For beleaguered media companies, iPad 'magic' looks a lot like a tollbooth

Steve Jobs' "magical" iPad is about to work its mojo for the newspaper and magazine business. Hint: Apple's solution has less to do with conjuring illusions and more to do with hard economics.

To illustrate, the Wall Street Journal's iPad app is listed as free. That's enough to get most people, including cynical journalists, to download the app. But when the app is fired up, readers are greeted by what we'll call, tongue firmly in cheek, the reality screen (see screen shot above).

The subtext is clear: Content isn't free to produce, so pay up if you want to read any of it. At least that's the version Rupert Murdoch, whose News Corp. owns the Journal, is proselytizing. For the Journal on the iPad, that will be $3.99 a week, please.

It's a view being shared by more and more media companies, including Time Warner, the publishers of Time magazine, which charges $4.99 for a digital copy of its weekly magazine, which coincidentally features Jobs on the cover of its maiden issue for the iPad (see right).

The iPad version of Time delivers some of the features talked about in the Sports Illustrated tablet demo video that's made the rounds within publishing circles, including embedded videos and interactive photo slide shows.

Not everyone's going down the pay path, at least for now. USA Today, NPR, BBC, Associated Press and Reuters, among others, still serve up news for iPad gratis. The New York Times, as with the Web version, offers some stories, called Editor's Choice, for free, but charges readers for deeper access to its stories.

The Los Angeles Times currently has an app for the iPhone and iPod Touch, but not the iPad. Instead, readers can access the Times, most of it for free, via the iPad's We browser, said Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan.

"We’re looking at optimizing our digital delivery channels for both the iPad and a number other interesting mobile platforms coming down the line," Sullivan said.

Will the iPad offer salvation for the publishing business? The way things are going, it's going to need all the magic Apple can muster.

-- Alex Pham

Comments

[Jim]

Don't waste your money with those stupid apps, just go to the website. They're just repackaging the exact same content that you can get through any browser on any computer, mobile phone, or tablet for FREE. Why would you pay for free content? There's not reason to buy it, there's nothing new or special except a paywall and a $500 laptop that doesn't have a keyboard.

[Jay Floyd]

Jim, there's not a reason to buy content unless you want it to eventually go away entirely.

[Josh]

Actually, it's quite arrogant to make comments like that about the iPad unless you actually own one, which I am sure you do not. I agree the subscription to this app is a complete waste of money, especially since they charge more for the app subscription than the print paper. To say the iPad doesn't have a keyboard is silly, I am writing this comment from my iPad and it is not at all difficult.

[DV]

It's hilarious that the strategy to release the WSJ app as free is completely backfiring. Since people can download it for free, it allows anyone (and by the looks of it, nearly everyone) to rate this "nonworking" app 1 star.

[R Potts]

iPad Curmudgeons. I think people are missing the point of the iPad. We have reached a point where more and more content is being stored in the "Cloud". Gone are the days of the average business person needing to carry a laptop to send email, read the news, watch video, or throw together a simple Office document using Word, or Excel. While a smart phone such as the iPhone, BlackBerry, etc... can meet these needs the screen real estate is limited. Tablet PC's of old tried to fit this niche by being both a Laptop and a Tablet. But lets face it they really were not that practical. More times than not they were more trouble than what they were worth.

The iPad is a step in the right direction. Yes its a 1.0 product. It is going to have issues. There is room for improvement. So what?

As far as having to pay for a subscription to the new, what's the big deal. Shouldn't writers get paid for their work? If people stop purchasing hard copies of the news papers and magazines because more people are reading them online how are publishers to pay for the servers to host the content. Web servers, database servers, applications servers are not free. How do you pay for the travel for the writers to go to where the stores are at. How do the people that deliver the content pay for their homes, cars, clothing etc... Maybe because you don't see them you think that there is a little news bot that pulls information out of thin air, formats it, edits it and serves it up for your reading pleasure.

On the other hand maybe you just feel you are entitled to free news and reading material. Maybe we can get some stimulus money and have the Federal Government create that for you.

[Quint Randle]

What Apple is charging to distribute content is not unreasonable and probably even less than what physical magazine distributors charge to get magazines on the racks, etc. I think I remember when I was in the publishing business the distributors wanted something like 40% of the price. If not more.