Steve Jobs pitches iPad to NYT execs

[shigzeo]

Not sure I really follow the story perfectly, but evidently, the man showed up to a bigwig Italian dinner wearing a funny hat (honestly). He ordered a wonder-of-the-world-rare plate of penne and then pitched the iPad to the NYT brass. They are having a hard time; their paper along with many physical print companies are losing that green stuff very fast: the market is changing.

I'll not spoil the details by saying that it looks like Jobs is hoping to get subscription or pay-as-you-go up for bit publications like the NYT on the iPad. Bet he just wants that ? mark to disappear next to the NYT.com.

AppleInsider

[NineSwords]

A official subscription support of the NYT would be a hge selling point for the ipad. Especially when you consider that the smaller publicaions will follow in their wake.

[shigzeo]

iPad’s video output – why VGA?

I can see how this would work for business meetings - maybe Jobs had the iPad and an ancient VGA projector there to prove his point. Let's hope so.

[NineSwords]

The iPad would be interesting for those purpose coupled with a WiFi Beamer. I don't know though what is necessary for hooking a iPad up on those. I guess you have to run some app to stream the screen via WiFi to the beamer, but without Multitasking this would be rather pointless.

[shigzeo]

You sound like Star Trek mate... silly.

[NineSwords]

Are you calling me a Trekkie? Choose your next words carefully or I'll Force-choke you.

[shigzeo]

Damn, not really sure how to tread my next steps. Had thought to tether this forum in the abrasive tethers of the rhetoric rope. I think however, I will just ahve to say... you 'are' a Trekkie! No? (puff - disappears to reappear in a Star Trek shoddy plot element as seen in the latest rehash).

Now what was that Nine?

[Nullroar]

I don't understand why all the major publications do not offer themselves up, with advertisements, for free on all systems.

When I saw the WSJ modify free online access to limited-without-subscription, it boggled my mind. The Times already learned this lesson (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780063-7.html).

We will, I think, see a repeat of this for mobile devices.

On the internet, the cost of publishing, ink, etc. is minimized. Subscription revenue covers such a tiny percentage of overhead costs that it is laughable to think that it would be a main driver of profits. Advertising is the lifeblood of the news industry, and advertising revenue is driven by readership size. By cutting off a potential market, they are stabbing themselves where it hurts most - the wallet.

The people who buy the NYT in paper form will continue to buy it in paper form. The growing % of the business market that runs on their Iphones and blackberries will most certainly pick up a *free* subscription.

You cannot cut off a market hoping for "exclusivity" when your profit depends on a large audience.

[shigzeo]

Well said, but I think the publishers haven't caught on yet. Unfortunately, their plans don't hinge on making money, but on losing it. Naturally they are trying the former, but their tactic spells something different to readers. I hope publications like the NYT will get their act together and start services like you mentioned, but... who knows.

[Aeaea]

@Nullroar I think the WSJ may be afraid to give up control. As long as they believe they have valuable and unique content, then they should be able to charge a premium for it. Once it goes free, the perceived value might go to zero and they'll be forced to compete with everyone else offering a similar free service. In other words, they may (wrongly) fear that people will no longer see them as an elite news service. Even so, as the NYT found out, it doesn't make financial sense. Then again, maybe it's just a pride thing?