NY Times reader

[vidsmart]

Help me understand something: I have downloaded the NYT app from iTunes, and will be able to go to nytimes.com on my iPad. Yet I probably have read more about the iPad and the NYT reader than perhaps any other application in the dozens (hundreds?) of articles and blogs post I have read about the iPad. Why is NYT reader talked about as if it is a killer App when you essentially can get the same content free? Is it because you'll be able to download the NYT and read it when you don't have connectivity? And how much would some of you be willing to pay for the NYT reader? Thanks

 

[miles01110]

Part of the buzz is due to you won't be able to get the NYT online for free starting sometime next year. Plus it's probably one of the most prominent newspapers in the industry.

 

[Geoffrey Grike]

I think that one of the reasons that we hear about it so much is that the New York Times, as well as most of the mainstream print publishers, are still trying to adjust to a world where they have to compete with the on-line publishers as well as individual bloggers for readers. The NYTs has stated that they are going to move to a paid model some time in the future and there are a lot of other publishers anxiously waiting to see how this plays out. Many publishers are taking a wait and see position on how things develop with the new paid model and will most likely follow suit if they are able to find some success.

 

[wyneken]

Why is NYT reader talked about as if it is a killer App when you essentially can get the same content free? Is it because you'll be able to download the NYT and read it when you don't have connectivity? And how much would some of you be willing to pay for the NYT reader? Thanks

I don't know much (does anybody?) about the forthcoming NYT iPad app. But I'd guess the main difference is that you can actually see the whole "paper" in a format designed for the iPad, as opposed to reading text in a small window on the iPhone and having to access it through a totally different interface.

As to cost, my understanding is that the Times is planning to move toward a paid-subscription model over the next year or so. Presumably this means they will charge for access through the iPhone app as well. The last I heard, there was disagreement within the company over how much to charge for this service, with some people pushing for $10/month and others who want to go as high as $20 or $30, which would be closer to the cost of a traditional print subscription.

I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to pay. Probably if the cost is a lot higher than $10 I will try living without the Times for a while and see how much I miss it. (Probably a lot -- but what that's worth, I'm not sure.)

 

[Romanesq]

except for one....

I think that one of the reasons that we hear about it so much is that the New York Times, as well as most of the mainstream print publishers, are still trying to adjust to a world where they have to compete with the on-line publishers as well as individual bloggers for readers. The NYTs has stated that they are going to move to a paid model some time in the future and there are a lot of other publishers anxiously waiting to see how this plays out. Many publishers are taking a wait and see position on how things develop with the new paid model and will most likely follow suit if they are able to find some success.

The Wall St. journal already moved to online subscribers and has a dual subscription service for paper as well. They are doing well and showing it can be done if your service is valued.

Problem is the NY Times had a family change at the top, became more political on the front news page and has been suffering like lots of the other biased media since.

People won't pay more for slanted news. Apple may in fact save the NY Times from a complete Mexican takeover. The infusion of cash to keep them afloat came from a Mexican billionaire.

He gets good coverage now like Obama. lol