New York Times' Print and Digital Units Reportedly Disagreeing Over iPad Content Pricing

[lazyrighteye]

If true, those $20-30/mo prices are laughable.
I even think $10/mo a stretch.
These guys just flat out do not get it. At all.
Adapt or die. It really is that simple.

 

[coolbreeze]

Garbage in, garbage out. Take a look at the posts above you. Might be surprised at how much things actually do cost.

Um, I realize news can't be totally free. I never said it should be totally free. The point is electronic versions SIMPLY don't cost as much as print media. Would YOU happy about paying $30/month for your newspaper on your iPad? Didn't think so. It's a greedy price-point.

It's been said over and over. The $30 pricepoint is too high. Period.

$9/month, tops. Too much free access to news in this InTerhNets!! age.

Technology is rapidly changing. Dinosaur companies need to adapt or die. It's that simple.

 

[mikem7522]

$30 a month is absurd, considering the fact that printing/shipping costs are saved. And please don't compare that to development/coding.

 

[Krafty]

And don't we all spend at least $300 a month gassing up our Maseratis?

I have money?! I have a Maserati?! WHERE?!

 

[zombilly]

NYT vs. local news

The cat has been out of the bag for newspapers ever since they tried to compete with tv stations posting the news online. As long as anyone is giving away national news online, local news is all that I could see people paying for.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Jobs should be focused on two things

1- digital textbooks for students
This is huge, there is a need for this. Students would rather carry around an ipad then a ton of heavy textbooks, not to mention looking up information would be a breeze. Possibilities are endless.

2- Gaming
iPhone proved that apple can provide excellent video game content on a small device. They would do better on a 10 inch device.

Paying for news you could google for free = epic fail.
There is no need for this.

And niche magazine/newspaper publishing. Let the old-guard media coming begging in a year when they are truly good and failed. Give new, limited interest publications a way to market themselves to large crowds and turn the iPad into the destination for small run press.

 

[JGowan]

This is really funny... NYT's introductory rate for their physical paper delivered to you is a few cents shy of $30/mo. for daily delivery.

Do they actually think we will pay THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT for 1s and 0s? True, it's more convenient, but they are paying no paper, printing and delivery costs! They are HIGH as the proverbial kite!

 

[nastebu]

This is really funny... NYT's introductory rate for their physical paper delivered to you is a few cents shy of $30/mo. for daily delivery.

Do they actually think we will pay THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT for 1s and 0s? True, it's more convenient, but they are paying no paper, printing and delivery costs! They are HIGH as the proverbial kite!

the introductory rate doesn't last very long. The rate most people pay is $11.70 a week.

 

[dmjossel]

If Apple really wants to be taken seriously in the world of academia, they are going to have to implement multi-tasking. Pages, Keynote, and iBooks need to run simultaneously.

People keep harping on multi-tasking and I wonder if they really know what they mean when they say it.

Admittedly the iPad is going to have a larger screen. However, it's still on the small side of a laptop screen.

In what kind of scenario does one imagine editing a document, running a presentation, and reading an eBook simultaneously on a 10" screen? Each app would only get the equivalent of an iPhone's worth of real estate.

If iPad apps act like iPhone apps-- they launch quickly and save their state, there's no need for battery-sucking, performance-killing multitasking. If you can switch back and forth between those apps quickly, taking clipboard content if and when necessary, how many people are really going to get hung up on the idea that "the iPad isn't really multitasking"?

 

[qtx43]

...More and more people are running ad blockers, which is a pretty dumb thing to do. ...

Guilty as charged. The problem is (and I just turned adblock off, and went to macrumor's homepage, to verify this) the animated ads. My eyes are constantly drawn to them, I can read 2, maybe 3 words, before my eyes are yanked back to the dancing family prancing in the snow, or the scrolling exploding garish yellow words. So, the choice is use adblock, or don't read the site at all. I do agree with your point, and if everyone were just google text ads, then I wouldn't block them. Come to think of it, since it looks like I'll be able to view youtube on the iPad without flash, and maybe hulu in the future, I may be seeing some ads. Hopefully there'll be html5 ways to block the hyperkinetic crap.

That sounds pretty much like what we have now. Heck, in the UK, the Glenn Beck boycott has eliminated ALL of his sponsors, but they still air him, and just do sister network news updates and weather reports during the breaks.

In fact, one could argue that there is a very long history of news organizations existing SOLELY for that purpose. The owners may be throwing their money away, grinding their axes, but then they use that sharp axe to take down political leadership and get favorable business deals done. I guess only the Rupert's and the Hearst's can tell us if it is worth it in the end.

You're reading too many conspiracy theories. Rupert Murdoch doesn't throw money away, they make a profit just from the cable tv subscriber fees alone. Advertisments are all gravy.

 

[Friscohoya]

I can't believe most of the posts that I am reading here. First of all, news will not be free forever. While you can certainly cruise over to a number of free websites to get your news today, that won't be possible in the future. The same people who believe that downloading pirated music is OK will continue to believe that news is free. Someone has to pay for a quality reporter and analyst. If you want my 12 year old daughter to rehash your news, fine. That will be free. If you want to read a quality newspaper, then you should be prepared to pay for it.

I do not see the online version as a supplement to my printed newspaper for much longer - I see it as a replacement. Thus, if you pay $10/month for a printed paper, you should be prepared to pay close to that for an online version. During the transition, I would like to get both printed and online for the same price, but in the next couple of years I see that I will need to make a choice and subscribe to only one.

Perhaps there is a way to get an individual article if that is all you want to read - maybe that could cost $0.10 to $0.15 per article. Maybe the website can provide you with the article's title for free and then you decide whether or not to pay for it.

I currently pay $21/month for a delivered version of the LA Times. I am sure that the NYT is more than this - probably close to $30/month. I have no problem paying for my LA Times subscription in print, why would I object to paying a similar fee to receive it delivered digitally?

Digital is a cheaper model. No delivery. No printing. No resale. Pass along the savings. Plus ad space is more valuable on an interactive machine. The big winner in all of this will be stations like CNN who have multiple streams of revenue and can afford larger staffs and cross leverage content from video sources.

 

[Weisswriter]

Ironic, Isn't It?

I find it ironic that those who don't want to pay for the infrastructure it takes to have a free press are the ones who've benefitted from the role of the press in preserving the social, intellectual, political and entrepreneurial environment that created the internet. The NYT has the finest collection of writers and editors of any newspaper in this country, and perhaps in the world. It can't do that for free. Google and Yahoo and the others that most cite as eternal sources of "free" news are aggregators, not creators. You want information from around the world, written in decent prose and vetted so you can rely on the accuracy of what's said? That's not free to create, so it can't be free to consume.

Those comments notwithstanding, the NYT price point is very wrong. The pricing of information access needs to be re-calibrated, by all media. They have a rare opportunity to reach a lot more people, but they'll only achieve that if they see the light and are willing to build a business model around much lower cost per access. Make it $2 or $3 a month and put the NYT in the hands of millions of people who've never been able to afford the print version on a regular basis. NYT for the masses!

Digital distribution will succeed by asking small payments from many, instead of many payments from a relative few. Those who get that will succeed; those who don't will fail. I sincerely hope the NY Times gets it. Soon.

 

[blastair]

something tells me steve will probably twist some major arms until the price is around $9 a month... which seems a bit steep until the ny times and other newspaper/magazine articles stop being free in the next year or so. i've listened to a couple stories from npr on their whole challenge right now. $8 or $9 a month with a discounted yearly rate seems like it might be the going rate a year down the line. which is a major improvement for the papers compared to free, and a major deal for consumers compared to the numbers above.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Anything over $5-10 is stupid. I have two news apps right now that give me news free.. and breaking news immediately with push notifications. These old geezers are ruining their own companies if they try charging more than $5-10 per month. AP/USA Today apps give me all the NYT can give me, and they do it for free. And if they don't have it, Google will find it.. free. And they think they'll be able to charge $20/30? Is Sarah Palin running the NYT?! Because it takes an awfully stupid person to think that would work.

 

[stw]

$30 is ok

$30 is ok - if it includes an iPad!

 

[hiimamac]

No wonder why the Gray Lady has no subscribers and is on the verge of collapsing.

Let me make sure I understand this. On one hand Apple is pushing for all you can watch iTunes for $30 a month and on the other, The NYT wants $30 a month for what's basically free?????? Uh, no.

That way to expensive. I have this one app that offers the Boston Globe and The Boston herarld for free, plus a dozen other papers. Geesh.

 

[definger]

I find it ironic that those who don't want to pay for the infrastructure it takes to have a free press are the ones who've benefitted from the role of the press in preserving the social, intellectual, political and entrepreneurial environment that created the internet. The NYT has the finest collection of writers and editors of any newspaper in this country, and perhaps in the world. It can't do that for free. Google and Yahoo and the others that most cite as eternal sources of "free" news are aggregators, not creators. You want information from around the world, written in decent prose and vetted so you can rely on the accuracy of what's said? That's not free to create, so it can't be free to consume.

Those comments notwithstanding, the NYT price point is very wrong. The pricing of information access needs to be re-calibrated, by all media. They have a rare opportunity to reach a lot more people, but they'll only achieve that if they see the light and are willing to build a business model around much lower cost per access. Make it $2 or $3 a month and put the NYT in the hands of millions of people who've never been able to afford the print version on a regular basis. NYT for the masses!

Digital distribution will succeed by asking small payments from many, instead of many payments from a relative few. Those who get that will succeed; those who don't will fail. I sincerely hope the NY Times gets it. Soon.

qft

if I remember correctly, there was a fight (or still is..) between news corporations and google about this topic. And now I know why... people (90% in this thread) REALLY think news are free.
News are free as long as the Internet is a niche for the news corporations.
When they loose (paper) subscribers and revenue this "news is free" thingy is over.

 

[vini-vidi-vici]

qft

if I remember correctly, there was a fight (or still is..) between news corporations and google about this topic. And now I know why... people (90% in this thread) REALLY think news are free.
News are free as long as the Internet is a niche for the news corporations.
When they loose (paper) subscribers and revenue this "news is free" thingy is over.

News is free... or at least very cheap. It's reporting that costs money. Any fool can copy a press release - which is technically news. But you have to pay someone to do real investigative work on a story. Sadly, if people insist on "free news" you'll get more stories of, for and by corporations... and Xinhua. I shudder when I think of a world like that.

News organizations are going to have to be a lot smaller and more efficient if they're going to remain viable. They're also going to have to be a lot more inventive when it comes to revenue.

I'd pay $5-$10 a month for a quality "digital newspaper", but not much more. I think the model of low rates + low overhead + lots of subscribers can and will work. I hope so. The alternative is not a world I want to see.

(and btw, newspapers lose subscribers. They don't "loose" anything... I've seen so much loose spelling on this thread it's making me fear the battle is already lost!)

 

[Macmel]

People keep harping on multi-tasking and I wonder if they really know what they mean when they say it.

Admittedly the iPad is going to have a larger screen. However, it's still on the small side of a laptop screen.

In what kind of scenario does one imagine editing a document, running a presentation, and reading an eBook simultaneously on a 10" screen? Each app would only get the equivalent of an iPhone's worth of real estate.

If iPad apps act like iPhone apps-- they launch quickly and save their state, there's no need for battery-sucking, performance-killing multitasking. If you can switch back and forth between those apps quickly, taking clipboard content if and when necessary, how many people are really going to get hung up on the idea that "the iPad isn't really multitasking"?

I think you are the one that did not understand multitasking: how about clicking on a link in a PDF document and opening safari inmediately without having to close the PDF?. Or checking that youtube video someone sent you by email without having to close the email program?. You will be looking at one thing at a time, but the iPad would be working with several apps open at the same time: THAT'S MULTITASKING.

 

[nastebu]

Let me make sure I understand this. On one hand Apple is pushing for all you can watch iTunes for $30 a month and on the other, The NYT wants $30 a month for what's basically free?????? Uh, no.

No. The NYT is currently debating what to charge for an electronic subscription. One proposal for pricing, one rumour says, is between 20-30 dollars. Another proposal is closer to ten.

Really, this debate proves how important a paper of record is. Without established sources edited with professional standards and ethics. Any old rumour starts sounding like fact and being repeated as fact.

 

[kiljoy616]

someone is smoking bad stuff

Did i read that right 20-30 dollars a month!!!!!

For news i could get for free.

Thats the cost of the 3g service to use the ipad in the first place then you want to me to pay 20-30 a month just for the times!!!

good luck with that!!!

I think Steve better lay of the crack, I can't even imagine my self paying that much for news, now if they are talking $20 a month for all the news I could ever want with graphics and visual effects, then maybe, but for one news outlet, hahahaha, Steve think of your new liver, crack is bad dude.

 

[DTphonehome]

I think Steve better lay of the crack, I can't even imagine my self paying that much for news, now if they are talking $20 a month for all the news I could ever want with graphics and visual effects, then maybe, but for one news outlet, hahahaha, Steve think of your new liver, crack is bad dude.

Has it occurred to you that maybe Steve Jobs isn't the one who sets pricing for the NY Times?

 

[Smallville]

I can't speak for those working at large publications and have to compete for the same handful of stories on a national level.

However, as a reporter at a small-town newspaper, it drives me crazy to see people both complain about some kind of subscription and complain about having to see ads.

It's this simple: if people like me can't make a decent living, no one will do this work. At least no one who won't treat it like a volunteer/part-time job. Then you'll have nothing from your neck of the woods. Sure, read all of the free national news you want, but you won't know a thing about your own town.

News costs money. You either put up with ads or you pay directly. I hope smaller papers that eventually migrate to these new devices will be received much better by the public.

Now, $30 per month for NYT is too much. $10 at the most, only because there is competition on their national level. I'd love to see some of the smaller papers enter the market at $3 to $5 per month. Ideally, we could give it away if people subscribe without payment just so we can continue business based on ad revenue. We'll see.

 

[kiljoy616]

Has it occurred to you that maybe Steve Jobs isn't the one who sets pricing for the NY Times?

Yes it did but considering how much of a Micro manager he is, I can see him pushing prices. Steve know his constituents and a percentage would pay. I would not pay, and maybe most here would also not pay. But Steve knows that he does not need all to pay just a percentage which is what apple has always done. The kind of person who is going to purchase the iPad which does not multitask from what I have read, but acts more like an ipod or iphone is not the same as real multitasking.

Now its true that multitasking would eat up battery life and that is a good reason to do things different. I can see that those who will buy the ipad will probably have not problem paying for subscription as long as they thought they where getting something others could not. Steve boy is not dumb he know he can push as long as there are those who feel they are getting an added value.

I am not saying that in the end this will be the fact or price, but I would not put it over that Steve is pushing for certain prices and he is not know for his macro management style.

 

[kiljoy616]

At that point why not get a laptop. The screen in the iPad and probably ram is too small to handle 30 windows on the screen. where do you plug in the mouse and keyboard?

Did i missed some news that ipad can multitask and open up many windows?

Where did this information come from?

Bluetooth wireless, ever hear of it?

Laptops good but bulky, ipad good and light, but limited, all is good. Our demographics should be able to afford both and use them both for different task. I know I can. But the question is will I and will others actually fall for the sweet eye candy ipad.