Nytimes.com: How to survive charging your readers

James McQuivey

A storm has been brewing at The New York Times for a while now. Ever since TimesSelect -- the paid digital version of the Times -- was cancelled back in 2007, the "content wants to be free" crowd has danced around its proverbial grave, singing the equivalent of "ding, dong, paid media is dead." 

It's hard to argue against that viewpoint given the reality we're seeing: long-time newspapers closing their print editions entirely (see Seattle Post-Intelligencer), august magazines such as Gourmet shutting their doors, newspaper subscriptions at unprecedented lows, not to mention the power that Google has over the traffic that newspapers and magazines generate. Worse, our consumer surveys show us that 80% of US adults will choose not to pay for online newspaper or magazine content if they can't get it for free (see my colleague Sarah Rotman Epps' post on this for more).

It is amidst this maelstrom that nytimes.com is reportedly considering erecting a new pay wall -- one presumes a shiner, prettier one than the last wall, but a pay wall nonetheless. Read New York mag's take on the situation here. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a bad idea whose time has unfortunately come.

Read more

Orange's approach to the new mobile ecosystem

Thomas Husson

Earlier this year, I pointed out how Orange and operators were pursuing their innovation efforts in the context of new entrants (Apple, Google,...) shaking up the mobile value chain.

The recent announcements made at the 10th Orange collection are another proof of Orange's dynamism.If you have no clue what lifeisbetteron.com, wormee.com, radiomee.comcityvox.com, or webcity.fr have in common, I strongly advise you to take a look at this document.

Another interesting announcement was made this morning at the LeWeb conference in Paris, where Orange officially announced the launch of its Application Shop (available in beta in the UK and France for several months). This shop will first be available to 1 million customers in these two countries before being roll-out to millions more customers throughout 2010. For now it gives acess to 5,000 applications.

Replicating Apple's success will not be an easy task and operators should not follow this route. They should on the contrary leverage their key assets to offer:

Read more

Can the Apple TV reinvent itself?

James McQuivey

I was in the middle of an ICTC (my new acronym for InterContinental Telepresence Conference) when I got an urgent message from Brian Chen at Wired News. Without any announcement, it seems, Apple had cut the price of its 160 GB Apple TV to $229, dropping the smaller model altogether. What did this mean? 

I've been following the Apple TV since its announcement 2.5 years ago. I bought one of the first, and I spent hundreds of dollars on TV shows testing it (I have all the episodes of Battlestar Galactica, seasons 1, 2, 3; and you don't). That said, I haven't used the Apple TV in months, even after I hacked it using Boxee. It's because the Apple TV doesn't make watching top shows easy enough to compete with cable, Hulu, and Netflix. 

Brian wrote a very solid piece in Wired News yesterday, click here to see the article. He managed to get in a lot of the big picture points I raised, which is always hard to do since I go there so quickly and barely pause to breathe. The point is this: The Apple TV is on its way out.

Read more

Categories:

Apple's Impact on Mobile Entertainment

Julie Ask

Apple's announcements yesterday were mostly focused on iTunes and adding a video camera to the Nano (beautiful device by the way - shape, colors, form factor, weight (lessness) - blew me away). There were a couple of interesting things that came out about the iPhone platform though.

A few of the facts:

30 million iPhones sold to date

20 million iPod Touch devices with about 225 million iPods sold to date in all with 50% to new customers (wow!)

1.8 billion downloads of more than 75,000 available applications

100 million billing relationships with credit cards ... this impresses me the most and is what I consider to be one of their important competitive advantages

Read more

Categories:

Apple's Nano video camera further erodes the camcorder market

James McQuivey

You've got to be hating life if you're a videocamera maker like Sony or Kodak and you've just been bested yet again. First, it was the immensely successful Flip video cameras that sold more than 2 million devices without a significant brand name simply because the camera was so darn easy to use. (
Personal anecdote, I recently spent a day at a major CE maker with a group of industry analysts -- they let us try their new Flip camera competitor and one of the smartest guys in the room couldn't figure out how to turn it on. Said a nearby analyst: "Hmmm, no wonder Flip beat them to this market.")

Now the game just got more complicated because Apple has decided to add video camera capability not to the iPod Touch line, but to its Nano iPods. Pause for reverential awe. This was a brilliant move. (see Wired's take on it here).

Not only because it hits Flip in a sensitive spot -- right in the high school and college market where Flip was such a hit -- but because it further disrupts the videocamera market, opening it to more innovation and rapid change. You no longer have the three tiers of videocameras (disc or tape storage, digital decent, and then your lousy phone camera), instead, you have a fourth competitor. A personal media device that is now capable of actual personal media. Oh, and did I mention it's made by Apple? Right, just checking.

Read more

Categories: