New York Times Reportedly Working Closely With Apple on Tablet App

[cmaier]

This will only be "news" if e-subscriptions are substantially less expensive than dead tree delivery. So far publishers are acting like paper, printing, hard distribution (labor, trucks, fuel, etc) and unsold copies are part of the cost of e-editions.

They do this, of course, because they don't want to undercut the paper edition. Problem is, fewer and fewer read the paper edition. Time for them to recognize the new paradigm or they die. That means bringing back inexpensive newspapers as an e-editions.

If the NYT thinks it can hop on Apple's magic to sell its $2 newspaper electronically, good luck, but its a losing proposition. Not even SJ can save them from that horrible business model.

The NYT has shown itself to be considerably more savvy than that. Even its proposed click-to-read proposal for next year appears likely to cost only a couple of pennies to read an article. They've also done a lot of research on ways to best present news content on various devices. I think they're quite happy to switch to real electronic model as long as they can earn revenue.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I really hope that instead of every periodical and book being a separate app, there's a single reader app. Of course, my hopes are unlikely to be fulfilled :-(

I would think having a separate app for every publication would = clutter, which is Un-Apple. More likely is a "Publications" app in the vein of iTunes that is a library all your books, mags, & newspapers.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The NYT has shown itself to be considerably more savvy than that. Even its proposed click-to-read proposal for next year appears likely to cost only a couple of pennies to read an article. They've also done a lot of research on ways to best present news content on various devices. I think they're quite happy to switch to real electronic model as long as they can earn revenue.

Yeah, but their Kindle edition isn't any less expensive than local delivery paper edition.

 

[cmaier]

Yeah, but their Kindle edition isn't any less expensive than local delivery paper edition.

Remember that Amazon takes 70% of the revenue - NYT had no choice but to charge more in order to break even. This might change now that Amazon offers its 30% scheme.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Remember that Amazon takes 70% of the revenue - NYT had no choice but to charge more in order to break even. This might change now that Amazon offers its 30% scheme.

Sure, but then again the cost to supply the daily edition to Kindle is minimal. In reality Kindle sales are "gravy," as all the costs of producing the paper are mostly embedded in the newsstand price. E-editions don't require trucks, paper, delivery commissions, etc. It's a person pushing a button to upload the current edition.

 

[Porchland]

Oh, and what can the New York Times app do that I can't get from their website or a newspaper?

I'm very interested to see how Apple and the newspaper publishers are going to address this issue -- particularly with the Times and its partial pay wall coming next year.

If the tablet has a fully functioning browser -- and I have no reason to think that it won't -- the newspapers will have the same accessibility on the tablet that they have now on other other browser-driven devices.

Music, TV and movies will likely be accessible on the tablet only through iTS the way they are now on the iPhone, and I suspect the same will be true for books. Apple (and the content providers) have enforced this so far by allowing iPhone access to hulu and the TV network sites but not running flash, which is how most of the content is presented.

 

[~NeonFire372~]

Voted positive using all eight of my aliases.

I lol'd.

 

[cmaier]

Sure, but then again the cost to supply the daily edition to Kindle is minimal. In reality Kindle sales are "gravy," as all the costs of producing the paper are mostly embedded in the newsstand price. E-editions don't require trucks, paper, delivery commissions, etc. It's a person pushing a button to upload the current edition.

First, the Amazon edition is not identical to any of their other editions, so there is human intervention involved. Second, NYT loses 70% off the top. By your argument the marginal cost of each version (web, print, amazon, etc.) is zero, since most of the costs (reporters, editors, fancy building in times square) are paid by the other versions. I seriously doubt NYT is making any profit at all on the amazon version right now. I also expect that shortly they will reduce prices substantially to coincide with the new amazon cost structure.

 

[snberk103]

Have any web designers noticed any changes to the NY Times web site lately? Specifically, has the site been reformatted recently so that it will display better on a smaller screen, such as the rumoured tablet? I know that I have noticed some changes in the past couple of months, but I'm sure the NYT constantly makes small changes to improve the site. I'm just not qualified to judge whether the most recent changes have anything to do with legibility on a smaller screen.

As a coincidence, the Globe and Mail last week changed it's online format. I doubt they have been given any inside information, nor may the changes have anything to do with reading on a small screen.... however...

 

[Porchland]

Sure, but then again the cost to supply the daily edition to Kindle is minimal. In reality Kindle sales are "gravy," as all the costs of producing the paper are mostly embedded in the newsstand price. E-editions don't require trucks, paper, delivery commissions, etc. It's a person pushing a button to upload the current edition.

That would be true if newspapers were profitable, thriving products and the electronic editions were merely an additional revenue stream.

In the real world, newspapers are bleeding to death because the decline of the advertising base has accelerated A LOT during the recession at the same time that paid circulation has dwindled as more people get their news online.

Newspapers still get most of their revenue from print advertising; the revenue from subscription and rack sales does not even cover the operating costs.

 

[Porchland]

Have any web designers noticed any changes to the NY Times web site lately? Specifically, has the site been reformatted recently so that it will display better on a smaller screen, such as the rumoured tablet? I know that I have noticed some changes in the past couple of months, but I'm sure the NYT constantly makes small changes to improve the site. I'm just not qualified to judge whether the most recent changes have anything to do with legibility on a smaller screen.

As a coincidence, the Globe and Mail last week changed it's online format. I doubt they have been given any inside information, nor may the changes have anything to do with reading on a small screen.... however...

Along those lines, can anyone give a Website for Dummies version of how some sites detect that you're using an iPhone and display a different version of the site than what you would see from your computer's browser?

If it as simple as the site reading your device type and redirecting you to another page that's better-formatted for that device, why are such a small number of sites doing this right now?

 

[cmaier]

Along those lines, can anyone give a Website for Dummies version of how some sites detect that you're using an iPhone and display a different version of the site than what you would see from your computer's browser?

If it as simple as the site reading your device type and redirecting you to another page that's better-formatted for that device, why are such a small number of sites doing this right now?

It is that simple. Your browser reports information about itself and your device type to the web server.

 

[alent1234]

LA Times & NY Times related?

Or are they just spying on the competition?

I think they are all owned by The Times-Mirror company

 

[alent1234]

Along those lines, can anyone give a Website for Dummies version of how some sites detect that you're using an iPhone and display a different version of the site than what you would see from your computer's browser?

If it as simple as the site reading your device type and redirecting you to another page that's better-formatted for that device, why are such a small number of sites doing this right now?

you have to make a special mobile version of the website and a lot of companies don't bother

 

[AidenShaw]

Along those lines, can anyone give a Website for Dummies version of how some sites detect that you're using an iPhone and display a different version of the site than what you would see from your computer's browser?

If it as simple as the site reading your device type and redirecting you to another page that's better-formatted for that device, why are such a small number of sites doing this right now?

It is that simple. Your browser reports information about itself and your device type to the web server.

More to the point, goto http://igx.net/whatami.html and you'll see the information that the server gets about your system.

 

[talkingnewmedia]

I really hope that instead of every periodical and book being a separate app, there's a single reader app. Of course, my hopes are unlikely to be fulfilled :-(

I'm afraid you are correct. If, however, a common app could be created (by Apple, for instance) then individual publishers (citizen publishers) could take advantage of the format the way individual developers can take advantage of the iTunes app store. That might create a new wave of publishers and publications.

On the other hand, assuming Apple doesn't do this, there may well be a rush of third party vendors willing to help. This is occurring now with simple publishing apps for the iPhone.

I also totally agree with you, cmaier, concerning the Times position concerning pricing. They are not going to stick it to mobile users, they know that won't work.

I think they have decided to go to a metered system to charge users as a kind of middle ground between totally free to everyone, and putting up a total pay wall. By only charging heavy users, the Times is betting that most people don't see much of a difference. We'll see if they can make it stick.

 

[kdarling]

More to the point, goto http://igx.net/whatami.html and you'll see the information that the server gets about your system.

And web servers get that info on each and every request for anything from pages to images.

The "User Agent" is usually the most important value that's passed up. It's used to determine what browser you're using, and sometimes the device and screen size.

For a while websites were creating mobile versions, but a lot of that stopped with the new concept of "seeing the real internet"... which unfortunately isn't optimized for mobile screen sizes or data speeds.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERD79) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

all rumors have pointed to just under 1000 at anywhere from $899-$999. Apple always overprices their stuff, especially in the beginning to get the lemmings..er..early adopters to buy them at the high price first. Then it will go lower later, maybe.

I resent that! We're iLemmings, my friend, iLemmings!

iLemmings?

On the subject of Lemmings, how awesome would a port of Lemmings be on a sleek, large screen touchscreen tablet?

Pity Sony owns lemmings now.

 

[Porchland]

you have to make a special mobile version of the website and a lot of companies don't bother

Some sites that have well-developed iPhone/mobile versions no not automatically re-direct you (New York Times, Starbucks), and others do (Washington Post, USA Today, Microsoft).

The LA Times has a "click here" button to go to the iPhone version; seems like readers would rather default to the iPhone version -- or at least start out on that version -- if a site has one.

 

[Porchland]

I'm afraid you are correct. If, however, a common app could be created (by Apple, for instance) then individual publishers (citizen publishers) could take advantage of the format the way individual developers can take advantage of the iTunes app store. That might create a new wave of publishers and publications.

On the other hand, assuming Apple doesn't do this, there may well be a rush of third party vendors willing to help. This is occurring now with simple publishing apps for the iPhone.

I totally get needing a specialty app for reading books or multimedia content, but why would a publishers or blogger need to publish content to a specialty app that would display just as well on the tablet's web browser?

 

[talkingnewmedia]

While the New York Times is working closely with Apple to launch some version of their paper on the new tablet, the Washington Post has not just been sitting idly by. I have a source that has given me a preview of the tablet version of the paper they are planning to launch asap.

 

[talkingnewmedia]

I totally get needing a specialty app for reading books or multimedia content, but why would a publishers or blogger need to publish content to a specialty app that would display just as well on the tablet's web browser?

The kinds of publishing envisioned by the creative labs for the tablet will look nothing like web based publishing.

Good tablet publishing (IMO) will be a new medium. For examples I would refer you to some of the tablet demo videos on YouTube or go to Flyp to see how they are expanding the definition of online publishing. (I think what Flyp is doing will work far better on in a tablet environment than in a web browser environment -- also you can find a number of those videos on my YouTube Channel under Favorites).

On the other hand, bad tablet publishing will look like the web or the RSS driven iPhone apps that are springing up like locusts.

As for bloggers, like me, I would think that you would continue to read the material in your browser. But any publisher able to create stand alone multimedia publications in the tablet will have a huge advantage over plain ol' html publications.

 

[cmaier]

The kinds of publishing envisioned by the creative labs for the tablet will look nothing like web based publishing.

Good tablet publishing (IMO) will be a new medium. For examples I would refer you to some of the tablet demo videos on YouTube or go to Flyp to see how they are expanding the definition of online publishing. (I think what Flyp is doing will work far better on in a tablet environment than in a web browser environment -- also you can find a number of those videos on my YouTube Channel under Favorites).

On the other hand, bad tablet publishing will look like the web or the RSS driven iPhone apps that are springing up like locusts.

As for bloggers, like me, I would think that you would continue to read the material in your browser. But any publisher able to create stand alone multimedia publications in the tablet will have a huge advantage over plain ol' html publications.

Even the things shown in those videos could conceivably be done on existing html5 web browsers, however. Not quite as snappily or as easily, perhaps. Still, when I look at a publisher like the NYT that has been very experimental in trying to figure out how people can most effectively "read the news" on an electronic device, I look forward to whatever their attempts are.

 

[talkingnewmedia]

Still, when I look at a publisher like the NYT that has been very experimental in trying to figure out how people can most effectively "read the news" on an electronic device, I look forward to whatever their attempts are.

Things are moving fast:

Business Week: New York Times Co. will create a business unit to focus on generating profits from electronic editions, including versions of its newspapers for Amazon.com Inc.’s Kindle, according to an internal memo today.

I would assume this would include tablet publishing, as well.

 

[cmaier]

Things are moving fast:

I would assume this would include tablet publishing, as well.

I'm sure it does. I for one welcome my new NYT electronic edition overlords.