Ever wonder why people make twitter lists?Is it to categorise the people they follow or to streamline the timeline?
Maybe those clever people who make twitter lists do so because they use apps like Flipboard?
Flipboard allows you to take twitter lists and read them like a magazine.
I was never one for waking up and reading with my breakfast – it just seemed too complicated, but with Flipboard I just open up the app and there’s the days latest news.
Not only does Flipboard display twitter lists, but you can sync with google reader allowing you to catch up with all your favourite RSS feeds, all while enjoying your cornflakes.
With the sharing of news articles on twitter on the rise, this app and others like it can really change how we consume news.
Users have since the dawn of RSS been able to consume many websites from within one application, but this has always been the domain of the geek and RSS has never gained mainstream traction. What makes Flipboard a useful app for me is the ability to read all my favourite sites from within an attractive UI.
Flipboard is available in Apple’s App store for free.
Can the iPad be a consumer and a creator of content?
My iPad is not just a consumer of content it has proven time and time again to be a useful aid for creating content. For example I have installed some photo editing apps, some “office” apps and of course there is email! All of this has cost very little and has really added to the overall experience of the iPad.
If I’m honest, most of my time on the iPad is spent consuming information, either from websites, twitter or news apps and it is here that the device excels.
I have read lots of articles about how Apple’s revolutionary new tablet was going to change the publishing industry forever, but so far all I’ve seen are expensive blunders.
What can the media industry do to convince me to buy their app?
I read The Guardian online and have purchased their iPhone app (which works on the iPad). They charge £3.99 for a 12 month subscription to their content and overall is a worthwhile purchase. However, I still do most of my Guardian reading through RSS and their website. Why? It’s just a better experience. I will continue with the app though because it offers offline reading which is essential if you’re flying!
If I am going to buy your app, you need to offer me something that your website does not.
This is why most of the apps I have installed help me create things, whether it’s a photo edit, a document or an audio recording.
As long as the iPad has an internet browser, its primary function for me will always be to consume content, but it is also really useful as a productivity tool.
Last week something happened to me. I felt so compelled by the content of an article on the Belfast Telegraph website that I registered so I could comment.
The short article explains the ‘appification’ of the Internet and the effect it is having on media companies. Users can now download music, read books and make purchases all through apps and on mobile devices.
However, at no point does the author suggest how apps themselves are going to “Save Professional Journalism”, which as you recall is the headline of the article.
Strange.
Except it is not. You see, media companies are so busy saving their industry that they fail to see that the professions that make their businesses are as strong as ever. Is the quality of music worse now than what it was 20 years ago? What about the quality of fiction? I read more books now than I did as a child, because I use the kindle app. Technology has made this possible and in particular the Internet.
The investiagtive quality of journalism is not in question, nor is the ability of a journalist to report the facts. Quite simply, journalism does not need to be saved. A quick search reveals that professional journalism (we are told) is at death’s door, succombing to an unsustainable business model. The internet opens many doors and the opportunities for a journalist to create and distribute content are almost endless. The trouble, of course, is how do they monetise this content.
Naturally publishers i.e. newspapers should change their business model and charge for access to their content. Except that is a massive risk and is surely doomed to failure.
We are a generation who consume masses of content with little regard to the content owner or the creative mind behind it. We are so disloyal that if we are offered a freebie, we grab it regardless of whether we need it or not. The chances we’ll come back (to the product) are even lower. The only way you can compete is to offer truely interesting content and a service that users can rely on.
Back to apps. I do not see apps saving anything, certainly not ‘news’. You see apps are little silos of data and when you are inside a silo you cannot see what’s going on around you. This is a problem for an internet user. I accept that apps are a major force at the moment and I would suggest (on my own usage) that most iPhone or Android owners have 50 apps on their phone. I only use about 5-10 regularly. For apps to save ‘meda’ the consumer needs to be using their app regularly. The guardian app I reviewed in a previous post is a good example. However, if I was asked to continue to pay a subscription I would have to consider the potential benefits and the competition. Indeed on my Android device I have full access to the Guardian website and no longer have a need for an app.
So I’ve paid for the app, but on a different device (with a better browser) I no longer require the app. Do you see the potential problem in this business model?
The BBC have been given the go ahead to release mobile apps, so what wont they offer (for free) that other paid models will? Again, how do you compete with free?
To jump back to the article, I was shocked by this statement: “Apps present a business model with much greater revenue potential than a website.”
Really? How So? These questions are not answered. I want to know what the author means by an app. Is it specifically iOS apps or mobile apps in general? Is it also desktop applications or even web applications? Why would a company move away from the web to make apps for so many different systems, when one website can serve them all?
If we accept that an app is different to a website (it’s not, they’re both content delivery systems) how can any business expect to make more money from their app than their website? Presumably by errecting a pay wall or removing content.
You can place an ad in an app. Brilliant. You can sell more advertising space on a website than you can on an app. There is nothing that you can do on an app that you cannot do better on a website. Ah, but maybe I’m not getting the point. The author is suggesting that mobile use will become so widespread that overall usage of mobile browsing / apps will overtake desktop browsing. I agree, it most definitely will. However, why do I need an app to view content? I can already view websites on my mobile browser.
Web apps can save the content business by making content available to the same user across multiple browsers and devices. This choice makes the service more compelling to the user (see the kindle app as an example) and ensures the content owner drives traffic to one single source.
This traffic should be enough to generate the revenue required to keep content owners happy. But if it’s not, they can always erect the wall and go the way of the Times. It’s not pretty. Can there be anything worse for a journalist than not being read?
News International have embarked on an interesting project: From June they will charge users to access The Times and Sunday Times websites a small fee to view content.
“Readers will be offered a week’s subscription for £2, or a day’s access for £1, to two new sites, www.thetimes.co.uk and www.sundaytimes.co.uk.
Rupert Murdoch has been saying for a long time that quality news and journalism should not be given away free. He’s right; journalist’s deserve to be paid for their work. What he’s wrong about is who should pay. Does he think that because people currently pay for newspapers that people should expect to pay for online news as well? It’s chalk and cheese. Two completely different products with differing user experiences and demands. When I view a story online I demand pictures, audio and / or video. I’m not interested in just a text article. This has the potential to be the premium offering the industry needs, but instead the industry thinks it needs to cover everything (in less detail) and reduce the amount of resources used on investigative journalism. The end product is neither premium nor what the user demands.
News has been undervalued for a long time; from hourly news on the radio to several dedicated 24 hour news channels consumers can access a variety of news sources for free and at their convenience. How many copies of Metro (a free paper) are handed out each morning? How many free online news sites already exist?
Print cannot compete with that. It’s yesterday’s news, but news papers can compete online. Here it’s a level playing field, except they have the advantage of old media behind them. They have resources, they have experienced journalists, they have sources, they have followers and still they want to charge for access! If I was in charge I would be supporting my news site through dedicated advertising (it can be done just look at internet TV). I would look to consolidate the industry – how many digital editions of the same news do we really need? I’d ask these question:
What is it that my news paper offers that would get users to pay?
Why would I the pay to access old news online?
The question News International should be asking is how we can generate revenue from our existing users? What additional services can we provide that users will pay for?
This saga will continue to run and I’m sure News International will sacrifice some of it’s best known titles as it hunts for the holy grail.
What do you think, will you pay to access The Times?
The Guardian have recently released an iPhone App [iTunes Link] priced at £2.39 and for this small free they are promising to make news available to you on your iPhone for free. What’s more, the App offers off-line viewing, something that really is worth paying for.
So how does this compare to The Guardian’s mobile site?
I have to admit that I was dubious about how good this App could be, given that the mobile site worked very well and The Guardian provide most (if not all) of their stories via RSS, therefore, do we need to spend £2.39. The short answer is YES!
The UI is pretty and uncomplicated, the product does what it’s supposed i.e. serve up news and with off-line reading I can load the paper before I board a flight and read on board.
Pictured below is the home screen which is customisable:
By scrolling to the bottom of the home screen users are presented with photo galleries and the option to read selected columnists:
The App also provides trends and offers a screen dedicated to the most viewed news stories on The Guardian:
One interesting aspect of the App is that it offers the user the opportunity to listen to the latest Guardian podcasts, right within the App:
Sometimes you might just want to browse more sections and you can do that very easily:
Granted there is nothing really new here, everything that is provided I could have read / listened elsewhere, but isn’t that the point? With this App I get it all in one place and The Guardian have made a significant statement: users are prepared to pay to access news. The challenge for the industry is to replicate this and whether charging for the App and offfering free content there after is sustainable. At the time of writing The Guardian App was the highest grossing application in the iTunes Store which would suggest a sizeable proportion of iPhone / iPod Touch owners have purchased the App.
I would recommend this App to anyone.
Here is the official Guardian video to promote the App:
Ever wonder why people make twitter lists?Is it to categorise the people they follow or to streamline the timeline?
