News Corp. Finally Realizes Locked Up, iPad-Only News Publication Was A Dud, Shuts It Down

from the about-time dept

Back in 2010 there was all sorts of buzz around News Corp. investing a ton of money into a "secret" project to launch an iPad-only paywalled publication called "the Daily." Before it even launched, we explained why this was a bad idea that missed the point. We also highlighted Rupert Murdoch/News Corps' long list of failed internet projects -- with the large majority of them flopping because they were about trying to create "broadcast" style properties online, without recognizing that the internet is more of a communications (many-to-many) medium than a broadcast (one-to-many) medium. And, of course, soon after The Daily launched there was evidence that very few people cared.

To be honest, given all the bad press about how few people were reading it, combined with stories of staffers jumping ship soon after it was launched, I had kind of figured that The Daily had already been shut down. However, the latest news is that News Corp. is finally putting it out of its misery and shutting it down, giving most staffers 3 months severance. A few staffers are being folded into the NY Post:
News Corporation also announced that effective immediately, Jesse Angelo, the founding Editor-in-Chief of The Daily and long-time Executive Editor of The New York Post, will assume the role of Publisher of The New York Post. As part of a digital restructuring initiative, the company will cease standalone publication of The Daily iPad app on December 15, 2012, though the brand will live on in other channels. Technology and other assets from The Daily, including some staff, will be folded into The Post.

Mr. Murdoch said: “From its launch, The Daily was a bold experiment in digital publishing and an amazing vehicle for innovation. Unfortunately, our experience was that we could not find a large enough audience quickly enough to convince us the business model was sustainable in the long-term..."
Apparently the site was losing $30 million a year.

Perhaps this should stand as a response to the people who insist that giving away newspaper content free online was "the original sin" of the industry and they should have focused on paywalls. Paywalls don't help you build up "a large enough audience." The link above quotes a reporter there saying: "It was a really cool, hip product. I think this is nothing more than bad timing." I'd say it was much more of a bad model -- both business model and delivery model -- than "bad timing."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 7:57pm

    inb4 "Apparently the site was losing $30 million a year."

    Just goes to show that the only way to have a successful newspaper is the conventional way.

    Now blue can focus on linking to wikipedia.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:29pm

      Re:

      Now now, we can't blame information from OOTB on Wikipedia. After all, the site does usually moderate its articles manually and is just .02% less accurate than a PhD. Undergrad text book.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 10:44pm

        Re: Re:

        Wally,

        OOTB links to a single article on Wiki that is highly accurate. We are not debating the accuracy, more the pointless linking to the Streisand effect that everyone is unsure why he is doing it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 11:05pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I understand :-)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:05am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Since he won't explain it, I can only guess that the linking is related to a twisted misunderstanding of a basic concept - you know, as with his understanding of every concept.

          The best guess I have is that he somehow thinks that being associated with the Streisand Effect by name is a bad thing, and thus is trying to link Techdirt with the article on every page and create a strong link between the two and discredit the site in some way.

          Of course, since Mike came up with the term in the first place, TD is already strongly linked with the term without any such tactics. On top of that, being associated with the *term* isn't a bad thing, only being someone who foolishly invites is effects upon themselves.

          So, TLDR version: "Streisand Effect" is to ootb as "paywall" is to bob - a very basic point completely misunderstood yet arrogantly and stupidly attacked with no effect other than making the attacker look like a complete tool.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Beech, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I think it has something to do with the tiny invisible bugs crawling around in OotB's skin telling him to post it because like, invisible bugs think that kind of thing is hilarious!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:30pm

    It could also be that Apple users are too hip and savvy to be interested in any kind of media from Murdoch. Or think they are, anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:34pm

      Re:

      No, it's that most of us Apple users think he's worse scum than pre-1997 Microsoft and Google combined :-P

      Honestly, it's probably the same reason as everyone else's at this point because Murdoch and NewsCorp are truly the scum of the (though they don't deserve to be labeled the term) press.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 10:49pm

        Re: Re:

        Apple are the scum of the planet, that's why it didn't work.

        Oh and Pre 1997 Google was awesome. I also think that Google are still a far more reputable company than Apple. You only have to look at GSOC and Android to see that they are benefiting man kind with their effort whereas Apple are benefiting no man except the CEOs.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 11:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Oh and Pre 1997 Google was awesome. I also think that Google are still a far more reputable company than Apple. You only have to look at GSOC and Android to see that they are benefiting man kind with their effort whereas Apple are benefiting no man except the CEOs."

          Either you're just that blind, or completely missed something or are having fun playing along...Google's beta didn't come out until late 1998...let alone droid...now that I recall, around 1997 we had Yahoo! (It was called Broadcom just 2 years before that)...And yes while both companies have a slightly checkered past, both have absolutely wonderful interfaces for their devices (as you and I both know), they're both good companies.

          Now, lets see, Apple and Steve Jobs invested in Pixar Animation Studios, Google in advertising and search engine technologies.. Both companies provided excellent things that people wanted to use regularly.

          MacOS 7.5.5 was the first to natively support PowerPC 604 architecture's native SMP support for up to 4 CPU's (PowerPC 604e Mach 5 @ 333MHz) and Droid the first to support multiple core processors in mobile devices...

          Don't be quick to judge either unless you know the history from both sides ;-)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 2:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You missed my point, I don't think you can see through the apple tinted glasses.

            I made a joke about pre 1997 google, and it went woosh straight over your head.

            I was an avid Mac user in the 90s, I loved OS 7 through 9. Back then they actually believed in the community around computing and got that they were not the only manufacturer of PCs.

            Skip forward a decade and Steve Jobs is declaring war on open source platforms (even though OSX derived its kernel from FreeBSD). They believe that they invented everything to do with a touch screen and are suing everyone using expensive lawyers and over broad patents (most of the patents have so much prior art or are so obvious its unbelievable).

            Google on the other hand have always heavily invested in open source software (GSOC is a prime example). The majority of their products are also open source, look at android, chrome browser, chrome OS, etc. This is giving back to the community and actually benefits man kind.

            Google also do not sue the fuck out of everyone because they can't compete in the market place.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 6:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Phone makers have to pay a licensing fee to use the Android kernel on their devices and to make their own shells around it.

              Apple's Android issue isn't about the kernel in any way shape or form, it's Samsung's "TouchWiz" shell.

              OSX was not based off of BSD as everyone thinks, it was based off of NextStep OS...which Steve Jobs created.

              Motorola Mobility sued Microsoft over XBOX 360 wireless controllers which got thrown out by the ITC...then they got bought by Google and sued Microsoft for the same reason on to have the FTC throw that out.

              Samsung is being sued by Erricson Coporation because apparently Samsung was licensing the expired FRAND agreement to Apple and in recent litigations, was demanding a FRAND agreement where Samsung refused to negotiate.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                mirradric, Dec 5th, 2012 @ 12:50am

                and NextStep was based on...

                OS X was based on NextStep but remember that NextStep itself was based on mach and BSD.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 6:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Phone makers have to pay a licensing fee to use the Android kernel on their devices and to make their own shells around it.

              Apple's Android issue isn't about the kernel in any way shape or form, it's Samsung's "TouchWiz" shell.

              OSX was not based off of BSD as everyone thinks, it was based off of NextStep OS...which Steve Jobs created.

              Motorola Mobility sued Microsoft over XBOX 360 wireless controllers which got thrown out by the ITC...then they got bought by Google and sued Microsoft for the same reason on to have the FTC throw that out.

              Samsung is being sued by Erricson Coporation because apparently Samsung was licensing the expired FRAND agreement to Apple and in recent litigations, was demanding a FRAND agreement where Samsung refused to negotiate.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 6:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Apple's Android issue isn't about the kernel in any way shape or form

                I seem to distinctly remember Steve Jobs railing Android as a stolen product and wanting to blast it from the market.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 4:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm just going to point out two things.

            Apple's still supporting PowerPC, right? And so is everyone else, right?

            And it's ANDROID. Not Droid. Droid is a line of phones, available exclusively through Motorola. And while Droid may have become synonymous with Android they are not one and the same and cannot, or better said SHOULD NOT, be used interchangeably. Only correcting this one since you appear to be a person who wants the facts and all that jazz. In which case, you should probably not mind being corrected.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 6:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Droid is the short handed colloquial term for Android. It was advertised in said shorthand on US TV sets when Android first came out.
              Apple still suports maintainence on older PowerPC operating systems up to
              OSX 10.4 which was the last to support that platform.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 6:37am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Droid is the short handed colloquial term for Android. It was advertised in said shorthand on US TV sets when Android first came out."

                No, it isn't. And what was advertised was DROID the phone, the phone that was exclusively sold by Verizon and which helped Android gain mainstream acceptance.

                Just say you were wrong in your use of the term, because you were/are. I live in the U.S. I remember the Droid commercials specifically because of how catching they were, as in "Droid does" capturing people's attention at the time. And again, "Droid" specifically was being mentioned in reference to the specific line of Droid phones released by Motorola through Verizon.

                I'm not going to argue Android with you. You've been in error time and time again regarding it. So whatever I guess. But saying, "My bad, I was wrong," probably wouldn't kill you.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 6:54am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I was using the term as advertised. You can't blame me for that. Why was I being picked at in the first place based on a minor term of technicality??? Hmmmm....sounds like a trolling attempt in a way. But honestly Droid is SHORT HAND for Android. Go on and keep ignoring that based on a bias in technicality.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 7:31am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "I was using the term as advertised."

                    No, that isn't how it was advertised. I don't know how many times I have to say what was being advertised was a specific product line, Droid. Which by no coincidence uses the Android OS. The two are complete distinct and separate products though, and despite sharing a similar name, are no way interchangeable.

                    "You can't blame me for that."

                    I'm not. But I am telling you that you used the wrong term. I was merely correcting you. You saw fit to double down and try and prove yourself right with this gem, "Droid is the short handed colloquial term for Android. It was advertised in said shorthand on US TV sets when Android first came out."

                    "Why was I being picked at in the first place based on a minor term of technicality???"

                    You weren't, I was, again, just correcting you. Droid isn't short for Android, and it only confuses people to interchange the two.

                    "Hmmmm....sounds like a trolling attempt in a way."

                    If by "trolling attempt in a way" you mean "sounds like someone was correcting my error and I don't like it" then sure. It was.

                    "But honestly Droid is SHORT HAND for Android."

                    No, IT IS NOT. It really isn't, despite what you may believe. Or better said, it may be but not when discussing or referring to the smartphone and the mobile operating system. For an actual robot, then yes. But not the phone/OS. The two are distinctly different products.

                    "Go on and keep ignoring that based on a bias in technicality."

                    I see this statement as translating to, "I was wrong but refuse to admit as such and thus you're a big meany and are only right based on a technicality." But again, there is no technicality here. It is me being right and you being wrong. Droid is NOT short hand for Android. Droid is a distinct line of phones. Android is a mobile OS. The two are not one and the same, although some may be confused in regards to that. Their confusion is understandable, but does not mean I will not attempt to clarify things for them or let such ignorance/confusion pass.

                    This could've ended much earlier if you just had said, "I stand correct. Thanks for that, now I know for future reference." Seriously, it's not hard to admit when one's in the wrong. It actually does wonders for oneself and is a sign of maturity and gaining of wisdom. Heck, in this case it would have been. Or is actually. You just learned something, Droid isn't Android and vice versa, unless specifically talking about actual robots.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 9:15am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Droid is the short handed colloquial term for Android.


                Droid is a registered trademark of Lucasfilms, Ltd. Is is used (under license) as the name for a line of phones manufactured by Motorola. To the extent that it refers to the smartphone market, it refers to the phone itself, not the OS or any other software. Android is software.

                Interesting side note: most of the droids in the star wars movies were just robots, not androids. (An android is meant to look like a human).

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 10:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Dang, not sure how I missed the registered trademark bit. But thanks for that. Oversight on my part. Thanks for that though, definitely helps settle matters.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Chosen Reject (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 10:42am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  What about the Droid Incredible by HTC. I don't think it was just a Motorola thing. (It's still not to be confused with Android, I'm just saying I don't think Droid referring to a line of phones was exclusive to Motorola.)

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:30pm

    It was a really cool, hip product.
    It was the bee's knees. All the hep cats dug it. 23 skidoo!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:37pm

    "Mr. Murdoch said: “From its launch, The Daily was a bold experiment in digital publishing and an amazing vehicle for innovation. Unfortunately, our experience was that we could not find a large enough audience quickly enough to convince us the business model was sustainable in the long-term...""

    Yeah, it took them about two years to realize it wasn't catching...their online paper was totally useless after being purchased and was generally just bunk and hogs-wallow .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 7:32am

      Re:

      "their online paper was totally useless after being purchased and was generally just bunk and hogs-wallow"

      So... just like all their other "news" papers?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ImTheRhino (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:46pm

    "I think this is nothing more than bad timing" And this is what is wrong with organisations like this. They have no clue as to how the internet works, and until they do they will continue to loose ridiculous amounts of money, all they while complaining about how more regulation is needed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 8:50pm

    Shout out to Alana in the Insider Chat...whose nerve hasn't out_of_the_blue ever hit?

    Mike, great article and I apologize to everyone if I've seemed fanatical or over abrasive towards. Been kind of weird lately due to the weather where I live....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 9:09pm

    Of course an ipad only publication would do bad. You've eliminated anyone that doesn't care for ipad which is quite a sizeable market you've eliminated right off the bat for no apparent reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    F!, Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 11:11pm

    too bad

    "the site was losing $30 million a year."

    It's a shame Murdoch didn't keep it open a little longer...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Dec 3rd, 2012 @ 11:54pm

    Mr. Mansick, if you must know there are two things effecting mentally at this moment (if you saw my story submission my kind sir, you'll understand a bit better). I'm flipping out at the +30F departure...and I'm still slightly recovering from a ban (I can't handle them because I end up feeling stifled and angry) from ArsTechnica over a matter of my rights to express my thoughts (meaning my thoughts were not crazy or out of place as OOTB's are and were absolutely correct) and got abused for said thoughts from the moderation system there, which as it turns out that unlike here, is totally automated (thank God). So please understand that I'm not crazy, I'm usually mostly even keeled, and as of late, I'm a tad unhinged.

    The reason for my initially ban (which would have ended on December 3rd) was for simply, kindly, in a non trolling fashion informed someone of the facts (I mean simply reminding people of honest to God facts on a subject matter pertaining to the article) and was falsely moderated.

    I have no beef with Ars staff or writers, but it's a bad moderation system that drives me insane.

    I do not mean to scare people off and I will cool down in a few days.

    Thank you for your kindness and patients with me thus far,
    Wally

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 2:38am

      Re:

      Who cares?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 4:30am

      Re:

      Like a dog with a bone, huh? You got banned. Maybe it's just me, but it's not the end of the world. And oddly enough, I visit Ars regularly. I have seen some insane trolls on there in a variety of articles, some people who have been extremely racist and homophobic, etc. And they are still there. Now, I'm not questioning or doubting you were banned (since you've only been going on and on about it for like a week now), but I am wondering whether you ONLY did what you say you did.

      I don't know. Nor do I really care to be honest. But hearing you harp on, and with this comment basically go, "Everyone. Everyone. Stop everything. I was banned from Ars. And the weather changed. I AM HAVING A BAD GO OF IT LATELY! That is all." I don't know. The words "attention whore" come to mind. Your comment is as off topic and irrelevant to the article as you can get without pulling an AJ, bob or OotB.

      Save your issues/hang-ups for the appropriate time and place. And if that's an issue/hang-up, well, by gosh... let's all drop everything to hear about it. First world problems and all. At least this time you managed to state your whatnot in an Apple related article, eh? I guess that's a plus.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 7:10am

        Re: Re:

        First of all, you're an insensitive asshole. Hands down. You need to learn to stop and read before judging any of my comments.

        Second. I don't know if you noticed, but this article is involved with an App that Murdoch put on iTunes...as you know is an Apple product along with the iPad...and the article is about how it failed due to lack of interest in such paywalls then and now.

        I wasn't crying for attention and I'm not fanatical. You're being an asshole for missing that and pointing out the nitty gritty of things.

        Also, if you are referring to the article on Ars for which I was banned for saying "Don't worry, Samsung's execs won't see [the HTC/Apple agreement] it because it's lawyer's eyes only", not pertaining to Apple at all...look at the freaking title of it.

        You just need to step off a bit and let me be me. I'm not Another Joe or OOTB, nor have I been known to act like them. You're not a user here so I don't expect you to realize that right away.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 9:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "First of all, you're an insensitive asshole. Hands down. You need to learn to stop and read before judging any of my comments."

          I'm not judging, merely pointing out how you seem to constantly bring up things that are beyond off topic. Your comment had nothing to do with the article but was you going on about Ars. YET AGAIN.

          "Second. I don't know if you noticed, but this article is involved with an App that Murdoch put on iTunes...as you know is an Apple product along with the iPad...and the article is about how it failed due to lack of interest in such paywalls then and now."

          Irrelevant to the comment I made.

          "I wasn't crying for attention and I'm not fanatical. You're being an asshole for missing that and pointing out the nitty gritty of things."

          You actually are fanatical, about Apple at least. But again, my comment was in regards to you making a complete off topic comment about Ars and about your issues at the moment. There's a time and place for that kind of thing. This isn't it. Your post is essentially a cry for attention. Nor am I an asshole for pointing out any of this. You're more of an asshole for drawing attention to yourself and then getting riled up when someone says, "Time and place dude, this ain't it."

          "Also, if you are referring to the article on Ars for which I was banned for saying "Don't worry, Samsung's execs won't see [the HTC/Apple agreement] it because it's lawyer's eyes only", not pertaining to Apple at all...look at the freaking title of it."

          Again, irrelevant. I don't care. Nor does anyone else. This articles [points up] isn't about that. As for your Ars issues, like I said, there is way worse going on there and it isn't being banned. That you got banned SUPPOSEDLY for just saying what you CLAIM to have said seriously makes me wonder. I for one am not going to just take your word for it.

          "You just need to step off a bit and let me be me. I'm not Another Joe or OOTB, nor have I been known to act like them. You're not a user here so I don't expect you to realize that right away."

          Or you can, you know have your emotional issues elsewhere with friends/family or with trained professionals. An open forum is not the place for it, if you don't like how I responded tough. There's avenues for you to speak your mind and air your hangups, this isn't one of them. You need to man up and learn to not have such thin skin. That or learn that if you're going to share your hangups WITH NO ONE WHOSE ASKING FOR YOU TO DO THAT, people will respond and not always kindly. Don't like it, don't share.

          Also, I am a user here. A regular one. I just go by the AC moniker. Being registered doesn't make you any more special.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 7:14am

        Re: Re:

        "Save your issues/hang-ups for the appropriate time and place. And if that's an issue/hang-up, well, by gosh... let's all drop everything to hear about it. First world problems and all. At least this time you managed to state your whatnot in an Apple related article, eh? I guess that's a plus."

        I would take that entire statement into consideration that you said until the above paragraph. You don't know me, you haven't been here long enough to see when I comment at my best. Just stop making comments like the one above and you won't be considered an asshole.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 8:13am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Go back to Ars. Oh, you can't post there? Too bad. Your posts here cause some of us to put you in the same category as OutofMyAssAverageJoeBob, do not read. Same effect.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 8:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wally, he's right. Your comment was completely off topic. If you want to say something personal to Mike, use the contact link. If you need to get something off your chest, find a friend or a therapist.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mega1987 (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 12:55am

    Now... we shall award News Corps with a golden pail... with the word EPIC carved into it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:29am

    The sooner Newscorp and their various publications die out, the better. They are the reason that the UK is considering regulation of the press. If their newspaper had not engaged in illegal activity there would have been no need for inquiries and we would not be talking about loss of freedom of the press. So, let's not blame Leveson, let's not even blame the politicians who called for the inquiry. Let's lay the blame where it belongs - Murdoch, News Corp and the News of the World/The Sun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    nospacesorspecialcharacters (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 1:34am

    iPad only, Paywalled...

    "Unfortunately, our experience was that we could not find a large enough audience..."


    There's a link there, I just know it! If I could just put my finger on it...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 4:11am

      Re:

      There's a link there, I just know it! If I could just put my finger on it...
      I've got it! It must be those nasty piraty pirates pirating all our readers! Quick! Buy some more laws and have them hanged, bedamn!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 2:09am

    too little, too late! shame they dont see sense over one or two more of it's practices!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 5:19am

    Before it even launched, we explained why this was a bad idea that missed the point. We also highlighted Rupert Murdoch/News Corps' long list of failed internet projects

    That's right. We're so smart and perfect that we can just focus in on any company in the world and we instantly know everything that's going on, balancing thousands of nuances and gaining thousands of insights that mere mortals cannot discern. We are perfect beings of light, and the only way we can shed our perfect light is to point out how everyone else on the planet is doing it wrong. We knew this would fail when they did not because we are so smart and perfect. If they had come to us--and only us--they might have been saved. But sadly, the whole world doesn't listen to us, even though we sit on our bully pulpit and prognosticate all that the world is doing wrong. Just don't mention what we are doing wrong though. Don't you dare fucking go there.

    I'd say it was much more of a bad model -- both business model and delivery model -- than "bad timing."

    Nobody understands everyone else's business models better than us. "I told you so." "I told you so." "I told you so." We know everything about business models. Our models are so awesome and so great that all of the books in our own book club use them--um, well, maybe one day more than a handful will anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2012 @ 7:52am

    "Apparently the site was losing $30 million a year."

    How in the world ?!?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 4th, 2012 @ 10:07am

    Paywalls

    Perhaps this should stand as a response to the people who insist that giving away newspaper content free online was "the original sin" of the industry and they should have focused on paywalls.

    NPR had an interview just the other day with a journalist who said exactly that. IIRC it was on Talk of the Nation, with the hook being Clark Kent leaving The Daily Planet. She made the two classic claims when defending newspapers: 1. there are no watchdogs without newspapers* and 2. newspapers never should have given away news for free online.

    * she said "newspapers" not "journalists"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Graham J (profile), Dec 7th, 2012 @ 4:32pm

    The iPad was a good call, it's by far the best and most popular tablet. The problem is that so much news can be had for free, so why pay for it? Apps like Flipboard and Pulse launched while thy were trying to convince people to pay. Oops.

    Mike you'd look a lot more like a real journalist if you left your anti-Apple bias out of your writing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Dec 7th, 2012 @ 7:49pm

      Re:

      Mike you'd look a lot more like a real journalist if you left your anti-Apple bias out of your writing.

      lolwut? This wasn't anti-Apple, it was anti-stupid. He would have written the same thing if it had been Android only, or Windows Phone only. It would have been only slightly less stupid if it had been on all three platforms.

      Also, Mike isn't a journalist and doesn't claim to be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Dec 8th, 2012 @ 5:30am

      Re:

      "The iPad was a good call"

      Initially it was.

      "it's by far the best and most popular tablet."

      IIRC, Android devices are currently outselling it, and there's a huge potential market out there that would potentially subscribe to The Daily, but are either unwilling to buy an Apple product, or who can't afford to pay nearly double for it compared to an Android device or a Kindle Fire. One of NewsCorp's major problems is their unwillingness to adapt to a constantly evolving marketplace, and this "paper" provides a few good examples why.

      Sure, there may have been some contract issues that made creating an app on other platforms uneconomical or impossible, but entering such a contract in a marketplace that hasn't yet fully matured just proves further short-sightedness.

      "Mike you'd look a lot more like a real journalist if you left your anti-Apple bias out of your writing."

      He's a journalist?

      I don't perceive any bias, beyond the fact that Apple are currently one of the major abusers of patent law and there are questions about the walled garden approach the company has to its mobile products. Mind citing anything I've missed? I'm sure I can find a few pro-Apple stories if I look for you as well.

      Oh, and in case you're going to start attacking me, I personally own an iPhone, a Mac Mini and am currently typing this on a MacBook Pro, so no anti-Apple bias here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This