As the media world awaits the arrival of The Daily, Rupert Murdoch's newspaper designed specifically for the iPad, early next year, what's wrong with this picture?
Going back to the launch of the iPad in January, the main promotional images that emerged from Steve Jobs and Apple at that time displayed a prototype of The New York Times, not one of Murdoch's newspapers.
On his whirlwind tour announcing the new mobile platform, Jobs visited several media companies in New York, including the Times and News Corp.
It seemed obvious to all of us covering the industry that the most-favored media company on Jobs' list was then the Times, widely recognized as the best newspaper in the country.
So what happened?
Why is it that Murdoch has announced an iPad-based news product, while the Times remains silent?
Right from the start, details leaking out from the initial meetings indicated that Apple and the media companies remained far apart on the question of how content partnerships would work on the new mobile device.
As I noted at the time, "major sticking points...include(d) pricing, revenue sharing, and ownership of subscriber information — in other words, pretty much the entire business model that would underlie any content deals for the iPad."
So in order to proceed, someone had to figure out how to close the gap on those issues and that, apparently, is what Murdoch (reportedly with Jobs' active involvement) has now succeeded in doing.
The basic premise supporting a paid model on the iPad was recently clearly stated by the Times' own David Carr:
"When I am on a Web browser and I bump into a pay wall, I reflexively pull back unless it is in front of something I really must have. But when I’m in the App Store on an iPad, I’m already in a commercial environment: pushing the button to spend small money on something I’d like to see or play with doesn’t seem like such a sucker’s bet."
While there remain major questions about how Murdoch's initial $30 million investment in The Daily will reach profitability anytime in the foreseeable future, there is always a competitive advantage in being first*.
So that nagging question remains: Why wasn't it the Times?
* Billionaire Virgin Airways owner Richard Branson is said to have an iPad-based news project ready for launch also, so it is unclear at this time which wil be "first."
Recommended reading:
Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch Save Newspapers — Well, One, At Least
For Rupert Murdoch, There’s No Downside to His Tablet-Only The Daily
Rupert Murdoch's iPad experiment is unlikely to succeed
Old media tackle the challenge of tablets
Forget print and, oh, forget the web: Murdoch to launch iPad-only newspaper
Go Down Moses, Apple Unveils its Media Tabula Rasa
The True Test of the NYT’s Paywall Plan Will Be e-Readers
And then you think of Jobs' great talk at Stanford a few years ago (http://www.ted.com/talks/steve_jobs_how_to_live_before_you_die.html) and you wonder why, with that apparent wisdom, he would choose a partner with no wisdom, and no vision, save to broaden his empire... On the other hand, some would tell you Apple has always had a worm, a dark side, which the old sales reps and techs knew about from start.
ReplyDeleteThe Times' managers probably feel their readers won't mind opening a browser on the iPad to read the Times instead of getting a specialized app.
ReplyDelete