Skip to comments.Time Wants Digital Newsstand
Posted on 10/03/2009 8:13:49 PM PDT by Seaplaner
Time Inc. is gathering U.S. magazine publishers to start a jointly run digital newsstand next year that would deliver their titles to mobile devices like increasingly popular electronic book readers.
---------------- snippity snip ------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
This is bigger than big.
In fact, I can even propose a name... The New Eight Track!
Communist magazines enter the "digital age."
What kind of stupid bastards are going to read that trash?
Oh wait, DEMOCRATS!
Want in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up faster.
LOL! I saw a NewsWeak at doc or cpa office and it was about 20 pages. Pathetic.
Time and NewsWeak fail to realize that the majority of people do not want their sh**ty biased content. Years ago they had a semi-monopoly on news content because they had the writers, shelf space and distribution. The internet destroyed that.
I read somewhere today that Apple has been gathering contracts with media companies for content on their upcoming tablet device. It will be similar to an ipod touch but larger.
Change your promotion driven agenda to one of honesty driven reporting and you would be #1 regardless of the conveyance method used.
Presently you are desperate for "change".
They’re gonna get “change”......not the “change” they want, but CHANGE!
If that is the expression of the quality of their edjukashun and traning, this enjinere wants no part of it.
"Time" can emote all it wants (ca. their 70's ads), but I won't "care" with them. I won't even care when their staff goes on welfare, and I well care even less when they have to learn how to sweep hallways (clean!) for a living.
I guess putting Obiwan on the cover of every issue is not enough. They need a new picture of our messiah every day maybe?
Propaganda from the state should always be free. Paying for it is really dumb.
Magazine publishers are so left wing. People are speaking up about this in their comments to Vogue, etc. If any of you have time search the magazine websites to voice opinion.
The Time concept is a dead letter. On-line only delivery means major cost savings to the publishers and, as a consumer, I expect to see a very significant decrease in the cost of a subscription. I'm not going to pay a "newstand fee" to Time and then a full subscripion fee to the actual magazine publisher. However, I actually would consider paying a monthly fee (similar to my cable system access fee). How much would I consider reasonable? Oh, say US$25.00 a month for access to ALL major newspapers and magazines.
Another dead letter is the quote above from the end of the article. The percentage of users using a Kindle (or that Sony ebook equivalent) to access content is very small. I read the news online using a desktop PC with using a 1080 dpi monitor. (When I'm travelling, its a small laptop with equivalent screen.)That's plenty of definition for ordinary use. If I want to turn pages, I'll buy the magazine or book. Ditto for the glossy photos; if I want their photos for the coffee table, I'll by the book/magazine. If they are going to get hung up on figuring out and costing a process I'm not interested in into their fee structure, they are still stuck in "paper-based" mode and are going to miss the boat.
As for the video, when was the last time you picked up a magazine or book that had embedded video? The closest that print publications come to this is an enclosed CD/DVD which requires the user supply the viewing device. And that is where we came in.