If the topic didn’t have to do with the future of their own industry, I highly doubt journalists would be writing so many damn stories about the future of newspapers (here and here and here for starters). However, being in the industry myself (at least indirectly) I can’t help getting sucked in. Read below another interesting installment in the newspaper industry’s “THE FUTURE OF THE NEWSPAPER” debate (this one from a strictly online news-magazine)
My analysis? I think it’s an interesting assessment, but the premise is flawed. The “answer” to keeping newspapers viable doesn’t lie in one magic device, but rather, making them accessible and reasonably priced (but not free) on a wide variety of devices. I’ll never carry around my “newspaper” device along with my iPhone…I want everything on my iPhone. Currently the NY Times’ application for the iPhone is awful – I can’t get through a lede without the darn thing crashing. The best option I’ve found is NetNewsWire which aggregates my favorites and sends me to Safari to read more. I’d prefer an application that downloaded everything every few hours so I wouldn’t have to wait for the Internet connection. I just bought a book from the App Store and love it. It would be ideal to read the newspaper the same way. But that’s just me…
Posted Monday, Jan. 12, 2009, at 8:24 PM ET
My friend David Carr poses a worthy challenge in his New York Times column this morning: How can newspapers—now hemorrhaging advertisers and circulation—steal a little of that Apple magic and invent an iTunes for news that will help restore their economic standing?
Actually, a flawed iTunes for news already exists: It delivers content through Amazon’s Kindle. The Kindle can download paid subscriptions to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and 12 other dailies via built-in EVDO reception. Newspaper subscriptions run between $5.99 and $13.99 a month.