What the iPad can do…
At last Apple announced its much anticipated tablet computer, the iPad… And let me start this post by saying I think it’s quite a disappointment… It is for the most part a large size iPhone. Nothing revolutionary…
But it is still a nice device at a decent price and it carries the Apple logo. I wouldn’t bet against how well it will sell and lead to more choices of tablet computers in the market.
However, let’s not focus on its limitations. What’s significant about the iPad is that it will be the beginning of a big change in how we consume the various formats of media. (Actually Amazon’s Kindle has already started the process by getting more and more people to read books on an e-reader.) Think about how much space in our homes that we have devoted to shelving and storing books, CD’s, video types or DVD cases right now. That’s about to change. And think about all the tress that can be saved when newspapers and magazines no longer exist.
Even more interesting to me is that I think there will be a convergence of the different media formats. I think what this will do is, instead of saving the print media, actually killing them. I don’t mean the companies that produce printed content today will all die. But rather… it means they will be forced to produce the same content but in a mix of formats and deliver it in a different manner.
Think about it… On the iPad when you read the New York Times via their iPad app, you will read articles (text) but you will also see video content as well. Not to mention all the “social” features that can be built into such an app. Sooner or later, the New York Times won’t be your good ol’ print media company. No one will be.
A device like the iPad allows us to demand media content to be interactive, social and mobile. It will not be like what it used to be!
I’m excited about it. I already read news on the Internet and don’t watch TV much. I think the media industry will continue to be re-shaped by the emergence of new technologies. It means a lot of opportunities will come of this evolution!
We should stop expecting things to be free
The New York Times announced yesterday that it would start a “metered” system that would charge readers of its NYTimes.com website a fee to read articles after a set number of articles have been read. You can read the press release here. Given the state of the newspaper industry and the status of the New York Times being one of the more respected newspapers in the US, this has generated a lot of buzz online. You can read about some of the reader feedback here.
As someone who reads stuff on NYTimes.com everyday for the last 12 years or so, this obviously affects me directly as I would like to continue reading this fine newspaper. My response to their decision to charge for content that is currently free is this:
I will gladly pay for a subscription, provided that 1) it is at a reasonable price and 2) it means less advertising on the site.
I want to emphasize the “gladly” part of my previous statement — yes, I’d gladly pay money to continue reading the Times online. To be perfectly honest, I don’t agree with people who think it needs to remain free. The New York Times is obviously a business and is out to make money. If the advertising revenues can’t support its operation completely, it’s gotta do what it’s gotta do. But why should anyone jump up and down and scream, “No this is evil. It needs to stay free!”
Take something else people often get for free — music. I know when I wanna get a song, I go to Baidu MP3 and find the song online to download for free. Quite frankly, I would be willing to pay for that, too, even though in reality I don’t right now. Here’s the problem… The music industry can’t make enough money from CD sales but that doesn’t mean that music is not something people will pay to enjoy. It simply means the business model should change and they need to provide either different products or a different experience/method for us to consume its products.
When something is reasonably priced and provides you the value you expect it to deliver, people ought to pay. And in fact that’s what we do with most of the things we want or need. Just think of the lunch you had today. You paid, didn’t you?
So why is there a sense of entitlement with this particular case?
I guess for one thing people have been spoiled. In the case of the NYTimes.com, it is free right now so of course some people have a hard time changing their mindset. And it’s not just online news. A lot of content/tools/services we get today online is free. Google certainly doesn’t charge us to search. Heck, Gmail (or Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail, etc etc) is free, too. There is indeed a culture of us enjoying all these great things at no direct cost to us. However, people need to start understanding more the business aspect of the things that we get for free today.
More importantly for the NYTimes.com, though, is that they need to make sure after they start charging, their loyal readers, such as me, feel it’s worthwhile. If they can do that, then it’s only reasonable we accept the costs.