to store, longer lasting ability to share content via digital methods without having to scan?

There are as many advantages as any disadvantages you can see and any savings from not printing will be eaten up in server space, repurposing content to a different media etc etc...

you forgot to mention fires, another advantage is it won't burn your house down.

 

[TheSlush]

The fact that Apple did not launch the iPad with something like this is shocking. They really need something like Zinio as a hub for subscriptions if they want the iPad to be a contender.

I feel the same way. This should have been Priority One over iBooks. I assume Apple felt more urgency to start competing with the Kindle, but newspaper/magazine content will be the real game changer on the iPad.

 

[jp102235]

we (the market) determines the price

Why should we not sell on our eBook to others when we have finished with them (as we do computer games when we have got bored with them?)

That is a great idea

Or perhaps just send them free to others with eBook readers and they can do the same in return (swap eBooks we both have paid for)

or perhaps a e-Library? now that would be neat.

Which is why I say the price should be considerably lower as all there normal options that have existed since the beginning of the printed word are being shut down to us.

Basically, we, the consumer set the price (ok, the market does). so if sales are high the price will probably not go down. if the sales are low (and they can still turn a profit) - the price will come down.

Just to say I LOVE the idea of eVersions of everything. Just the price should reflect their set constraints.

yep! that last part is up to us I guess.

j

 

[nelmat]

It's an inferior product. You can't lend it, keep it forever, give it away, etc. Often you can't copy or make excerpts for fair use. You probably won't be able to print it, either.

All these people whose main priority is to give something away.

Inferior? In what way. I can't read a newspaper in the dark, it can't have video and other media embedded, it quickly degrades and takes up space to store.

You "probably won't" be able to print it. Guesswork, conjecture and criticism of an unknown - an invalid point to make.