Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?

By | February 2, 2011, 8:09am PST

News Corp. has launched its iPad newspaper dubbed the Daily and the effort will be closely watched. The Daily is either the rebirth of the newspaper or another overfunded launch like Conde Nast Portfolio.

Screenshots: The Daily launch

Of course, the Daily could turn out to be something in between. The big point here is that the fate of the Daily will be determined in months and years from now. In fact, the subscriptions will tell the tale over time. One day of hype doesn’t make a new paradigm for traditional media.

Add it up and we have no idea whether the Daily is the moment for traditional media or just another effort fumbling toward mobile app ecstasy.

As I noted in my Kindle Single, 2011 is the year of media subscriptions. The rub is we don’t know whether consumers will go along for the ride. It’s quite possible that 2011 will merely be the year of trying to do media subscriptions. Simply put, the New York Times pay wall and the Daily will be closely watched efforts.

Stifel Nicolaus analyst Jordan Rohan, who has been watching this space for a long time, outlined the ledger for News Corp.’s Daily, Rupert Murdoch’s pet project. Here’s the breakdown.

Pros:

  • News Corp. has the resources to differentiate the Daily. If News Corp. can meld newspaper, cable, studio and Internet assets the Daily could sing. Indeed, the presentation outlining the Daily was heavy on the video.
  • Apple is a great ally. Apple’s support for subscriptions in iTunes is quite the enabler.
  • News Corp. is playing offense, which is a good thing.
  • Subscribing to a daily publication makes more sense on the iPad and 99 cents a week—$39.99 for a year—won’t break the bank.

Cons:

  • It’s going to take time for consumers to accept an iPad newspaper. Sure, early adopters will check it out. Then what?
  • Early hype doesn’t turn into market share, revenue or cash flow instantly.
  • Apple is controlling. Rest assured that News Corp. and Apple will clash down the road over apps and subscriptions. That fact could chill the market for other iPad publishers.
  • Ads will matter. Subscriptions alone won’t support the Daily alone, but will carry the day initially. What will the ad picture look like and how will the details be handled with News Corp. and Apple?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

75
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?
upinson 11th Oct
@matthew_maurice Pulauweb Web Hosting Murah Indonesia
Blogger Nusantara Blogpreneur Indonesia
0 Votes
+ -
Months, maybe-but not years.
matthew_maurice 2nd Feb 2011
I'm not sure any product has "years" to prove itself anymore. With Quarterly results numbers becoming events in themselves and senior management under intense pressure to provide constant growth, I don't think anyone is willing to give anything more than a few months to show success.

The Xbox is an excellent example of what most companies are unwilling to do. Over the course of development Microsoft poured billions of dollars into the project, with nothing but losses to show for years. Now it's generating some returns, but nothing compared to its costs. Analysts look at the "time value" of that money, and they realize that Microsoft would have been better off putting the money in Treasury notes, or some other cash equivalent, and generated more income. That's one of the reasons that despite making tons of money Microsoft stock has been essentially flat for five years.
@matthew_maurice Pulauweb Web Hosting Murah Indonesia
Blogger Nusantara Blogpreneur Indonesia
0 Votes
+ -
There is a wealth of news available today on the internet. This might be where The Daily faces real competition. If there is a news story in, say, Hong Kong we are interested in we can go to a local paper's site. If we don't know the link there is Google or thepaperboy.com to provide links.

That's huge competition.

On the positive side, iPad customers are not necessarily the tightest of folks, money wise. There will be a willingness to give The Daily a chance and, if they like what they see, will generally pay out 99? a week.

As for Apple, I believe that they will generate decent revenues from the in-app subscription model.

And the work done on The Daily will provide good examples for the competitive platforms.

Overall it's a winner - but a slow one.
0 Votes
+ -
The Daily
michael@... 2nd Feb 2011
I live in a small college town that just had a serious crime, something really out of the norm. The younger set 25 and below, went to Facebook and Twitter to find out what was going on - i.e. The local TV news interview a large number of this younger set and all said the same thing, that the "social media sites" were where they all went to get the news on this crime and these sites is where they ALWAYS GO for there news. Could be a problem for The Daily and Apple
0 Votes
+ -
@michael@...

They went to social media sites?

Sounds like a failure for the younger set. "Big event happened? I'm going to go to the least reliable possible source of data where the good information is going to be buried under volumes of speculation, invention, and lies."
0 Votes
+ -
@michael@... is this college town in Egypt, by any chance?
0 Votes
+ -
@Ken_z You are overlooking the fact that Apple have a billion app downloads, may 50% of the apps do what any moron with a browser can do if they are even slightly clued up. Lots of people will choose it because of the colours.
0 Votes
+ -
@Ken_z
I cannot agree.
While this may be the first periodical, unless I can get a subscription at a reduced price there is no way I will buy into this.
Expensive foolishness.
sad
0 Votes
+ -
@zenwalker
Just viewed two days worth of "The Daily".

IMO, the content is worth 40 dollars a year. One gets what one pays for.

The first two weeks are free. After that, its time to subscribe.

I respect your opinion, Zenwalker, but experience trumps opinion in this case.
0 Votes
+ -
Aren't we overlooking the fact that it's owned by News Corp.?
0 Votes
+ -
@hoaxoner

Indeed... That fact alone killed it for me. A newspaper should contain, ya'know, like, actual NEWS. News Corp. doesn't DO actual news.
0 Votes
+ -
@anthonyb@...
So the WSJ is not real news?

The WSJ is owned by News Corp. WSJ Online has 400,000 paying subscribers.
0 Votes
+ -
@Mark@...

The WSJ has valuable business information not found many other places. That's why the pay wall works for WSJ and, in fact, that's mostly what they wall off.

The political news - stuff you can find everywhere - is not walled off.

The Daily is going to have to have a lot of unique content if it's going to fly.



happy
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?
hoaxoner Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
@Mark
The Wall Street Journal was a publication long before Murdoch got a hold of it. Essentially, he kept everything the same except for the op-ed area, which as we are all aware is insane.

In fact, Murdoch bought Dow Jones in 2007, not that long ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#News_Corp._purchase
0 Votes
+ -
@Mark@...

No, WSJ isn't real news. It is anti-science, anti-regulation, and anti-reality. When Murdoch boght the paper, he promised to keep his views to the opinion page. That lasted until he replaced the editors with a bunch of hacks that select storied based on pushing a right-wing agenda. Yes, the still have good infographics and some topical news, but taken as a whole, its just as much a propaganda channel as Fox News or that business channel that a couple of dozen people watch.
0 Votes
+ -
@hoaxoner I'd take News Corp. any way of the week over NBC Universal or just about any other corporation offering news today. The one exception would be the BBC.
0 Votes
+ -
@Tiggster I have to say I think BBC is the only news organization that I would pay for a subscription to- if it ever came to that.
0 Votes
+ -
@Tiggster which is why NewsCorp devotes so much space to any story that's even remotely anti-BBC. In the UK, Murdoch owns just 40% of "Sky" (satellite is commoner here than cable) and wants to buy the other 60%. If he succeeds, he plans to close down Sky's (rather good, and very BBC-like) News channel, and replace it with a clone of Fox News. One has to hope that his purchase WILL be blocked.
0 Votes
+ -
That's a simple-minded view...
adornoe@... Updated - 3rd Feb 2011
Look, if you can't tell news from views, then you forgot to take common sense lessons when you were growing up.

No matter what the source for news or information, there will always be some form of bias embedded within the contents, some of those views being very subtle and some of those views meeting your preferences.

But, what, pray tell, is a source that you find "unbiased"?

From what I've heard from you before, everything is biased if it doesn't meet with your far-left agenda.
0 Votes
+ -
@hoaxoner
Well, not overlooked here. But, clearly, you do not want to hear both sides of current events.

That this is coming from News Corp is a huge positive in that I expect to see views that I both agree with and that I'd like thrown in the bit-bucket. That's why I also pay for:
* Paper copies of the Wall Street Journal
* WSJ.Com

If News Corp will become as broad based as their news is, and reject the same exclusivity that Apple exhibited with the iPhone, I'll send my first year's payment on the spot. But, I guess I look at Apple the same way you appear to look at News Corp. Too controlling; too restrictive; too one-view oriented.

I know I'm wishing on a star, but since it appears that 'The Daily' is already somewhat hooked into VZW instead of AT&T, I'm half-way there. Now I want to see an implementation on whatever 'WebOS pad' comes out from HP/Palm on 09-Feb.
0 Votes
+ -
If the Daily ...
P. Douglas Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
... comes to other tablet platforms, has a highly differentiated user experience from the web, and has a reasonable amount of exclusive content, I believe it will do well.

One thing I believe publishers should generally do, is allow users to archive their article files to folders on private or public clouds. This would allow users to go back and read articles with their reader software, if their subscriptions expire. In fact I believe that consumer groups should press Congress, to ensure that this takes place. One other thing I believe consumer groups should do, is press Congress to make it illegal for IP rights holders, to implement IP terms of use (generally implemented via DRM) that run counter to consumers' fair use rights. Also Congress should never allow terms of use to be changed after purchase, unless the consumer agrees to it.
0 Votes
+ -
Video demo of app
P. Douglas Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
Here is a demo of the app. I believe though that the app should be able to switch between daily and real time update modes.
0 Votes
+ -
@P. Douglas WOW, you really like big government don't you? I think Congress has more important things to do than what you suggest!
0 Votes
+ -
@TomDavisSr Congress is already busy doing the opposite of what P.Douglas is suggesting. It's not that Congress is not involved, just that it should do what is good for consumers not what the media industry are lobbying (paying) for.
0 Votes
+ -
Why pay for news? I can set up an RSS feed reader on any news site I want right now for free, AND not have to deal with News Corp's crap.

Win/win/win!
0 Votes
+ -
@Droid101

I know, right? By making News Corp's content pay-only I no longer have to be subjected to it during online searches! I love this idea Rupert!
0 Votes
+ -
I am open to fee based I publishing provided the content is unique and quality. I will not do anything that improves Newscorps finances or perceived standing however. Definately prejudiced when it comes to these folks.
down dissent.
@frgough

I hope you can show your Mother Jones subscription because unless you contribute to their finances you're in favor of shutting down dissent, too. Just using your logic.



happy
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?
Churlish Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
none none --

Refusing to subscribe to or financially support publications one disagrees with is NOT synonymous with "shutting down dissent." It's merely voting with one's dollar .... something's that's actually encouraged in a free market.

I hope you were joking. If not, then WOW, you're clueless.

If you're taking a swipe at frgough's comment, consider the following thought experiment.

Ask a thousand liberals: "If you could abolish Fox News, would you?" Then ask a thousand conservatives: "If you could abolish MSNBC, would you?"

Any free-market conservative answering Yes to the latter question is a hypocrite. I suspect that the number of liberals in favor of banning Fox News would be much higher. Despite their rhetoric, most contemporary liberals are not tolerant (in the literal sense) at all.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?
none none Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
@Churlish

Reading is fundamental.

OP: "I will not do anything that improves Newscorps finances or perceived standing however. "

NP: "No surprises, there. Leftists are always in favor of shutting down dissent."

YOU: "Refusing to subscribe to or financially support publications one disagrees with is NOT synonymous with 'shutting down dissent.' ... If you're taking a swipe at frgough's comment, consider the following thought experiment."

I WAS taking a swipe at frgough's comment! He equated "Refusing to subscribe to or financially support publications" with "shutting down dissent." I guess you didn't see that.

As for your thought experiment, I'd like to see one. Do you have one?

Your conclusions are just a reflection of what you, yourself, bring to it.

Personally, I would not shut down Fox News or MSNBC. The more voices the better. In fact, I've written my cable company to request they carry Al-Jazeera English. Ask your thousand conservatives what they think about that.

Now, there are data out there on tv viewing that show Fox viewers are more likely to believe stuff that's not true.




happy
being nonsensical.

Look, I'm a conservative, and I'm one of the biggest proponents of free speech and free press. I'm one who would never even think or suggest that the far-left news sources be shut down or censored. Oftentimes, those left-leaning "news" sources are the biggest allies of the conservatives when all we have to do is to point at the radical views and biases demonstrated on just about every article or piece of information that comes from them. In fact, I and some of my friends often tuned in to Olbermann, when he was still on the air, to use as ammunition against the left. Oftentimes, the left is the biggest proof of their own wackiness and radical ideology.

You, on the other hand, would never visit FOX news or any source which you deem "right-wing", even if you want to say or imply that you do visit them.

I wouldn't be able to do battle against the left-wing radical ideas if I wasn't informed enough about what they're up to, and the best way I know how to stay in touch about their wackiness, is to actually visit them. And, hey, I know first-hand what the radical left-wing is up to after having been one of them myself, but I still need to keep up.

So, why don't you do the same. You might actually learn something that you have been willingly blind to.
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe@...

In fact, I and some of my friends often tuned in to Olbermann, when he was still on the air, to use as ammunition against the left.

It must be nice to have a lot of free time, where you can take a break from watching your side's blowhards to see what the other side's blowhards are saying. Tell me about this Olbermann fellow. I've never watched his show.


You, on the other hand, would never visit FOX news or any source which you deem "right-wing", even if you want to say or imply that you do visit them.

And I don't visit MSNBC or any source that I deem "left-wing" either. I like my news straight. That's why I get a balanced view of the fight between Fox and MSNBC, and the *cough* witless ideologues *cough* who follow their respective ideological talkers.


I wouldn't be able to do battle against the left-wing radical ideas if I wasn't informed enough about what they're up to...

Like I said, it must be nice to have so much time on your hands. I happen to only have enough time to battle the 9-to-5, have dinner with my family and get my kids homework done, their teeth brushed and tucked into bed before finding out what kinds of trouble the radicals on the left and the right are up to today.

If only they didn't have so much free time...





happy
and then you go and make nonsensical statements regarding the issues of the day?

It must be nice to have a lot of free time,

If one is going to try to make informed comments, then one needs to hear from all different points of view? Apparently, you either can't find the time or you can't be bothered to get informed.

where you can take a break from watching your side's blowhards to see what the other side's blowhards are sayin

When you start out with that attitude, then your arguments aren't even worth making or even responding to.

Tell me about this Olbermann fellow. I've never watched his show.

Apparently, you never watched Olbermann or anybody. How do you even pretend to know anything about anything?

And I don't visit MSNBC or any source that I deem "left-wing" either.

If you don't watch or listen to news from any sources, then you are willingly blind and ignorant.

I like my news straight.

Would you mind telling us where you can find that fantasy?

That's why I get a balanced view of the fight between Fox and MSNBC, and the *cough* witless ideologues *cough* who follow their respective ideological talkers.

You don't watch FOX or MSNBC, and you probably don't even bother with any other news source, so it sounds like you prefer to remain ignorant. Ignorance is not biased or partisan, so, in that sense, you might be right, your views, ignorant as they might be, are devoid of politics or biases.

Like I said, it must be nice to have so much time on your hands.

To be an informed citizen, you don't have to spend all day watching or listening to the news. It's quite obvious from your posts that, you aren't really informed about the issues or the facts of the everyday world. So, you might be better off sticking to hardware/software issues. So, why even bother to make any type of political comments anywhere?

I happen to only have enough time to battle the 9-to-5, have dinner with my family and get my kids homework done, their teeth brushed and tucked into bed before finding out what kinds of trouble the radicals on the left and the right are up to today.

Family is okay, but, knowledge is also important, especially the knowledge to make informed decisions. But, from what you stated before, you can't be bothered or you don't have the time, so how is it that you could find out anything about the "radicals on the left and on the right"? If you don't have the time or the will to watch or listen to them, then you can't really make any kind of informed comments regarding what those "leftists" or "rightists" had to say, can you? Apparently, you don't have the time to make logically coherent statements either.

Bottom line is that, if you don't have the time to get informed, then you shouldn't be attempting to comment on the issues, no matter what it is or who is involved.
0 Votes
+ -
Whatever
FADS_z 2nd Feb 2011
How many people will read news anyway.
Better getting CNN on it, and declare it is a killer...
0 Votes
+ -
CNN?
People 2nd Feb 2011
@FADS_z - And thier 5 viewers?
0 Votes
+ -
FADS_z --

Written news, whether online or in print, can almost always cover a story in greater detail and depth than televised news. To answer your question, then, anyone who wishes to truly UNDERSTAND news (rather than just absorb sound bites) reads the news in addition to watching it.
0 Votes
+ -
@FADS_z
People should READ news, but not from a single closed device using software only for it.
0 Votes
+ -
All depends
Spoiled Pork Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
on the content, if they can provide content that I can't easily find any and everywhere else, then I would gladly pay for this service.

Since this is Newscorp. I actually think they may have a chance, they are known for providing content that no one else does, like it or not, it was not CNN that informed the world that Obama had a self proclaimed communist working in the White House, it was the folks at Newscorp (BECK).

As much as you may not want to hear such news, the success of NewsCorp has proved that MANY people do.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?
hoaxoner Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
@Spoiled Pork
Fair point, or as Scott Adams said, "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general [American] public."
0 Votes
+ -
Typical lib
People 2nd Feb 2011
@hoaxoner - resorting to name calling.
0 Votes
+ -
@hoaxoner

Im not sure its all that stupid to desire valuable information that is not easily available to you. The example I gave for instance is legitimate news, that SHOULD have been reported to the American people.

Who is more stupid, the American who seeks out information important to his nation, or the American who wishes to be assisted in keeping his head buried in the sand on information that is important to him and his Nation, but may conflict with his political party of choice?

No matter how stupid you think Americans are, keeping yourself or them ignorant won't change this; and Im sure you would have wanted to know if W. had a self proclaimed Nazi in his newly picked cabinet back in 2001, if not, then maybe you are one of those stupid Americans you like to talk about.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Is News Corp.'s iPad Daily a killer app?
none none Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
@People

Typical lib - resorting to name calling.

"Tiller the Baby Killer!!"
"Tiller the Baby Killer!!"
"Tiller the Baby Killer!!"

--Fox News

Is that lib enough for you?




happy
0 Votes
+ -
@hoaxoner

The example I gave for instance is legitimate news, that SHOULD have been reported to the American people.

Nonsense. That was pure distraction. Like the ground zero mosque. Remember that brouhaha? It was all they were talking about until the election. And after that? Crickets.

As far as I know, those plans are going ahead. Why isn't it newsworthy now? Answer: It wasn't newsworthy then, either, but was convenient for getting righties all riled up about a distraction before an election.



happy
0 Votes
+ -
@none none Isn't that what Tiller was??
which you claim to be stupid.

But, the fact is that, it's supposed to be the people who decide in a free society, and the majority of cable news consumers have chosen FOX news as their "provider".

They've decide to become informed through a source that they deem to actually be more "fair" and more "balanced" than the rest. You, on the other hand, prefer to remain clueless to the actual facts and prefer to get your news tainted by the bias represented in your preferred "news" sources.

Look, you're not fooling anyone. You're just angry that most people don't agree with your wackiness and far left-wing ideology. Get into the real world.
0 Votes
+ -
and notice that I said "news".

I'll bet you don't know the difference between news and opinion/commentary.

But, from my point of view, anyone that is "alive" and is "aborted", is someone who has been "killed", no matter how anyone wants to spin it or rationalize it or justify it.
news, and so is/was reporting on the ground-zero Mosque.

Did FOX manufacture the story regarding the mosque, or was it just reporting on the events surrounding the construction, and about how "insensitive" it was to the victims and surviving family and friends of the dead? Don't YOU yourself believe that it was a story worth reporting? If you don't believe it was worth covering, then you obviously sided with those who didn't care about how insensitive it was to the victims and families, and if that's the case, you are a very sorry excuse for a human being.

Also, reporting on a communist in the White House is a very big story, even if the leftists who could identify with him wanted to protect him by not reporting the story. That is where the liberal press failed the American people, not reporting on a major story with major repercussions to our lives.

You are the type that would prefer to keep the American people in the dark about what government is up to, especially if what the government is up to is potentially harmful to the country.

You, no doubt, would've been very happy in the old Soviet Union, with it's contempt for freedom of the press and the rights of the people.
@adornoe@...

But, the fact is that, it's supposed to be the people who decide in a free society, and the majority of cable news consumers have chosen FOX news as their "provider".

People who watch Fox News' most popular show: ~4 million.

People who voted in the 2008 presidential election: ~132 million.

You're ignoring the fact that the set of "cable news consumers" is vanishingly small. Let's get a little perspective here.

It's a good thing cable news consumers are a tiny minority because they are bone-heads.




happy
0 Votes
+ -
none none: Not analytical at all, are you?
adornoe@... Updated - 4th Feb 2011
People who watch Fox News' most popular show: ~4 million.

That's an asinine and simplistic way to judge the impact of a 24 hour cable news channel.

One news program is not the whole schedule. There are 24 hours during the day, and, the audience for a one hour news show is not necessarily the same audience for the next show or the one after that... etc.

So, the audience for the whole set of programming in FOX could turn out to be somewhere between 12 and 16 million unique viewers, and probably more. That's more than any other news organization, including ABC or NBC or CBS. Then, you have to consider that FOX also has a business news network and many other news properties, including local newspapers like the NY Post, and national/international newspapers, like the Wall Street Journal.

So, the total impact of FOX and NewsCorp could be into the many many millions, and way more than any other news organization.

People who voted in the 2008 presidential election: ~132 million.

People who voted in the 2008 presidential election, ignorantly: greater than 1/2 of the 132 million.

You're ignoring the fact that the set of "cable news consumers" is vanishingly small.

Wrong!!!!

The fact is that more and more people get their news from cable news channels than from the broadcast news programs from ABC, CBS and NBC. And with those cable news channels reporting 24 hours per day, the number of people impacted is much greater than anytime in history.

Let's get a little perspective here.

You're the one with the wrong perspective and the badly flawed analysis.

Simple-minded thinking is what gets most liberals in trouble. They can't extrapolate, and they can't figure out the consequences for their actions and policies.

It's a good thing cable news consumers are a tiny minority because they are bone-heads.

Actually, the bone-head is the one that thinks he knows more than those that do bother to get informed. And, no doubt about it, the people who do watch cable news, especially FOX news, are much better informed than you, and they're much better prepared to comment on the issues, and to make better decisions, including voting.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix