News Corp. Finally Realizes Locked Up, iPad-Only News Publication Was A Dud, Shuts It Down
from the about-time dept
Back in 2010 there was all sorts of buzz around News Corp. investing a ton of money into a "secret" project to launch an iPad-only paywalled publication called "the Daily." Before it even launched, we explained why this was a bad idea that missed the point. We also highlighted Rupert Murdoch/News Corps' long list of failed internet projects -- with the large majority of them flopping because they were about trying to create "broadcast" style properties online, without recognizing that the internet is more of a communications (many-to-many) medium than a broadcast (one-to-many) medium. And, of course, soon after The Daily launched there was evidence that very few people cared.To be honest, given all the bad press about how few people were reading it, combined with stories of staffers jumping ship soon after it was launched, I had kind of figured that The Daily had already been shut down. However, the latest news is that News Corp. is finally putting it out of its misery and shutting it down, giving most staffers 3 months severance. A few staffers are being folded into the NY Post:
News Corporation also announced that effective immediately, Jesse Angelo, the founding Editor-in-Chief of The Daily and long-time Executive Editor of The New York Post, will assume the role of Publisher of The New York Post. As part of a digital restructuring initiative, the company will cease standalone publication of The Daily iPad app on December 15, 2012, though the brand will live on in other channels. Technology and other assets from The Daily, including some staff, will be folded into The Post.Apparently the site was losing $30 million a year.
Mr. Murdoch said: “From its launch, The Daily was a bold experiment in digital publishing and an amazing vehicle for innovation. Unfortunately, our experience was that we could not find a large enough audience quickly enough to convince us the business model was sustainable in the long-term..."
Perhaps this should stand as a response to the people who insist that giving away newspaper content free online was "the original sin" of the industry and they should have focused on paywalls. Paywalls don't help you build up "a large enough audience." The link above quotes a reporter there saying: "It was a really cool, hip product. I think this is nothing more than bad timing." I'd say it was much more of a bad model -- both business model and delivery model -- than "bad timing."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadcast, communication, failure, paywall, rupert murdoch, shut down, the daily
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just goes to show that the only way to have a successful newspaper is the conventional way.
Now blue can focus on linking to wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
OOTB links to a single article on Wiki that is highly accurate. We are not debating the accuracy, more the pointless linking to the Streisand effect that everyone is unsure why he is doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The best guess I have is that he somehow thinks that being associated with the Streisand Effect by name is a bad thing, and thus is trying to link Techdirt with the article on every page and create a strong link between the two and discredit the site in some way.
Of course, since Mike came up with the term in the first place, TD is already strongly linked with the term without any such tactics. On top of that, being associated with the *term* isn't a bad thing, only being someone who foolishly invites is effects upon themselves.
So, TLDR version: "Streisand Effect" is to ootb as "paywall" is to bob - a very basic point completely misunderstood yet arrogantly and stupidly attacked with no effect other than making the attacker look like a complete tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly, it's probably the same reason as everyone else's at this point because Murdoch and NewsCorp are truly the scum of the (though they don't deserve to be labeled the term) press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh and Pre 1997 Google was awesome. I also think that Google are still a far more reputable company than Apple. You only have to look at GSOC and Android to see that they are benefiting man kind with their effort whereas Apple are benefiting no man except the CEOs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Either you're just that blind, or completely missed something or are having fun playing along...Google's beta didn't come out until late 1998...let alone droid...now that I recall, around 1997 we had Yahoo! (It was called Broadcom just 2 years before that)...And yes while both companies have a slightly checkered past, both have absolutely wonderful interfaces for their devices (as you and I both know), they're both good companies.
Now, lets see, Apple and Steve Jobs invested in Pixar Animation Studios, Google in advertising and search engine technologies.. Both companies provided excellent things that people wanted to use regularly.
MacOS 7.5.5 was the first to natively support PowerPC 604 architecture's native SMP support for up to 4 CPU's (PowerPC 604e Mach 5 @ 333MHz) and Droid the first to support multiple core processors in mobile devices...
Don't be quick to judge either unless you know the history from both sides ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I made a joke about pre 1997 google, and it went woosh straight over your head.
I was an avid Mac user in the 90s, I loved OS 7 through 9. Back then they actually believed in the community around computing and got that they were not the only manufacturer of PCs.
Skip forward a decade and Steve Jobs is declaring war on open source platforms (even though OSX derived its kernel from FreeBSD). They believe that they invented everything to do with a touch screen and are suing everyone using expensive lawyers and over broad patents (most of the patents have so much prior art or are so obvious its unbelievable).
Google on the other hand have always heavily invested in open source software (GSOC is a prime example). The majority of their products are also open source, look at android, chrome browser, chrome OS, etc. This is giving back to the community and actually benefits man kind.
Google also do not sue the fuck out of everyone because they can't compete in the market place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apple's Android issue isn't about the kernel in any way shape or form, it's Samsung's "TouchWiz" shell.
OSX was not based off of BSD as everyone thinks, it was based off of NextStep OS...which Steve Jobs created.
Motorola Mobility sued Microsoft over XBOX 360 wireless controllers which got thrown out by the ITC...then they got bought by Google and sued Microsoft for the same reason on to have the FTC throw that out.
Samsung is being sued by Erricson Coporation because apparently Samsung was licensing the expired FRAND agreement to Apple and in recent litigations, was demanding a FRAND agreement where Samsung refused to negotiate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and NextStep was based on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apple's Android issue isn't about the kernel in any way shape or form, it's Samsung's "TouchWiz" shell.
OSX was not based off of BSD as everyone thinks, it was based off of NextStep OS...which Steve Jobs created.
Motorola Mobility sued Microsoft over XBOX 360 wireless controllers which got thrown out by the ITC...then they got bought by Google and sued Microsoft for the same reason on to have the FTC throw that out.
Samsung is being sued by Erricson Coporation because apparently Samsung was licensing the expired FRAND agreement to Apple and in recent litigations, was demanding a FRAND agreement where Samsung refused to negotiate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I seem to distinctly remember Steve Jobs railing Android as a stolen product and wanting to blast it from the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apple's still supporting PowerPC, right? And so is everyone else, right?
And it's ANDROID. Not Droid. Droid is a line of phones, available exclusively through Motorola. And while Droid may have become synonymous with Android they are not one and the same and cannot, or better said SHOULD NOT, be used interchangeably. Only correcting this one since you appear to be a person who wants the facts and all that jazz. In which case, you should probably not mind being corrected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apple still suports maintainence on older PowerPC operating systems up to
OSX 10.4 which was the last to support that platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it isn't. And what was advertised was DROID the phone, the phone that was exclusively sold by Verizon and which helped Android gain mainstream acceptance.
Just say you were wrong in your use of the term, because you were/are. I live in the U.S. I remember the Droid commercials specifically because of how catching they were, as in "Droid does" capturing people's attention at the time. And again, "Droid" specifically was being mentioned in reference to the specific line of Droid phones released by Motorola through Verizon.
I'm not going to argue Android with you. You've been in error time and time again regarding it. So whatever I guess. But saying, "My bad, I was wrong," probably wouldn't kill you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that isn't how it was advertised. I don't know how many times I have to say what was being advertised was a specific product line, Droid. Which by no coincidence uses the Android OS. The two are complete distinct and separate products though, and despite sharing a similar name, are no way interchangeable.
"You can't blame me for that."
I'm not. But I am telling you that you used the wrong term. I was merely correcting you. You saw fit to double down and try and prove yourself right with this gem, "Droid is the short handed colloquial term for Android. It was advertised in said shorthand on US TV sets when Android first came out."
"Why was I being picked at in the first place based on a minor term of technicality???"
You weren't, I was, again, just correcting you. Droid isn't short for Android, and it only confuses people to interchange the two.
"Hmmmm....sounds like a trolling attempt in a way."
If by "trolling attempt in a way" you mean "sounds like someone was correcting my error and I don't like it" then sure. It was.
"But honestly Droid is SHORT HAND for Android."
No, IT IS NOT. It really isn't, despite what you may believe. Or better said, it may be but not when discussing or referring to the smartphone and the mobile operating system. For an actual robot, then yes. But not the phone/OS. The two are distinctly different products.
"Go on and keep ignoring that based on a bias in technicality."
I see this statement as translating to, "I was wrong but refuse to admit as such and thus you're a big meany and are only right based on a technicality." But again, there is no technicality here. It is me being right and you being wrong. Droid is NOT short hand for Android. Droid is a distinct line of phones. Android is a mobile OS. The two are not one and the same, although some may be confused in regards to that. Their confusion is understandable, but does not mean I will not attempt to clarify things for them or let such ignorance/confusion pass.
This could've ended much earlier if you just had said, "I stand correct. Thanks for that, now I know for future reference." Seriously, it's not hard to admit when one's in the wrong. It actually does wonders for oneself and is a sign of maturity and gaining of wisdom. Heck, in this case it would have been. Or is actually. You just learned something, Droid isn't Android and vice versa, unless specifically talking about actual robots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Droid is a registered trademark of Lucasfilms, Ltd. Is is used (under license) as the name for a line of phones manufactured by Motorola. To the extent that it refers to the smartphone market, it refers to the phone itself, not the OS or any other software. Android is software.
Interesting side note: most of the droids in the star wars movies were just robots, not androids. (An android is meant to look like a human).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it took them about two years to realize it wasn't catching...their online paper was totally useless after being purchased and was generally just bunk and hogs-wallow .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So... just like all their other "news" papers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, great article and I apologize to everyone if I've seemed fanatical or over abrasive towards. Been kind of weird lately due to the weather where I live....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too bad
It's a shame Murdoch didn't keep it open a little longer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason for my initially ban (which would have ended on December 3rd) was for simply, kindly, in a non trolling fashion informed someone of the facts (I mean simply reminding people of honest to God facts on a subject matter pertaining to the article) and was falsely moderated.
I have no beef with Ars staff or writers, but it's a bad moderation system that drives me insane.
I do not mean to scare people off and I will cool down in a few days.
Thank you for your kindness and patients with me thus far,
Wally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know. Nor do I really care to be honest. But hearing you harp on, and with this comment basically go, "Everyone. Everyone. Stop everything. I was banned from Ars. And the weather changed. I AM HAVING A BAD GO OF IT LATELY! That is all." I don't know. The words "attention whore" come to mind. Your comment is as off topic and irrelevant to the article as you can get without pulling an AJ, bob or OotB.
Save your issues/hang-ups for the appropriate time and place. And if that's an issue/hang-up, well, by gosh... let's all drop everything to hear about it. First world problems and all. At least this time you managed to state your whatnot in an Apple related article, eh? I guess that's a plus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second. I don't know if you noticed, but this article is involved with an App that Murdoch put on iTunes...as you know is an Apple product along with the iPad...and the article is about how it failed due to lack of interest in such paywalls then and now.
I wasn't crying for attention and I'm not fanatical. You're being an asshole for missing that and pointing out the nitty gritty of things.
Also, if you are referring to the article on Ars for which I was banned for saying "Don't worry, Samsung's execs won't see [the HTC/Apple agreement] it because it's lawyer's eyes only", not pertaining to Apple at all...look at the freaking title of it.
You just need to step off a bit and let me be me. I'm not Another Joe or OOTB, nor have I been known to act like them. You're not a user here so I don't expect you to realize that right away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not judging, merely pointing out how you seem to constantly bring up things that are beyond off topic. Your comment had nothing to do with the article but was you going on about Ars. YET AGAIN.
"Second. I don't know if you noticed, but this article is involved with an App that Murdoch put on iTunes...as you know is an Apple product along with the iPad...and the article is about how it failed due to lack of interest in such paywalls then and now."
Irrelevant to the comment I made.
"I wasn't crying for attention and I'm not fanatical. You're being an asshole for missing that and pointing out the nitty gritty of things."
You actually are fanatical, about Apple at least. But again, my comment was in regards to you making a complete off topic comment about Ars and about your issues at the moment. There's a time and place for that kind of thing. This isn't it. Your post is essentially a cry for attention. Nor am I an asshole for pointing out any of this. You're more of an asshole for drawing attention to yourself and then getting riled up when someone says, "Time and place dude, this ain't it."
"Also, if you are referring to the article on Ars for which I was banned for saying "Don't worry, Samsung's execs won't see [the HTC/Apple agreement] it because it's lawyer's eyes only", not pertaining to Apple at all...look at the freaking title of it."
Again, irrelevant. I don't care. Nor does anyone else. This articles [points up] isn't about that. As for your Ars issues, like I said, there is way worse going on there and it isn't being banned. That you got banned SUPPOSEDLY for just saying what you CLAIM to have said seriously makes me wonder. I for one am not going to just take your word for it.
"You just need to step off a bit and let me be me. I'm not Another Joe or OOTB, nor have I been known to act like them. You're not a user here so I don't expect you to realize that right away."
Or you can, you know have your emotional issues elsewhere with friends/family or with trained professionals. An open forum is not the place for it, if you don't like how I responded tough. There's avenues for you to speak your mind and air your hangups, this isn't one of them. You need to man up and learn to not have such thin skin. That or learn that if you're going to share your hangups WITH NO ONE WHOSE ASKING FOR YOU TO DO THAT, people will respond and not always kindly. Don't like it, don't share.
Also, I am a user here. A regular one. I just go by the AC moniker. Being registered doesn't make you any more special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would take that entire statement into consideration that you said until the above paragraph. You don't know me, you haven't been here long enough to see when I comment at my best. Just stop making comments like the one above and you won't be considered an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a link there, I just know it! If I could just put my finger on it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's right. We're so smart and perfect that we can just focus in on any company in the world and we instantly know everything that's going on, balancing thousands of nuances and gaining thousands of insights that mere mortals cannot discern. We are perfect beings of light, and the only way we can shed our perfect light is to point out how everyone else on the planet is doing it wrong. We knew this would fail when they did not because we are so smart and perfect. If they had come to us--and only us--they might have been saved. But sadly, the whole world doesn't listen to us, even though we sit on our bully pulpit and prognosticate all that the world is doing wrong. Just don't mention what we are doing wrong though. Don't you dare fucking go there.
I'd say it was much more of a bad model -- both business model and delivery model -- than "bad timing."
Nobody understands everyone else's business models better than us. "I told you so." "I told you so." "I told you so." We know everything about business models. Our models are so awesome and so great that all of the books in our own book club use them--um, well, maybe one day more than a handful will anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How in the world ?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paywalls
NPR had an interview just the other day with a journalist who said exactly that. IIRC it was on Talk of the Nation, with the hook being Clark Kent leaving The Daily Planet. She made the two classic claims when defending newspapers: 1. there are no watchdogs without newspapers* and 2. newspapers never should have given away news for free online.
* she said "newspapers" not "journalists"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike you'd look a lot more like a real journalist if you left your anti-Apple bias out of your writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lolwut? This wasn't anti-Apple, it was anti-stupid. He would have written the same thing if it had been Android only, or Windows Phone only. It would have been only slightly less stupid if it had been on all three platforms.
Also, Mike isn't a journalist and doesn't claim to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Initially it was.
"it's by far the best and most popular tablet."
IIRC, Android devices are currently outselling it, and there's a huge potential market out there that would potentially subscribe to The Daily, but are either unwilling to buy an Apple product, or who can't afford to pay nearly double for it compared to an Android device or a Kindle Fire. One of NewsCorp's major problems is their unwillingness to adapt to a constantly evolving marketplace, and this "paper" provides a few good examples why.
Sure, there may have been some contract issues that made creating an app on other platforms uneconomical or impossible, but entering such a contract in a marketplace that hasn't yet fully matured just proves further short-sightedness.
"Mike you'd look a lot more like a real journalist if you left your anti-Apple bias out of your writing."
He's a journalist?
I don't perceive any bias, beyond the fact that Apple are currently one of the major abusers of patent law and there are questions about the walled garden approach the company has to its mobile products. Mind citing anything I've missed? I'm sure I can find a few pro-Apple stories if I look for you as well.
Oh, and in case you're going to start attacking me, I personally own an iPhone, a Mac Mini and am currently typing this on a MacBook Pro, so no anti-Apple bias here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]