This month saw Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation team up with the Apple Computer Corporation to launch the world's first digital-only newspaper called The Daily.
This newspaper is not available on the web at all. It's solely available as a paid app for the Apple iPad for US$39.99 a year, or US$0.99 per week. This new iThingie-only newspaper will have its own staff of approximately a hundred journalists.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what Rupert Murdoch puts out. I'm not going to buy it.
As well, as a promoter of free and open source software, I will not be buying any iThingies either. Apple (along with Microsoft) represent everything about proprietary software that I oppose.
What concerns me, though, is that this "device walling" may become a trend amongst large media outlets.
We are used to some media outlets placing their content behind "paywalls" where you can't see the content online unless you sign up for the outlet's paid service. This makes the paywalled content unsearchable by any of the major web search engines -- searchable content really urks Murdoch!
It also makes it impossible to link to this content via other websites, blogs and social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter and Identi.ca.
Advertising
With the launch of The Daily, for the first time we are seeing media content available only via a single vendor's devices, namely those made by Apple!
What if other major media outlets were to start doing the same thing? What if you could only get New York Times content on a Windows mobile phone? What if you could only get Globe and Mail content on a Blackberry device? Or how about only being able to read The Guardian on an Amazon Kindle e-book reader?
Rather than being able to view content on whatever device we want, we would be forced to choose our devices based on the content that was available for that particular device.
As well, it would be impossible to share interesting content with our friends.
Even with an old dead tree newspaper, it's technically possible to grab a pair of scissors, cut out the article, photocopy it and share it. Or even lower tech, just stick it up on a bulletin board by the water cooler using a good old fashioned thumb tack.
Many of the new devices on the market are simply a means to get people to stop engaging in the simple human act of sharing, using methods such as Digital Restrictions Management technologies. The media, software and device manufacturers are spending billions of dollars trying to restrict and criminalize a basic human impulse.
The News Corp/Apple deal takes all of this one step further by restricting the sharing of content because you haven't bought the right digital device.
Large media outlets are struggling to find new ways to pay the bills and make money for their shareholders in this new world of digital content. Some have been successful while others have not. However, this Murdoch/Jobs model of doing things is particularly nasty for end users.
I hope it's a dismal failure.
What is it about open source proponents that lends to this type of petulant whining about anything commercial? I love open source software and take advantage of it myself - but I don't get the sanctimonious grandstanding against proprietary systems and content. You don't want it, don't use it - as you say at the top. Bt then you go on to cite some vague concerns about walled content on walled devices.
You know what concerns me, as a journalism major? That agencies that are paying full time authors can't figure out how to make money. That's a big problem. That's a reason why the amount of actual reporting on deep tech topics like enterprise software, networking, etc. is steadily on the decline, while the lion's share of tech reporting is done by bloggers, writing about consumer tech topics (how many authors do we really need out there covering the exact same topics - i.e., mobile apps, mobile devices, twitter, facebook, tablets?). The intellectual quotient of news is on a steady decline because there is no incentive (money) for actual journalists to endeavor into difficult topics. Instead it's 99% folks that write content such as this with zero actual reporting / unearthing of actual data - and less than 1% doing investigative / roll up your sleeves "professional" and "credible" reporting of facts. Citizen journalism is great, but it should account for some of the news cycles and not all of it. Not to mention that most bloggers are primarily concerned with getting readership, and secondarily concerned with actually writing compelling content (they are different things).
Some of the points made here are valid, but it sounds like so much liberal sneering about commercialism. Money makes the world go round, and I don't see any particular reason to get unnerved that entrenched news agencies and the makers of the highest quality computers / tablets are banding together to try to figure out how to make money on original content. It's not like there's any reasonable expectation that this puts all news on a trajectory to be McMordoched. So what if it takes off and a huge number of people are buying walled content? It will result in other opportunities for other new news agencies to spring up and forge simlar ... or for extreme libs to band together and offer free content on open source platforms.
Are you also opposed to iTunes for the exact same reasons? People can't share that content via social media - but people still seem to be hearig about new artists and albums. That's the ultimate walled content area, and it may be imperfect - but if that's the outcome that you're concerned about with news, I'd argue there are much bigger concerns in the world of news (like the steady decline of quality that I cicted above).
Madflack,
First off, I'm am not and have never been an extreme liberal or a liberal of any other kind. I don't like liberals.
I'm a socialist.
Secondly, I'm also not primarily an open source advocate. I'm a free software advocate.
Thirdly, Murdoch's News Corporation just posted second quarter operating profits of $642 million, up from $254 million last year. News Corporation is doing so well that this week Murdoch purchased an additional $48.2 million in company stock adding to the nearly $6 billion in company stock that he already owns.
Murdoch would not be buying more stock if he didn't think that there was a reasonably good chance that he's going to be making more money in the years to come.
So journalists may not be making money, but folks like Murdoch are.
As a media junky, I'm concerned about the quality of journalism. As a trade unionist, I'm also concerned about good quality jobs.
But the quality of mainstream journalism and good jobs for journalists have declined right along with the high level of corporate concentration in the mass media.
Capitalists tend not to be particularly innovative. They simply copy what other folks have done if it looks like it's going to make them money.
If other media outlets jump into these kinds of exclusive deals with device manufacturers, and if I happen to be a media junky, I'm going to have to buy three, four or five electronic gizmos to gain access to all of the content.
This might be a great scenario for media moguls and device manufacturers, but device walling is not a great thing for the end user and most likely not for journalists either.
As for discovering interesting music, you don't need iTunes. I've discovered much more interesting music on services like Magnatunes which pays 50% of its revenue directly to the musicians.
If you can't share it on social media, then rest assured, it WILL be a dismal failure until they get rid of the firewalls. That's where huge numbers of people get their news online - by reading links passed on by friends and colleagues on social media.
Some of the larger mainstream media outlets learned this when they tried to put their content behind subscription walls. No one pays and they lose circulation, and it's a dismal failure. Then, down come the walls.