will ipad kill traditional newspaper sales?

[ezekielrage_99]

It's transition of media delivery, nothing more...

Let me put it like this:

Over a century and a half a ago the only was to get ice was to send out a ship to the icebergs to cut one up and bring back the ice. A century ago this practice was replaced with ice factories, people would get a deliver of ice and they were happy with that.

Less than a century ago the factories disappeared and were replace with a small thing called the refrigerator.

My point being people needing ice (or news) has not changed but the delivery method has, it's a seismic paradigm shift because the "old" print agencies see their business disappearing not evolving.

Granted there's been a "shift" in revenues the business is changing due to better technology, innovation and how people want their news delivered to them. I don't buy papers but I want my news on my computer and mobile.

 

[Michael CM1]

It's transition of media delivery, nothing more...

Let me put it like this:

Over a century and a half a ago the only was to get ice was to send out a ship to the icebergs to cut one up and bring back the ice. A century ago this practice was replaced with ice factories, people would get a deliver of ice and they were happy with that.

Less than a century ago the factories disappeared and were replace with a small thing called the refrigerator.

My point being people needing ice (or news) has not changed but the delivery method has, it's a seismic paradigm shift because the "old" print agencies see their business disappearing not evolving.

Granted there's been a "shift" in revenues the business is changing due to better technology, innovation and how people want their news delivered to them. I don't buy papers but I want my news on my computer and mobile.

That's pretty much it. It's not as if people are going to rely on a bunch of unpaid bloggers to get information. I personally don't buy any publications myself because I NEVER read printed stuff anymore. I guess I like shiny colors and everything, plus it's much easier to save a story either by bookmarking or using something like "save for later" in certain apps.

I have no problem paying for news, as long as it's a fair price. Considering I mostly read the New York Times' opinion stuff, the price is way too freakin' high for me. Get down to 99 cents per week and we'll talk. But I think the charge is about $4 per week for iPhone and iPad.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

That's pretty much it. It's not as if people are going to rely on a bunch of unpaid bloggers to get information. I personally don't buy any publications myself because I NEVER read printed stuff anymore. I guess I like shiny colors and everything, plus it's much easier to save a story either by bookmarking or using something like "save for later" in certain apps.

I have no problem paying for news, as long as it's a fair price. Considering I mostly read the New York Times' opinion stuff, the price is way too freakin' high for me. Get down to 99 cents per week and we'll talk. But I think the charge is about $4 per week for iPhone and iPad.

I think most people wouldn't mind forking out $50-$150 per year on a subscription for quality journalism with a few value ads (no ads, video content, audio), I know as soon at Fairfax, Newscorp, AP, etc.. do that I'll be signing up pretty darn fast.

Until then I'll resort to the mobile sites and some geeks ultra-right opinion on why the moon landing didn't happen

 

[jsan1]

I get The Wall Street Journal free with my tuition and I also use their app to get their newspaper on the iPad. That being said, I only use my iPad on my morning commute to school just to read headlines. Don't really feel 100% comfortable whipping out the iPad and there are times when the newspaper is not only safer but just more convenient to hold. The Economist magazine (like WSJ) has an app but it's just so much lighter and more convenient to read a simple half a pound (if not less) set of pages than using the iPad for an extended period of time.

 

[sinsin07]

will ipad kill traditional newspaper sales?

No. The ambulance chasing articles they print will.

 

[Razeus]

Nope. It's just a transition that the news companies are having a hard time transitioning to. They should have never given away free content to begin with. Now it's just expected.

I subscribe to The New Yorker and will re-up my Wired sub once it's on iPad. Those aren't newspapers but still the same issue.

I would love to have the NYT, but are crazy. They want to "introduce" me to the iPad app for $.99 a week for 4 weeks, then the price goes to $35 every weeks. That's $8.75 a week! No thank you. I don't need to read THAT much on a daily basis anyway, especially when 75% of it is free on the web. I don't care how pretty you make the app.

I prefer The New Yorker because it's weekly, only the important headlines make it in and it's almost a literary writing style. And for only $40 a year (for print + digital + app).

 

[Tech198]

Replace or Retire

Technoly is getting popular with news reading in this digital age.

However. look at it from the other perspective... How many non-tech people, those who hate computers, will cope?

What if they suddenly can't by their favourite mag. anymore just because its been replaced over time. "Saturdays paper" they get delivered, may no longer exsist.

Its a stepping stone. or people must meet half way somewhere. People are "forced" into the digital age as older stuff dies out.. Where would my parents be ?

They lived in the 40's .... and while they like the idea of computers, they prefer to to back to horse and cart, or writing with pen and paper.

but then its like everything i guess.

 

[b0blndsy]

The iPad is but one straw on the hay bale hat has been put on the camel's back for more than 20 years now.

a-graphic-history-of-newspaper-circulation-over-the-last-two-decades

Thanks for the link and ye sI agree with macDelirium that paper costs will end news paper industry one day.

 

[Richard8655]

We're really talking here about the written word versus graphic/visual media, which the iPad excells in. But with pure reading, it's different story.

I get my Chicago Tribune and Time magazine delivered daily/weekly, and I'm happy that I'm not staring at a screen all day. The physical experience is so different. I enjoy both worlds and not the one dimensionality of the iPad experience as the only way of getting written information.

Hard to explain, but electronic media is cold experience. Paper has an analog warmth and involvement. Like with a book, I like to hear the rustling of pages, feel the texture, bend the cover back, etc. You just can't get that with an iPad.

 

[Piggie]

Would a single guy rather have a real young woman strip 2 feet in front of him, doing all sexy moves etc etc.
Or would he rather be watching the exact same woman do the same routine on the iPad screen held out in front of him?

Would you rather visit a safari park and see wild animals, or would you rather just watch them on a screen?

Would you rather sir on a beach watching the surfers on the sea, or would you rather we watching this all on your iPad?

Humans love physical things. I don't know people can't grasp there's more to the world that just what you take in with your eyes.

A real book, magazine, newspaper is a completely different experience than reading the same data off a screen.

 

[decafjava]

Would a single guy rather have a real young woman strip 2 feet in front of him, doing all sexy moves etc etc.
Or would he rather be watching the exact same woman do the same routine on the iPad screen held out in front of him?

Would you rather visit a safari park and see wild animals, or would you rather just watch them on a screen?

Would you rather sir on a beach watching the surfers on the sea, or would you rather we watching this all on your iPad?

Humans love physical things. I don't know people can't grasp there's more to the world that just what you take in with your eyes.

A real book, magazine, newspaper is a completely different experience than reading the same data off a screen.

Not the same as the other things, text is text-instead of paper a screen and a small square box but both are physical objects!

 

[johneaston]

No.

 

[Night Spring]

Humans love physical things. I don't know people can't grasp there's more to the world that just what you take in with your eyes.

A real book, magazine, newspaper is a completely different experience than reading the same data off a screen.

Except text is text -- all there is is what you take in with your eyes. The texture of the paper, smell of ink, etc that you get with physical books and magazines aren't really part of the text. Sure, for fine books, yes, the quality of paper, print, binding, etc, does enhance the reading experience, like when you are in a high quality restaurant, and eating off fine china in an elegant dining room. But most newspaper, paperbacks, magazines are just take-out containers that you throw out after reading the content, and I just don't feel any attachment to their physical format.

 

[AppleGoddess]

Has email killed the post office. Nope!

 

[Richard8655]

Except text is text -- all there is is what you take in with your eyes. The texture of the paper, smell of ink, etc that you get with physical books and magazines aren't really part of the text. Sure, for fine books, yes, the quality of paper, print, binding, etc, does enhance the reading experience, like when you are in a high quality restaurant, and eating off fine china in an elegant dining room. But most newspaper, paperbacks, magazines are just take-out containers that you throw out after reading the content, and I just don't feel any attachment to their physical format.

Physical format. If I want to visit Greece and see the ancient sites, I can do that by watching it on a screen or flying there and seeing it in person. You could argue either is the same and it's just physical format. If I fly there first class (elegant fine flying) or coach (cheap throw out class), it's still a whole different experience whichever class. Even throw away cheap paper suffices to make reading a physical book or newspaper a differently enjoyable experience from that persepective. I know this is a flawed argument, but this is the point.

 

[likemyorbs]

Physical format. If I want to visit Greece and see the ancient sites, I can do that by watching it on a screen or flying there and seeing it in person. You could argue either is the same and it's just physical format. If I fly there first class (elegant fine flying) or coach (cheap throw out class), it's still a whole different experience whichever class. Even throw away cheap paper suffices to make reading a physical book or newspaper a differently enjoyable experience from that persepective. I know this is a flawed argument, but this is the point.

Flawed? That's a nice word for this argument. Text is text, it doesn't matter what you read it on. It's all a matter of what you're used to. Since i've never read a real newspaper (im 22), i personally don't like the feel of it and i prefer my ipad. Text is not a 3D object, an ancient site in greece is. Obviously there is no comparison here.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

A lot or peoples are missing the point of the core strengths of the iPad and like devices...

If it's a 1 to 1 transition of print to digital, then by all means there's not much of a gain much because reading on an iPad isn't that great IMHO. However when you factor in the strengths of proper multimedia to news to supplement an article then you're getting a thing called VAC (value added content).

This is where the transition from print to digital will happen, purely because of paid value added content. I like reading the paper but adding links, videos, audio, motion galleries, reporter's side notes, etc.. adds far more dimension to the article than just reading the text. This is where subscription will be paid, you can read the article as in the paper but to get the addition content it will cost you.

Once the main papers take up this model print of course wont die but digital will cannibalise the marketshare. Again it's a transition delivery form but it wont kill the news agencies of completely kill the good ol' paper.

 

[Richard8655]

Flawed? That's a nice word for this argument. Text is text, it doesn't matter what you read it on. It's all a matter of what you're used to. Since i've never read a real newspaper (im 22), i personally don't like the feel of it and i prefer my ipad. Text is not a 3D object, an ancient site in greece is. Obviously there is no comparison here.

If you've never read a real newspaper nor have had that experience over time, you'll never really know. Flawed here better applies to making a personal preference choice while in total ignorance of 1 of the 2 choices, and being proud of that fact to boot.

I also think you missed the point. It was not comparing text and Greece, but rather how receiving information can be experienced differently. I wonder if the light bulb is permanently dimmed here... too much time spent in front of your iPad for everything in life I think.

 

[Night Spring]

If you've never read a real newspaper nor have had that experience over time, you'll never really know. Flawed here better applies to making a personal preference choice while in total ignorance of 1 of the 2 choices, and being proud of that fact to boot.

I've read physical newspapers half my life, and I don't miss it.

As for your analogy of visiting ancient sites in Greece, I'd say visiting them in person is a totally different experience than seeing them on flim. And yes, flying there by coach or by business is a totally different experience, but once you get there, how you got there doesn't matter. So you got there by coach or by business or on a ship or by walking -- once I'm there, am I going to see something different than you because we arrived there by different means?

Yes, if you are talking about the entire vaccation, then how we travel is a part of it. But if we are just talking about the ancient Greece site, then how we got there isn't a part of the experience. So you care about the physical aspects of reading -- like paper, ink, weight of a book, I don't know what else. I don't. I've read the Secret Garden in hard cover, paper book and as a ebook. Guess what? It was the same book every time!

 

[likemyorbs]

It was not comparing text and Greece.

Yeah, you were...

If I want to visit Greece and see the ancient sites, I can do that by watching it on a screen or flying there and seeing it in person.

If you've never read a real newspaper nor have had that experience over time, you'll never really know.

Exactly my point, you can't say a traditional newspaper is better, it's just a preference. If you used a digital source for your news over time, you would develop a preference for that.

I wonder if the light bulb is permanently dimmed here... too much time spent in front of your iPad for everything in life I think.

Nope, just text. I prefer not to use ancient/inferior methods of media delivery and get ink on my fingers.

 

[miamialley]

We're really talking here about the written word versus graphic/visual media, which the iPad excells in. But with pure reading, it's different story.

I get my Chicago Tribune and Time magazine delivered daily/weekly, and I'm happy that I'm not staring at a screen all day. The physical experience is so different. I enjoy both worlds and not the one dimensionality of the iPad experience as the only way of getting written information.

Hard to explain, but electronic media is cold experience. Paper has an analog warmth and involvement. Like with a book, I like to hear the rustling of pages, feel the texture, bend the cover back, etc. You just can't get that with an iPad.

You're over 40 years old right?

 

[maclaptop]

when i got my ipad it became more of a way to reacquaint myself with newspaper and to rediscover them.how about you? did you find the ipad resulted in buying less newspaper?

No way, too late, the web killed newspapers. The iPad is just the iPad. It's the new adult toy till the newness wears off. In some quarters it's already declining. Not everyone likes to sit on their ass & stare at a screen.

 

[b0blndsy]

Not the same as the other things, text is text-instead of paper a screen and a small square box but both are physical objects!

Agree, and Its all about human preferences some people love reading traditional paper newspapers whereas some others with different lifestyles like to read the electronic version.

 

[anthdci]

I think the biggest between music and news hard-copy to digital change is that with music you had to buy a device to play the music, be it CD player, cassette player etc, so you had to buy a relatively expensive device to access it anyway, just owning a CD does not give you the ability to play the music. Whereas you don't need anything to read a newspaper or magazine. Say a newspaper costs 50p, most people will be reluctant to pull out £300+ for a device to access it when the hard copy is so much cheaper.

I personally will use electronic copies, because I don't buy newspapers anyway, it is just a nice extra feature that I will take advantage of.

 

[Michael CM1]

Some musings on various posts.

First of all, anybody who says newspapers should have never started giving away content online is damned right. Now you've got an entire generation of people who have pretty much grown up thinking newspaper news is free. Lotsa luck taking it back, because it'll be hard. Now, we're into just figuring out other ways to bring in money. I hope at some point people pay for digital subscriptions, but we've got to find better models than the NY Times. It's just not flexible enough for casual readers.

Also, I "get" people who like reading physical paper better. I'm not saying I agree, but I understand where you come from. But once again we have people in their 20s who grew up reading almost everything online and who are just used to that being the way. I think once the iPad gets a display as clear as the iPhone 4, you'll be more likely to go digital. My iPad 2 display looks like barf at times if I've been using my iPhone a lot. Also, take a look at a Kindle's display. That's as close to paper as digital gets.

As far as the ambulance chaser comment, two things. First, most of us don't. Seriously, we don't just tell you who's dead. Some places may, but not my group. Second, we see reader stats on our website. Tell the insane amount of people who read the "if it bleeds, it leads" stories and to put those numbers on cats getting rescued from trees and we'll go all fluffy. Four of our top five read stories online yesterday were about deaths and thefts. We print what people want to read. The good thing is a lot of "good" news stories get high readership, so we have a nice blend.