Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 3rd Dec 2012 18:52 UTC
Permalink for comment 544028
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-07-18
Haha... That's like laughing at a buggy-whip maker for only supporting one maker of carriage and claiming that's why they failed.
1) Look at the challenges facing other "open" news sites on the web if you want to see what a challenge papers are facing in terms of monetization. They can't decide if they should be free with ads, behind a wall, or what.
2) As everyone mentions, this is a Murdoch rag. I took a look at it when it came out - the writing and general content was terrible, and given the particular direction they were taking that was unlikely to change.
3) The iPad angle is irrelevant in a news industry that's trying to find its way - unless you have an example of a newspaper for Android that has just monetized like a beast? (Not to mention they have an Android version as mentioned elsewhere.)