From Rupert by way of PaidContent.org:
After months of silence, News Corp.‘s UK wing News International has put some details on its plans to turn Times Online paid-only, in a big flagship announcement. We’ll run it in full because it’s so significant.
Update: See exclusive preview of the forthcoming websites.
The key points…
—£1 a day, £2 for a week’s subscription - a compelling argument to go for a week.
—Coincidence? The £1 cost is the same as the daily print paper.
—Customers get access to both sites. Print subscribers get free web access.
—Premium mobile? “New applications” including iPhone apps will also be paid-for. There will also be tablet editions.
—Rebrand? Note, Brooks is calling the new daily site “TheTimes.co.uk”, not “Times Online”.
News International is using the “all for the price of a cup of coffee” comparison. Matching the £1-a-day print price will fuel the fire of those who suspect the aim here is really to drive people back to paper. But the Times is promising plenty of online-native innovation, too.
Guardian.co.uk: “Assuming that only five percent of daily users convert to the paywall system – a standard metric for paywalls – that would bring in £1.83 million if they each buy a £1 daily pass. At a 10 percent conversion, it would net £3.66 million per month for the two papers. If more people of those choose to buy the weekly pass, the revenues would be lower.”
Next stop: a pay-for Sun Online? Surely not? But Brooks says: “This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers.”
The announcement…
London, 26 March 2010 – News International today announces that The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for access to their digital journalism in June using a pricing model that is simple and affordable.
Both titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing, combined site, Times Online. The two new sites will be available for a free trial period to registered customers.
From June, the new sites, www.thetimes.co.uk and http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk, will be available for a charge of £1 for a day’s access or £2 for a week’s subscription. Payment will give customers access to both sites. The weekly subscription will also give access to the e- paper and certain new applications. Access to the digital services will be included in the seven-day subscriptions of print customers to The Times and The Sunday Times.
Rebekah Brooks, Chief Executive, News International, said: “These new sites, and the apps that will enhance the experience, reflect the identity of our titles and deliver a terrific experience for readers. We expect to attract a growing base of loyal customers that are committed and engaged with our titles. We are building on the excellence of our newspapers and offering digital access to our journalism at a price that everyone can afford.
“At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value.
“This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers.”
John Witherow, Editor of The Sunday Times, said: “The launch of a dedicated Sunday Times website is a hugely significant moment for the paper. It will enable us to showcase our strengths in areas such as news, sport, business, style, travel and culture and display the breadth of Britain’s biggest-selling quality newspaper.
“For the first time, readers will have access to all their favourite sections and writers. We will be introducing new digital features to enhance our coverage and encourage interactivity. Every day, readers will be able to talk to our writers and experts and view stunning photographs and graphics. Subscribers will be able to get this brand new site, plus the enhanced Times site, seven days of the week, all for the price of a cup of coffee.”
James Harding, Editor of The Times, said: “The Times was founded to take advantage of new technology. Now, we are leading the way again. Our new website – with a strong, clean design – will have all the values of the printed paper and all the versatility of digital media. We want people to do more than just read it – to be part of it.
“We continue to invest in frontline journalism. We have more foreign correspondents than our rivals and continue to put reporters on new beats – last year we added an Ocean Correspondent and we just became the only British paper to have a Pentagon Correspondent. And we want to match that with investment in innovation.
“TheTimes.co.uk will make the most of moving images, dynamic infographics, interactive comment and personalised news feeds. The coming editions of The Times on phones, e- readers, tablets and mobile devices will tell the most important and interesting stories in the newest ways. Our aim is to keep delivering The Times, but better.”
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Fundamental shifts
At the very core of all discussions about reporting, distribution, technology, even design, of news, is the fundamental question of what has news become. A well-respected professor of journalism in England believes there are fundamental shifts afoot in the nature of news.
Here's the story:
Is news over? – George Brock tackles journalism's biggest question
SharePosted: 18/03/10 By: Alexander Walters
Journalism has become "a word wandering around in search of a definition" according to George Brock, the head of journalism at City University London.
In a speech last night entitled 'Is news over?', the former Times international editor questioned the role of journalists and the very nature of journalism in the digital world. He told the audience of students and media professionals gathered at City University that the rapid development of technology had prised the concept of news out of the hands of traditional media.
"The ability for anyone to produce something called news, circulate it, discuss it and edit it brings an oligopoly to a brutal end," he said.
"Until recently journalists could rest secure in the knowledge that it wasn't easy for anyone to claim to be a journalist unless they were in a position to use the capital-intensive equipment to publish or broadcast. That barrier to entry has of course gone."
Brock told how news, once the binding factor in so many communities in the form of a local paper, was now created by online communities which "form, congeal, dissolve and disperse" at a speed unimaginable to previous generations.
On the inevitable question of how to fund journalism, Brock was candid. "There is no law of economics which guarantees that when one business model fails, a replacement one is immediately available," he said.
Yet he went on to suggest that we should be grateful for "ever cheaper, ever lighter" multimedia devices, which allow stories to be told in the broadest possible form, with both audio and visual dimensions. With the decline of newspapers, however, he stressed the importance of maintaining the role of the written word.
"We have to find a way to make sure that words survive in the equation. Each technology tends to affect the way news is reported on that particular platform and some of the most successful ways of telling stories seem to weave words, video and sound together. I only plead that words, so beautiful and so useful, don’t get squeezed out."
Throughout his address, Brock insisted that journalists, if they are to survive, must begin reassessing how they regard themselves and their place in the new structures of the digital world.
"If journalism is to be valued, and perhaps even paid for, that worth has to be clear to people who are not journalists. Journalists have to start by accepting that they don't automatically hold the powerful place in the new information system that they held in the old," he said.
He concluded by telling the audience that journalism is indeed valuable, but reminded those present that challenging times lie ahead.
"We're entering a new communications age and making the argument for journalism all over again needs a little more critical self-appraisal than we have been used to doing. The worth of journalism is real, and its case will need to be made often in the next few years."
Here's the story:
Is news over? – George Brock tackles journalism's biggest question
SharePosted: 18/03/10 By: Alexander Walters
Journalism has become "a word wandering around in search of a definition" according to George Brock, the head of journalism at City University London.
In a speech last night entitled 'Is news over?', the former Times international editor questioned the role of journalists and the very nature of journalism in the digital world. He told the audience of students and media professionals gathered at City University that the rapid development of technology had prised the concept of news out of the hands of traditional media.
"The ability for anyone to produce something called news, circulate it, discuss it and edit it brings an oligopoly to a brutal end," he said.
"Until recently journalists could rest secure in the knowledge that it wasn't easy for anyone to claim to be a journalist unless they were in a position to use the capital-intensive equipment to publish or broadcast. That barrier to entry has of course gone."
Brock told how news, once the binding factor in so many communities in the form of a local paper, was now created by online communities which "form, congeal, dissolve and disperse" at a speed unimaginable to previous generations.
On the inevitable question of how to fund journalism, Brock was candid. "There is no law of economics which guarantees that when one business model fails, a replacement one is immediately available," he said.
Yet he went on to suggest that we should be grateful for "ever cheaper, ever lighter" multimedia devices, which allow stories to be told in the broadest possible form, with both audio and visual dimensions. With the decline of newspapers, however, he stressed the importance of maintaining the role of the written word.
"We have to find a way to make sure that words survive in the equation. Each technology tends to affect the way news is reported on that particular platform and some of the most successful ways of telling stories seem to weave words, video and sound together. I only plead that words, so beautiful and so useful, don’t get squeezed out."
Throughout his address, Brock insisted that journalists, if they are to survive, must begin reassessing how they regard themselves and their place in the new structures of the digital world.
"If journalism is to be valued, and perhaps even paid for, that worth has to be clear to people who are not journalists. Journalists have to start by accepting that they don't automatically hold the powerful place in the new information system that they held in the old," he said.
He concluded by telling the audience that journalism is indeed valuable, but reminded those present that challenging times lie ahead.
"We're entering a new communications age and making the argument for journalism all over again needs a little more critical self-appraisal than we have been used to doing. The worth of journalism is real, and its case will need to be made often in the next few years."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Doctor, doctor.
Newspapers are in the midst of a shift that has transformed them from a mass medium to a niche product, and the advent of more sophisticated e-readers will further accelerate that migration.
Ken Doctor, affiliate analyst with Outsell Inc. and author of the book “Newsonomics: Twelve New Trends That Will Shape the News You Get,” told News & Tech columnist Doug Page in a Press Room podcast posted March 6, 2010, “Publishers are fully embracing the idea that it’s digital first and that print is now a niche.
“Newspapers have always been a mass medium even though there might have been some niches. Now newspapers are the niche, the Starbucks buy. If you are a baby boomer and are willing to spend twice as much as you did even two years ago (to buy a paper) you can still read your paper.”
Doctor, a former editor at the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press and a Knight Ridder Digital executive, said the emergence of Apple Computer Inc.’s iPad “has the potential of changing the news reading experience exponentially and could further move people away from print.”
“It may return the day of the pleasurable reading experience,” Doctor said of the gadget. “We all use desktops and laptops, but they are essentially work devices. You can find news from anywhere in the world, but that is a (version) 1.0 experience. With the iPad, you control the experience, so it returns the notion of reading for pleasure, and that’s one of the main reasons people like reading newspapers.”
Ken Doctor, affiliate analyst with Outsell Inc. and author of the book “Newsonomics: Twelve New Trends That Will Shape the News You Get,” told News & Tech columnist Doug Page in a Press Room podcast posted March 6, 2010, “Publishers are fully embracing the idea that it’s digital first and that print is now a niche.
“Newspapers have always been a mass medium even though there might have been some niches. Now newspapers are the niche, the Starbucks buy. If you are a baby boomer and are willing to spend twice as much as you did even two years ago (to buy a paper) you can still read your paper.”
Doctor, a former editor at the St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press and a Knight Ridder Digital executive, said the emergence of Apple Computer Inc.’s iPad “has the potential of changing the news reading experience exponentially and could further move people away from print.”
“It may return the day of the pleasurable reading experience,” Doctor said of the gadget. “We all use desktops and laptops, but they are essentially work devices. You can find news from anywhere in the world, but that is a (version) 1.0 experience. With the iPad, you control the experience, so it returns the notion of reading for pleasure, and that’s one of the main reasons people like reading newspapers.”
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Forrester Research presentation at paidContent 2010
Here's the fascinating interpretation of this theorem that people don't -- and never have -- paid for content, they will pay -- and always have -- for access. So the subscription to the newspaper used to be what people paid for access, in my opinion. So that puts into a stranger-than-ever context the experiment of charging for content that paywalls online are contemplating.
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Friday, February 12, 2010
INMA in tune
Richard Hall of Digital Technology International gave a presentation at the International Newspaper Marketing Association convention in Copenhagen which is pure individuated news, down to the estimate that individuated content would have a $.05 per person per ad value, which of course is a $50 CPM. Check the powerpoint out and enjoy.
If that link doesn't work here is the URL: http://www.slideshare.net/TomCorbett/richard-hall-3102448
If that link doesn't work here is the URL: http://www.slideshare.net/TomCorbett/richard-hall-3102448
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
How do you build a wall?
For many newspapers that are stymied with how to charge for online there is Journalism Online, founded by a well-known media celebrity Stephen Brill.
Here reprinted:
Published: February 2, 2010, New York Times
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Extracting payment from online readers has been called everything from the next great folly of print journalism to its salvation, but to get a glimpse of how it really looks, head to Lancaster, Pa.
Specifically, head to the offices of The Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era, one of the first handful of news outlets to acknowledge in interviews that it intends, in the next few months, to start using a software system developed by the entrepreneurs Steven Brill, L. Gordon Crovitz and their partners, which they are calling Press+. Others interested include The Fayetteville Observer in North Carolina and GlobalPost, a news site based in Boston.
A very small number of news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times and Newsday, already charge online readers, each with a system developed largely in-house, and The New York Times announced recently that it planned to do the same. But with advertising plummeting, many other publishers eager for a new source of revenue are considering making the switch, despite the risk of losing audience and advertising.
Last year, Mr. Brill and company seized on that interest, founding their operation, Journalism Online, with the aim of developing a highly flexible system that would become the industry standard, and keeping 20 percent of their client’s online revenue as their fee.
They say they have worked with potential clients from around the world, most of whom they will not name, who operate more than 1,300 news sites. The News Corporation, owner of The Wall Street Journal, is also marketing an online pay system to publishers, but industry executives say that it has made little headway.
So if it turns out that Lancaster is in the vanguard of a mass movement — and there are plenty of skeptics who say that charging could be a short-lived experiment — then Press+, if it works well, could be the movement’s chief organizer.
But in their first extended interview in months, Mr. Crovitz and Mr. Brill, while offering a look at how the system works, also cautioned against high expectations and said they had urged their clients to take small steps. It will take years before charging Internet users significantly changes the economics of a deeply troubled industry, they said.
As newsprint becomes a smaller part of the business, “you want to establish the notion that it’s worth something online,” Mr. Brill said. “What we have convinced people of is they don’t have to make a drastic decision. You can experiment.”
For those who have signed on, such lowered expectations are part of the appeal.
“We’re starting small, so if this really turns people off, we’re not playing with a huge chunk of our readership,” said Ernest J. Schreiber, editor of the Lancaster paper’s Web site, LancasterOnline.com. The site has been using and adapting the Press+ software for a while. He said it would go into effect in a month or two.
At the outset, the paper, owned by a local company, Steinman Enterprises, will charge only readers outside its immediate area and only for reading obituaries, with a little green Press+ logo next to each headline covered by the system. It will allow a reader to see a certain number of obituaries free before a box pops onto the screen demanding a flat fee to keep reading, but the paper has not yet decided what that number will be, or how much it will charge.
“We have news that no one else has, like these obituaries,” Mr. Schreiber said. “We would eventually take other sections of our online content into the system. I’m thinking local sports, perhaps.”
The system may generate only a few hundred thousand dollars a year in revenue, he said, but “that’s enough to pay for a few reporters.”
Philip S. Balboni, president and chief executive of GlobalPost, a year-old site that focuses on international news, said it would take a different approach to using Press+. Frequent users will see messages urging them to join and pay, but it will be voluntary; there will be levels of membership with different prices, and those who do pay will be able to suggest topics for articles and have access to premium content. Those who do not join will still have access to most of the site.
“We anticipate rolling it out by the end of March,” and hope to have tens of thousands of paying readers by year’s end, he said. “By Year 2, it would become a very significant contributor to our total funding, but advertising I anticipate would still be No. 1.”
Mr. Crovitz is a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, where he oversaw its online pay system, and began to develop a new version of that system.
Mr. Brill has a long record of starting ventures in untested waters, some more successful than others. He founded The American Lawyer magazine and the Court TV channel, which succeeded, and Brill’s Content, a magazine about media, which did not. He also founded Verified Identity Pass, whose system, called Clear, allowed frequent travelers to speed through airport security, but he severed ties with the company before it ceased operation last year.
Their partners in Journalism Online include Leo Hindery Jr., a former top executive at Tele-Communications Inc. and the YES Network, and Ken Ficara, who helped develop and run The Journal’s Web site.
Here reprinted:
Published: February 2, 2010, New York Times
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Extracting payment from online readers has been called everything from the next great folly of print journalism to its salvation, but to get a glimpse of how it really looks, head to Lancaster, Pa.
Specifically, head to the offices of The Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era, one of the first handful of news outlets to acknowledge in interviews that it intends, in the next few months, to start using a software system developed by the entrepreneurs Steven Brill, L. Gordon Crovitz and their partners, which they are calling Press+. Others interested include The Fayetteville Observer in North Carolina and GlobalPost, a news site based in Boston.
A very small number of news organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times and Newsday, already charge online readers, each with a system developed largely in-house, and The New York Times announced recently that it planned to do the same. But with advertising plummeting, many other publishers eager for a new source of revenue are considering making the switch, despite the risk of losing audience and advertising.
Last year, Mr. Brill and company seized on that interest, founding their operation, Journalism Online, with the aim of developing a highly flexible system that would become the industry standard, and keeping 20 percent of their client’s online revenue as their fee.
They say they have worked with potential clients from around the world, most of whom they will not name, who operate more than 1,300 news sites. The News Corporation, owner of The Wall Street Journal, is also marketing an online pay system to publishers, but industry executives say that it has made little headway.
So if it turns out that Lancaster is in the vanguard of a mass movement — and there are plenty of skeptics who say that charging could be a short-lived experiment — then Press+, if it works well, could be the movement’s chief organizer.
But in their first extended interview in months, Mr. Crovitz and Mr. Brill, while offering a look at how the system works, also cautioned against high expectations and said they had urged their clients to take small steps. It will take years before charging Internet users significantly changes the economics of a deeply troubled industry, they said.
As newsprint becomes a smaller part of the business, “you want to establish the notion that it’s worth something online,” Mr. Brill said. “What we have convinced people of is they don’t have to make a drastic decision. You can experiment.”
For those who have signed on, such lowered expectations are part of the appeal.
“We’re starting small, so if this really turns people off, we’re not playing with a huge chunk of our readership,” said Ernest J. Schreiber, editor of the Lancaster paper’s Web site, LancasterOnline.com. The site has been using and adapting the Press+ software for a while. He said it would go into effect in a month or two.
At the outset, the paper, owned by a local company, Steinman Enterprises, will charge only readers outside its immediate area and only for reading obituaries, with a little green Press+ logo next to each headline covered by the system. It will allow a reader to see a certain number of obituaries free before a box pops onto the screen demanding a flat fee to keep reading, but the paper has not yet decided what that number will be, or how much it will charge.
“We have news that no one else has, like these obituaries,” Mr. Schreiber said. “We would eventually take other sections of our online content into the system. I’m thinking local sports, perhaps.”
The system may generate only a few hundred thousand dollars a year in revenue, he said, but “that’s enough to pay for a few reporters.”
Philip S. Balboni, president and chief executive of GlobalPost, a year-old site that focuses on international news, said it would take a different approach to using Press+. Frequent users will see messages urging them to join and pay, but it will be voluntary; there will be levels of membership with different prices, and those who do pay will be able to suggest topics for articles and have access to premium content. Those who do not join will still have access to most of the site.
“We anticipate rolling it out by the end of March,” and hope to have tens of thousands of paying readers by year’s end, he said. “By Year 2, it would become a very significant contributor to our total funding, but advertising I anticipate would still be No. 1.”
Mr. Crovitz is a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, where he oversaw its online pay system, and began to develop a new version of that system.
Mr. Brill has a long record of starting ventures in untested waters, some more successful than others. He founded The American Lawyer magazine and the Court TV channel, which succeeded, and Brill’s Content, a magazine about media, which did not. He also founded Verified Identity Pass, whose system, called Clear, allowed frequent travelers to speed through airport security, but he severed ties with the company before it ceased operation last year.
Their partners in Journalism Online include Leo Hindery Jr., a former top executive at Tele-Communications Inc. and the YES Network, and Ken Ficara, who helped develop and run The Journal’s Web site.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
I-Pad-dy pat pat
No matter which end of the spectrum the new I-Pad falls -- on the laptop or smartphone extremes -- is a moot point. Platform is not the decisive factor for people. Everyone will have their favorite platform. It's getting the news and advertising that you want on that platform you've chosen that's important. The corollary, individuated media (news and advertising you've chosen) must be available on all platforms. That's today's digital liberation.
(full text from NY Times)
SAN FRANCISCO — After months of feverish speculation, Steven P. Jobs introduced Wednesday what Apple hopes will be the coolest device on the planet: a slender tablet computer called the iPad.
The Takeaway With Nick BiltonFor all the hoopla surrounding it, however, the question is whether the iPad can achieve anything close to the success of the iPhone, which transformed the cellphone and forced the industry to race to catch up.
Apple is positioning the device, some versions of which will be available in March, as a pioneer in a new genre of computing, somewhere between a laptop and a smartphone. “The bar is pretty high,” Mr. Jobs acknowledged. “It has to be far better at doing some key things.”
Half an inch thick and weighing 1 1/2 pounds, the device will vividly display books, newspapers, Web sites and videos on a 9.7-inch glass touch screen. Giving media companies another way to sell content, it may herald a new era for publishing.
But the iPad, costing $499 to $829, also lacks some features common in laptops and phones, as technology enthusiasts were quick to point out. To its instant critics, it was little more than an oversize iPod Touch. A camera is notably absent, and Flash, the ubiquitous software that handles video and animation on the Web, does not work on the device.
Another thing missing is an alternative to the AT&T data network, which is already buckling under the strain of traffic to and from iPhones. Some versions of the iPad can, for a monthly fee, use a 3G data connection like cellphones, but the only carrier mentioned was AT&T.
The event, in typical Apple style, was tightly scripted and heavy on theatrics and hyperbole. But the success of the iPhone, and the hive of rumors and leaks surrounding the iPad, raised expectations and made this perhaps Mr. Jobs’s most highly anticipated product unveiling yet.
It was one that he clearly cared deeply about. Mr. Jobs, a consummate showman, presented the iPad to an enthusiastic crowd of around 800 employees, business partners and journalists, some of whom shoved their way in when the doors opened to grab the best seats. It was only his second public appearance since a leave of absence for health reasons last year.
Mr. Jobs posited that the iPad was the best device for certain kinds of computing, like browsing the Web, reading e-books and playing video.
The iPad “is so much more intimate than a laptop, and it’s so much more capable than a smartphone with its gorgeous screen,” he said in presenting the device to a crowd of journalists and Apple employees here. “It’s phenomenal to hold the Internet in your hands.”
One question Apple faces is whether there is enough room for another device in the cluttered lives of consumers.
“I think this will appeal to the Apple acolytes, but this is essentially just a really big iPod Touch,” said Charles Golvin, an analyst at Forrester Research, adding that he expected the iPad to mostly cannibalize the sales of other Apple products.
Mr. Golvin said book lovers would continue to opt for lighter, cheaper e-readers like the Amazon Kindle, while people looking for a small Web-ready computer would gravitate toward the budget laptops known as netbooks.
But other analysts say they have heard similar criticism before — once aimed at the iPhone, which has now been bought by more than 42 million people around the world. These believers say Apple’s judgment on the market is nearly infallible.
“The target audience is everyone,” said Michael Gartenberg, vice president for strategy and analysis at Interpret, a market research firm. “Apple does not build products for just the enthusiasts. It doesn’t build for the tens of thousands; it builds for the tens of millions.”
Apple says the iPad will run the 140,000 applications developed for the iPhone and the iPod Touch, but the company expects a new wave of programs tailored to the iPad.
One of the most significant applications for the iPad may be Apple’s own creation, called iBooks, an e-reading program that will connect to Apple’s new online e-bookstore.
Mr. Jobs said Apple so far had relationships with five major publishers — Hachette, Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan — and was eager to make deals with others. Publishers will be able to charge $12.99 to $14.99 for most general fiction and nonfiction books.
Apple’s announcement that it was diving into the growing e-book business put the company on a collision course with Amazon. Mr. Jobs credited Amazon with pioneering e-readers with the Kindle but said “we are going to stand on their shoulders and go a little bit farther.”
John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who serves on Amazon’s board and is also an adviser to Apple, said there could be room for both companies, noting that Amazon sells many books to iPhone owners who use its Kindle application, which will also work on the iPad.
“I don’t think Jeff Bezos is going to leave the e-book business,” he said, referring to Amazon’s chief executive, “and I don’t think it will be confined to the Kindle.”
Three models of the iPad, $499 to $699, will connect to the Internet only via a local Wi-Fi connection. Three other versions will include 3G wireless access and will be available later in the spring, costing an additional $130 and requiring a data plan from AT&T. Owners of the iPhone who already pay at least $70 a month to AT&T will not be getting any breaks.
Other companies have sold tablet computers for years, but they never caught on with consumers. In 2001, Bill Gates predicted at an industry trade show that tablets would be the most popular form of PC sold in America within five years.
“The fact that he and Microsoft didn’t deliver is surprising,” said Tim Bajarin, a longtime industry analyst. “It has taken Apple to bring this to consumers and make it work.”
Apple has been working on a tablet computer for more than a decade, according to several former employees. Improved technology has helped the company to finally bring a model to market, as has the ubiquity of wireless networks.
The success of the iPhone and its cousin, the iPod Touch, have shown a path for tablets. People have been willing to pay to customize those devices with applications, turning them into video game machines, compasses, city guides and e-book readers.
The iPad will be a big opportunity for software developers, said Raven Zachary, president of Small Society, an iPhone development company based in Portland, Ore. “Although I think some of us were a bit surprised we only have 60 days until it launches to develop for it.”
(full text from NY Times)
SAN FRANCISCO — After months of feverish speculation, Steven P. Jobs introduced Wednesday what Apple hopes will be the coolest device on the planet: a slender tablet computer called the iPad.
The Takeaway With Nick BiltonFor all the hoopla surrounding it, however, the question is whether the iPad can achieve anything close to the success of the iPhone, which transformed the cellphone and forced the industry to race to catch up.
Apple is positioning the device, some versions of which will be available in March, as a pioneer in a new genre of computing, somewhere between a laptop and a smartphone. “The bar is pretty high,” Mr. Jobs acknowledged. “It has to be far better at doing some key things.”
Half an inch thick and weighing 1 1/2 pounds, the device will vividly display books, newspapers, Web sites and videos on a 9.7-inch glass touch screen. Giving media companies another way to sell content, it may herald a new era for publishing.
But the iPad, costing $499 to $829, also lacks some features common in laptops and phones, as technology enthusiasts were quick to point out. To its instant critics, it was little more than an oversize iPod Touch. A camera is notably absent, and Flash, the ubiquitous software that handles video and animation on the Web, does not work on the device.
Another thing missing is an alternative to the AT&T data network, which is already buckling under the strain of traffic to and from iPhones. Some versions of the iPad can, for a monthly fee, use a 3G data connection like cellphones, but the only carrier mentioned was AT&T.
The event, in typical Apple style, was tightly scripted and heavy on theatrics and hyperbole. But the success of the iPhone, and the hive of rumors and leaks surrounding the iPad, raised expectations and made this perhaps Mr. Jobs’s most highly anticipated product unveiling yet.
It was one that he clearly cared deeply about. Mr. Jobs, a consummate showman, presented the iPad to an enthusiastic crowd of around 800 employees, business partners and journalists, some of whom shoved their way in when the doors opened to grab the best seats. It was only his second public appearance since a leave of absence for health reasons last year.
Mr. Jobs posited that the iPad was the best device for certain kinds of computing, like browsing the Web, reading e-books and playing video.
The iPad “is so much more intimate than a laptop, and it’s so much more capable than a smartphone with its gorgeous screen,” he said in presenting the device to a crowd of journalists and Apple employees here. “It’s phenomenal to hold the Internet in your hands.”
One question Apple faces is whether there is enough room for another device in the cluttered lives of consumers.
“I think this will appeal to the Apple acolytes, but this is essentially just a really big iPod Touch,” said Charles Golvin, an analyst at Forrester Research, adding that he expected the iPad to mostly cannibalize the sales of other Apple products.
Mr. Golvin said book lovers would continue to opt for lighter, cheaper e-readers like the Amazon Kindle, while people looking for a small Web-ready computer would gravitate toward the budget laptops known as netbooks.
But other analysts say they have heard similar criticism before — once aimed at the iPhone, which has now been bought by more than 42 million people around the world. These believers say Apple’s judgment on the market is nearly infallible.
“The target audience is everyone,” said Michael Gartenberg, vice president for strategy and analysis at Interpret, a market research firm. “Apple does not build products for just the enthusiasts. It doesn’t build for the tens of thousands; it builds for the tens of millions.”
Apple says the iPad will run the 140,000 applications developed for the iPhone and the iPod Touch, but the company expects a new wave of programs tailored to the iPad.
One of the most significant applications for the iPad may be Apple’s own creation, called iBooks, an e-reading program that will connect to Apple’s new online e-bookstore.
Mr. Jobs said Apple so far had relationships with five major publishers — Hachette, Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan — and was eager to make deals with others. Publishers will be able to charge $12.99 to $14.99 for most general fiction and nonfiction books.
Apple’s announcement that it was diving into the growing e-book business put the company on a collision course with Amazon. Mr. Jobs credited Amazon with pioneering e-readers with the Kindle but said “we are going to stand on their shoulders and go a little bit farther.”
John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who serves on Amazon’s board and is also an adviser to Apple, said there could be room for both companies, noting that Amazon sells many books to iPhone owners who use its Kindle application, which will also work on the iPad.
“I don’t think Jeff Bezos is going to leave the e-book business,” he said, referring to Amazon’s chief executive, “and I don’t think it will be confined to the Kindle.”
Three models of the iPad, $499 to $699, will connect to the Internet only via a local Wi-Fi connection. Three other versions will include 3G wireless access and will be available later in the spring, costing an additional $130 and requiring a data plan from AT&T. Owners of the iPhone who already pay at least $70 a month to AT&T will not be getting any breaks.
Other companies have sold tablet computers for years, but they never caught on with consumers. In 2001, Bill Gates predicted at an industry trade show that tablets would be the most popular form of PC sold in America within five years.
“The fact that he and Microsoft didn’t deliver is surprising,” said Tim Bajarin, a longtime industry analyst. “It has taken Apple to bring this to consumers and make it work.”
Apple has been working on a tablet computer for more than a decade, according to several former employees. Improved technology has helped the company to finally bring a model to market, as has the ubiquity of wireless networks.
The success of the iPhone and its cousin, the iPod Touch, have shown a path for tablets. People have been willing to pay to customize those devices with applications, turning them into video game machines, compasses, city guides and e-book readers.
The iPad will be a big opportunity for software developers, said Raven Zachary, president of Small Society, an iPhone development company based in Portland, Ore. “Although I think some of us were a bit surprised we only have 60 days until it launches to develop for it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)