Digital Lifestyle

I also would like to see HP/Palm WebOS make a go of it, too.

I'm rooting for WebOS, but I think that HP will be too late to the market. Nokia is saying 2011 and 2012 will be "transition" years. I think that it may be too late for them to remain a major player.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2011 04:45PM by John Willoughby.

There is a certain synergy to Nokia/Microsoft. WP7 is innovative software in search of a singular hardware partner, and Nokia needs a current gen OS with a change for momentum. but that's all it is, a chance. the timeline seems too loose to catch up. Both of them do not have all their eggs in this basket, but that may have been the source of their complacency to this point.

Oh, and I'm rooting for webOS too, but this is too pricey, too late. Didn't they do this same momentum-killing pre-announcement with the first Pre?? Lot of innovative UI touches but no primary selling point over the Juggernaut. I still want to get my hands on a webOS device eventually.

Yeah. When HP bails on the idea, I may pick up one remaindered. I like their interface.

I just got around to setting my AirPort Express back up again. After doing so, I discovered a missing feature in iTunes 10. You can no longer have iTunes lock the volume at a fixed level.

It's not that big of a deal for me but it's really screwing up people who rely on a "pure" signal.

For example, if you rip a CD recorded in DTS using lossless codec and try to play it directly through your PC speakers you get nothing but noise but you can play it back through a DTS receiver if you have your AirPort Express connected with an optical cable. This requires the original encoding data to be passed on untouched. Under iTunes 9.x this worked great because there was an option for "Disable iTunes Volume Control of Remote Speakers". Under iTunes 10, this option no longer exists.

There are reports that it still works if you make sure to set the volume slider in iTunes to the maximum level but I've seen other reports that say this doesn't always work.

Just saw this on Daring Fireball: MLB.tv subscribers will be able to stream games in HD on AppleTV. This isn't the only way to get streamed MLB.tv content onto a big stream, but it's still nice and convenient, and I know I'll use it a lot in the coming season.

I'm almost as excited about that as I am NBA on AppleTV. (Is this on any other digital box?) The only sports I care about. Squeezing out two more reasons to avoid KableTown.

Yet NFL languishes on DirecTV...

What do you think of the NY Times subscription model? (FAQ here.)

I suspect it will work for the Times and maybe one or two other papers, but not for the newspaper industry in general. Seems like it may also be an interesting moment for iPad's subscription business plan. (Looks like a non-iPad subscription is cheaper than an iPad one - though not cheaper than it would be on an Android tablet.)

Seems pricey. I happily subscribed to nytimes.com a few years ago when the paper briefly experimented with a paywall, but that was a lot cheaper. Nevertheless, I'll subscribe--as a native of the New York metropolitan area, I find the Times indispensable. But I agree with peter: this is not a global solution for the newspaper industry. I'll subscribe to the Times; I might subscribe to one other paper, and otherwise, if I have to forego content to which I've previously had access, well, I'll forego content. (I've managed to live just fine without the Times of London, even if I miss its soccer coverage).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2011 07:08AM by Jeff Cooper.

If the iPad was still mine, I'd probably bite. The New Yorker -- long-form -- I've been about ready to buy the print subscription because they haven't yet figured out a decent digital solution. I think they just do the same pile-o-JPGs conversion. Something that had a NYT-style interface and trickled in updates regularly would be worth the $5/month they ask for.

And why can't apps update in the background yet? Instapaper's dev has been pleading for it, and I'd love it, given the dance I do now before I leave the house - open Instapaper and SimpleNote in the iPad and my iPod, wait for them to figure it out.

It's easy to tear things down, especially when you have no better option to offer (a situation I find myself in at the moment) but, in the vernacular of those who will ensure this statement is true, "this plan is full of fail".

* "You will be able to upgrade your subscription at that time by calling Customer Care at (800) 591-9233."

Excuse me? You have to call in order to update a digital subscription? To be fair, it just be that the infrastructure isn't there yet (and based on items in many of the other FAQ answers, that is the case, but no mention of future plans is made here, unlike all the other "we're not ready yet" answers).

* (About reading articles from Social Media or search engines) "Yes. We encourage links from Facebook, Twitter, search engines, blogs and social media. When you visit NYTimes.com through a link from one of these channels, that article (or video, slide show, etc.) will count toward your monthly limit of 20 free articles, but you will still be able to view it even if you've already read your 20 free articles. When you visit NYTimes.com by clicking links in Google search results, you'll enjoy up to five free articles per day."

Insert "why do I get to read it one place but not another?" customer service clusterfuck here. Append "well, I'll just read the articles that are linked through social media then" clusterfuck next. Transition to "false weight on promoted articles inappropriately skews content plans (or forces more content to be available via social media and hence breaks down the plan" clusterfuck here.

* Vacation suspensions. "No. NYTimes digital content is available anywhere there's an Internet connection, so we're not offering vacation suspensions."

Insert interesting (and hacking) tracking nightmare clusterfuck here, since assumedly physical paper subscription vacation suspensions will still be honored, but due to #5 ("I get home delivery of the newspaper. Do I get free access?") the physical can be suspended but digital will continue. The rules for vacation suspensions of the physical paper are going to be interesting. Relatedly, you get full access if you subscribe to *any* physical version; if you enjoy the technology, watch for a crushing rush to the exits of the print paper, stripped down to the barest minimum of delivery.

What's frustrating is that the failure of this scheme, and the Daily's, will be cited as proof that digital subscriptions won't work. The Daily's sparse content, low price vs. the NYT's full content, Byzantine access scheme and high price. What a set of choices.

I love the times, but I am not so desperate for the content they have that I am going to pay.

Unless all of the free content online goes away, it's going to be really hard to get people to pay for subscriptions these days.

Quote
Cloudscout
Unless all of the free content online goes away, it's going to be really hard to get people to pay for subscriptions these days.

That's the point I was getting at with the "free for social media links" comments. Even if you take CS's statement as being limited to the NYT (which I doubt), the Times is faced then with "don't promote the articles through social media" (fail), "don't let people read the articles promoted via social media without paying" (fail), or "the only content that is consistently read in volume is the social-media promoted content -- i.e. free" (fail)

I should also mention that nor has an outstanding iPad / tablet site. I'll get my news from there and my ny sports from the my favorite team blogs. I give the over under on this venture 6 months

With a kid about to go to college and a wife whose income fluctuates with the economy, funds are a little tight in the Hess household. Me, though I now check the Times site daily, I'll probably drift elsewhere starting on March 28th. There's so much online that I'd read if I only had the time that it won't be hard to shift my frame a little, save the $180 or $240/yr, and let the Times mostly drop off my RADAR.

That doesn't mean I have a negative feeling about what the Times has done, though. They have a very fine needle to thread. Survival as anything remotely resembling what they have been depends on finding revenue to support their operations AND maintaining significant readership to remain an influential actor on the national stage. Making free possible for the DIY/cheapskate crowd and getting dough from those who have it and don't care to prospect for their news and/or think it's only fair to pay for creative work (cf iTunes) may be their last hope.

It looks like a Byzantine scheme, a bit crazy even, but if it turns out to generate enough revenue AND readership to allow the Times to hold back the Tsunami, it won't seem so Byzantine or crazy. (Formerly) Remy may be right, but I'll be real curious to see how things look 6 months on.

Perhaps six months is a bit harsh. They kept times select around for two years. I assume they have invested in some studies to figure out the best thing they could do, so I admit I am talking out of my ass on that point. I just remain skeptical because I don't really see them as being that innovative when it comes to new media. I think if they had

For what I need, the NPR.org site is much better. For example, when I am on my iPad, I can queue up that day's morning edition or all things considered by pressing a button. the pieces play in the background and I can still browse the site and read other articles. Since I am on the west coast, the programs are often available before the station I listen to the most (KQED) plays them. I also get get in-depth local coverage through the local affiliates. That would be my baseline to determine how much Times is worth. Then again, perhaps this means I should donate more to public radio.