Slashdot Mirror
Rupert Murdoch Hates Google, Loves the iPad
Hugh Pickens writes "The Register reports that News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, reiterated his disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web. 'It's produced a river of gold, but those words are being taken mostly from the newspapers,' said Rupert. 'I think they ought to stop it, that the newspapers ought to stand up and let them do their own reporting.' Murdoch added that the iPad was a 'wonderful tool' for listening to music, watching videos and reading newspapers. 'It may well be the saving of the newspaper industry,' by making it cheaper to distribute content to a broader audience, Murdoch said. 'I'm old, I like the tactile experience of the newspaper,' Murdoch said. '(But) if you have less newspapers and more of these, that's OK. It doesn't destroy the traditional newspaper, it just comes in a different form.'"
This is sort of like an Endorsement from Satan right?
Get over yourself Rupert. We are all tired of hearing your bitching!
If Rupert Murdoch praises something, it just can't be good.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I'm an Apple fan, I think the iPad is an incredible media consumption device....
But then Murdoch had to open his stupid mount.
This is why we can't have nice things.
The sooner the "old media" of mega corporations deciding how millions should think passes away, the better. Murdoch has proven to be worse than most in that regard. His misery at the passing away of the bad old days only makes me smile.
robots.txt
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's no surprise the media loves a locked down device. If enough people have these kind of crippled devices, they can stop making content available online and require apps or subscriptions for everything. This also helps to explain the media's unabashed love for the iPad.
...has anyone checked if he has a short position in Apple stock?
I mean if Rupert likes the iPad then, ipso facto, the iPad can't be a good thing. And that means Apple's stock is going down.
That is all.
If, say, _anyone_ released an RSS feed reader for the iPad, newspapers are just as dead as they are now.
Oh wait, someone has... A quick Google search returns several.
It'
Unless newspapers delivered via iPad are going to consist of something other than lightly-edited wire stories and insubstantial fluff reporting, they're not going to be a whole lot more appealing than the paper kind, and arguably less appealing, since lining the bottom of bird cages with iPads will be prohibitively expensive. And don't get me started on how much it would cost to pack boxes for a move.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Wall Street Journal:
Online + Printed: $2.99/week
iPad only: $3.99/week
Anyone else see the problem here?
reiterated his disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web.
Then do us all a favor and pull your tabloid rags off Google. What's stopping you? I'm sure the core of your readers will stay with you, it's the only source that tells them what they want to hear.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
While I disagree with most everything Rupert Murdoch says, I think he's at least partly on to something with the iPad as a newspaper replacement. OK, let's ignore the fact that it's terribly overpriced for this function, but he is right in that many people would like something that's lightweight and portable. Build a device like that and make it cheap, and you may have a winner on your hands. People would be able to sit on a bus or train and read the publication of their choice, be it a traditional newspaper or a blog, whatever they like. Sure, a laptop can easily do that, but show me a device that costs $49.99 that can do it. And at that price point, a modest subsidy from a newspaper could bring the price down to a point where it's almost a disposable item. That's the goal. Figure out how to make one of those, and you'll make a mint.
I'm a democrat, so all I can watch is MSNBC.
Most publishers are desperate for readers. In fact, many sites *pay* for advertising to get people to their sites.
Rupert gets this for free from Google and other search engines, but fails to seize the opportunity to make money off it, or even to make a compelling enough site to keep subscribers around, and somehow this is Google's fault?
It seems like Google would be better off not linking to any of Murdoch's sites. It will be a small loss of income for them, and a rather large loss of income for him. Seeing as how he constantly bitches and moans about Google I think they're well within their rights (not just legal rights) to do this.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Forget paying money to Murdoch and support Wikileaks!
Is not always good for the Gander? this is the guy that wants a double standard . Complain about fair use then evoke it when it makes him money. Rupert how much is enough?
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
He's like the elderly relative at Thanksgiving who keeps saying racist things that would make everyone uncomfortable but they're so used to it they just roll their eyes and say "Oh Grandpa!" Is there any way this guy could not get it less? He understood how to be a Newspaper tycoon, but these days that skillset makes him roughly as useful as a candlestick maker or a wheelwright.
He keeps saying all this crazy stuff, but the guys who actually run Newscorp keep doing the opposite, lucky for them. They could easily edit their robots.txt and keep Google out, but they're smart enough to not only let Google in, but to let users coming in from Google slip past the pay wall . . .
Stewie Griffin: Uh, excuse me, it's been brought to my attention that a few bad apples out there are smoking marijuana. Uh, I've got news for you, my friend. Marijuana's illegal. Not cool. [audience starts booing] Alright then. [Begins singing, to the tune of America the Beautiful] Establishment, establishment, you always know what's best... Man in audience: You suck! Stewie Griffin: Learn the rules!
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
The world is whiteanting away his empire.
Rupert - stop going on a money grab. You make money from the advertising in newspapers - and the "cost" of the newspapers is the cost of covering raw materials, printing, distribution costs and a small slice for the seller.
You really make your money out of the ads. What you are really bitching about is Google taking some of your advertising share - because you can Google a story and jump off to millions of sites and blogs.
Of course the way to prevent this is to provide quality content. But Newscorp's second line of business is wholesale news provision (al la Reuters). Of course, every blogger, tweeter and facebook poster is working against you.
You are under attack from every side. So all you do is try to protect you empire, rather than recognising the empire is changing.
It is all about social networking now. You own press has been saying this. I am doing it now. Jump on in - you have brilliant people in your IT departments, you have brilliant people in your Business Development units... use them. Build something special. Build the nest generation of news. God knows you have the money to do it - an in doing it you'll help your grandkids grandkids be as wealthy as you are.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
Rupert Murdoch needs to stop bitching and swim in his money like Scrooge McDuck.
What a fuckin' whiny motherfucker. Fuck him. Don't give him the attention his attention whoring self desires. Don't link stories about him here. If I see another story about him on slashdot, it will be too soon.
Someone needs to take him out with a cast iron frying pan.
--
BMO
I don't get it, the iPad has a web browser doesn't it? How is the iPad different from a computer in this example?
There are an awful lot of similarities between Republicans and Apple fanboys. They're both submissive, they're both religious in their single-minded devotion. They both believe you must sacrifice freedom for security.
How's that MySpace thing working out for ya?
Sincerely,
Eric Schmidt et. al
enough said on this man's stupidity regarding technology. Many sites would pay buckets of money for the kind of hit rate that search engines are sending them, but murdock cannot find out how to make money. What an idiot, he should just retire.
So aggregation of news, which is best for the consumer because they get the best writers everyone could hire (theoretically speaking), sucks for the big guys, so shut it down? I too like to have my cake and eat it too.
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
Not quite the full story from TFA, this has a better quote: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/murdoch-to-limit-google-access-20100408-rt04.html
''I think when they've got nowhere else to go, they'll start paying."
Rupert, mate, there will always be somewhere else to go to get news for free on the internet. Right there is where your logic fails you.
...that bastard isn't Australian any more.
I know how Rupert could make an absolute *killing* in the online content world and I've even offered to let him in on the secret -- but it seems that he doesn't read even modestly popular news commentary sites like the one I publish (you know, the ones who leach from his papers) so I guess he'll forever remain oblivious to the answer (which doesn't involve DRM but does involve people *paying* for content in a way they won't mind one single bit.
It's sad when a man gets too old to see the potential in the new media as they continue to appear.
Someone else will spot this opportunity and they will be come *the* media baron to rule all media barons.
It just won't be Rupert.
I actually find this argument quit absurd. Web is not only a new medium of distributing content but also a way to get the "real" news. A lot of people these days not only rely on websites such as Fox and WSJ to get their stuff, they rely on Blogs, forms and other online content which is gaining a lot of momentum lately. Though news websites is still a major source of reliable information, Blogs are also slowly coming into mainstreams, which most major editors, authors and news reporters having their own blogs in which they can share their own ideas! From this it actually seems to be that going forward we would be relying more on UGC(user generated content) rather than going through websites of news corporation...
In contrast to Rupert Murdoch hatred of Google, there is a growing demand, including that of President Barack Obama, for greater public access to publications of particular interest - for example biomedicine, which may also extend to other research agencies. In the journal Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/464813a.html) it was reported that the "US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to make authors' or publishers' versions of research papers publicly available in the PubMed Central repository within 12 months of publication." PubMed Central repository is a bit like a Google listing. Further, it is speculated in the nature article that "President Barack Obama might soon issue an executive order extending this requirement to all federal research agencies".
...but who gives a fsck what he thinks...
I've kindof been on the fence about the iPad (yeah, it's kindof pricey, it's missing some nice peripheral features, and the app-lock might be inconvenient someday, but on the other hand, the featureset makes it seem like it'd be a good spot between e-reader and netbook for me, plus there's a cool array of audio/instrument apps that have grown up around Cocoa Touch over the last two years).
But now that Rupert Murdoch has endorsed it, I'm more interested in checking out alternatives.
Tweet, tweet.
He's flexible allright. He's fooled you into thinking he's conservative simply because that's what sells spectacularly well in the USA. If you listen to the Boyer lectures he gave last year it's about universal health care, education etc - concepts that would have even some US Democrats calling him an outright Communist.
He bought his first ISP in 1993 so he most likely understood the basics of the internet before you did. I know I couldn't even get onto the internet back then unless I visited a friend that was still at University and borrowed their computer access for a while.
He can't make much money out of the internet as it is but if he continues to hassle governments to break it enough he can make money from the pieces. That is why he's effectively been on a two year speaking tour on the subject.
Why do I have to read /. to find news about Rupert Murdoch? I'd rather pretend that f#$^ doesn't exist.
Damnit, Slashdot. DON'T BE EVIL.
If he charges more than a $0.01 for people to receive his Tweets from FoxNews, then he may fail-epic.
Im not so sure people are prepared to pay premium money or even any money for ad-infested zeros and ones. Everyone will compare the ipad with the internet and if the news on the ipad arent substantially better than on the internet nobody will pay.
HTTP/1.1 400
Thinking Rupert doesn't want his websites indexed and archived 'cuz it makes it too easy for people to prove that a story in a Ruperty rag or on a Ruperty news channel or web site flatly contradicts something asserted or shown by a Ruperty organ in the past. That saying of Sir Walter Scott's?
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
Well, that is a stone cold bitch when it is backed up by exabytes of storage across the internet. Things Murdoch depend upon "truth" being somewhat more...flexible.
Manipulable, even.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
'I hate Google! How dare they take stuff out of context, or .. make it up..that's my job.' (not said) by Rupert Murdoch
'If people stop listening to what I'm telling them, I'll end up becoming irrelevant.' .. (Also not said) by Rupert Murdoch
fuck murdoch. can some anarchist shoot him and his son heir please? danke.
iPad grows murdoch's bank accounts - no wonder the devil incarnate likes it.
I posit that if Rupert Murdoch is pissed, we (Internet generation) must be doing something right.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
FTFA "It doesn't destroy the traditional newspaper, it just comes in a different form.'"
What Rupert, you mean like a website?... What a tool.
I didn't buy an IPad.
I guess you didn't buy an IPad.
Nobody is forcing you to buy anything.
It is a product.
It is marketed.
Some people will buy.
Some will not.
You are still free to get your content where you like it.
Oh but you won't be able to install bit-torrent on your IPad ( which you don't want to buy, cause it's evil ) and pirate content ( which you don't wan't to see, cause it's evil ).
I see where you are coming from.
cia
Rush Limbaugh uses a Mac.
I'M SWITCHING TO OS/2!
I sure hope the iPad costs Rupert Murdoch billions in lost viewership, but maybe there are enough iDiots that Murdoch increases revenue despite losing viewers, which would be unfortunate. Worse, the iPad might help create an opportunity for them to install tiered access.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The mainstream media would hype for months to no end the "revolutionary" idea, and this before the company would spend a single penny on hyping of their own.
By the time the idea came into fruition most people of weak moral fortitude, lets call them fanboys, would feel compelled to buy it no matter what disregarding of hand a plethora of coolheaded and intellectually objective assesments against the idea.
They would actually *queue* tu buy this non essential article (and least in the USSR they queue for necessary items) and would rise the item triumphally the item on the air, Lion King wise, like if having won something like an olympic medal or an Engineering degree (the thought ...).
These people would consider acting triumphally after spending hundreds of $HARD_CURRENCY in a luxury item a reason for celbration. I humbly suggest that is a celebration of personal validation: I spend, therefore I am.
Sorry, I think I sligthly over the board in my reply.
I don't know how many times I and other posters on here have pointed out that he can have all his news sites excluded from search engines by giving a few simple instructions to his webmasters. I'm starting to think he's not paying attention.
Tabloid rags? WSJ? Geez, I'm as non-Republican as they come but you sound like an idiot saying that.
He does sound like an idiot, until you read some of what the WSJ has become under Murdoch. Once you have the context, his comments don't sound stupid at all. Sure, the WSJ still has plenty of decent business news, but now it is laced with editorials and "business" news stories that are laced with Murdoch's political agenda ... the days of an unbiased, factual WSJ are long gone, more's the pity.
Unfortunately, our perception of the rag lags well behind the change, and will probably do so for quite some time.
Thankfully, for those of us still investing and engaged with the markets, there are better alternatives:
http://www.ft.com/
with various localizations, and without the Murdoch poison:
http://www.ft.com/home/us
http://www.ft.com/home/uk
So let them ringfence Murdoch's tripe (even the formerly great WSJ he is wrecking). Please.
Or don't wait for Rupert to take both barrels to his own feet and do it for him: filter his tripe out of Google News yourself (I use both approaches: "take off, nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure"):
1) Bespoke AdBlock Rules
Open FireFox, go here and install AdblockPlus:
http://adblockplus.org/en/installation
You should have a ABP stop sign looking thing to the right of your FireFox search box. Click the little arrow to the right of it. Click preferences. Click Add Filter. Paste in:
news.google.com##*[href*=".foxnews.com"]
Murdoch ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation ) also owns The Wall Street Journal. Add Filter again, and paste in:
news.google.com##*[href*=".wsj.com"]
2) Greasemoneky Script
Get Greasemonkey:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
Get Sterc's script:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/61397
"Laugh it up" :-)
[ Source: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/news/thread?tid=10c7469adda1fdac&hl=en ]
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
iPad's customer is big media. It is not us. Oh sure, many of us love the idea of the iPad but honestly look who is benefiting most from it. e-Book sellers now get to raise prices, even Amazon caved on this and many originally thought Amazon to be a bunch of money grubbing jerks for charging so much for an e-Book. Hell, Apple handed their end users right into the hands of the new consumer, big media, and the end users are rejoicing at being bent over a barrel.
So of course Murdoch loves it, a whole slew of new ways for us to transfer money to them and their friends. And we will be happy for it because we will look so cool at Starbucks and the student centers.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Murdoch has got it ass-about. The reason that print media is dying is that the classified advertising model that was so profitable for so long has died. Craigslist has done far, far more damage to Murdoch's business than Google ever has, and there's nothing he can do about it. The cover price on newspapers doesn't even get close to covering the printing cost, let alone profit.
Another thing, maybe he can see coming. Online media provides a way of measuring advertising efficiency, something that is not possible in print. Count the clicks. As corporate advertising etc is going online so bean counters can know it's effectiveness. Same goes for job ads.
Print is dying because its advertising is obsolescent, not because of Google. Murdoch must know that
Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web.
"We must find a way to keep Google from posting our public stories and linking them to our website.
Murdoch added that the iPad was a 'wonderful tool' for listening to music, watching videos and reading newspapers.
Just not at the same time....
by making it cheaper to distribute content to a broader audience
Cheaper for the corporation, but then they can jack up the prices because ohh, look how big the screen is. Oooohhh and it does stuff when i touch it!
'let them do their own reporting'
Well, I guess you wouldn't like it if they took up on that idea. They sure couldn't make a much worse job of it than you do.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
There's a sporadic blogger who looks at this from an interesting angle, and if nothing else the photo accompanying the post is worth a look:
"I just read that Rupert Murdoch, the man that brought us Fox News, has given a resounding endorsement of Apple's new gizmo, the iPad.
Well Rupert, you've confirmed in my mind that it'll be a cold day in hell before an iPad has a place in our home, because anything *you* favor is more than likely, at its core, to be..." http://imalloverthemap.com/
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
It is really a shame that more people have not read The Theory of the Leisure class, it rails against plutocrats, football players and kept women. It intelligently argues for the role of design and creativity for human progress over the barbarity of endless profit making and risk taking. Sadly Veblen died as a recluse in the hills of Palo Alto drinking heavily and writing rambling editorials ever so often in the local newspaper, he had devolved into a troll. 2 months later the stock market crash of 29' happened, I think that deserves a " Ha Ha".
The hero of the book is 'The Engineer' and 'The New Woman' and they totally get it on. Come on go download and read it.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Well put.
However, my opinion is still pretty much the same, and as the geek I am, I of course knew most of your arguments from before.
The point is however, internet and PCs bring _unprecedented_ freedom in the world, in a world historically full of tyranny and serfdom. The "nice" iPad product of today, might very well become the DRM and privacy intrusive, locked-down, out-of-alternatives variant of tomorrow when everyone copies Apple's businessplan and governments starts to stamp down its heavy boots to support dying dinosaur-corporations. "Why should 'normal' people have access to fully programmable PCs?", they will say. "We have invented pretty much everything needed to be invented", is another one, the first step on the ladder down to our downfall in so case.
Even disregarding the future, iPhone, iPad, OS X and the likes prevent my flexibility and freedoms TODAY. That is why I regret buying Macbook Pro (no, the expensive hardware doesn't run Win XP superior to PCs today and OS X is shit for a geek. Darwin is far from Linux and apt-get goodies in so many ways I can't summarize it here even), iPhone (no tether, no MMS, no smileys), iPod (locked-down filesystem, otherwise pretty much OK) and I certainly wouldn't consider buying an iPad too, or any Apple product anymore, for that matter. Even my so-called "super" n-version airport is noticably much slower than other wireless networks and have piss-poor range, besides configuration is by a shitty proprietary application, as it also is with iPhone and most proprietary crap from Apple.
Unless you pay for updates, they are always incremental and not enhancing much. To really update, you have to buy the latest version gadget, disregarding that software updates could have given the same features = bad for environment. E.g. why is my 1st gen iPhone still lacking basic mobile features in 2010? Answer: It will never get properly updated. The same goes for OS X and every other product from Apple.
Apple is purposefully locked down their gadgets and having serious control-freak issues.
So buying and supporting Apple on a false sense of convenience, can have adverse effects from today on. Unless one is ignorant of these things, or just don't care.
IOW, Fuck Apple! If they don't change their attitude, I wish them a descent to be an example of how not to do business (screw your customers while hyping your product). Just because they're successful at it, doesn't make it right if it hampers people in the long run.
Problem is there is so much hype and myths surrounding Apple, and people are still falling for the propaganda (been there, done that). Common sense should prevail over longer time hopefully.
Any media outlets - NYT, WSJ, etc which are now dependent upon the success of the iPad for a revenue stream can no longer be considered as objective when it comes to reporting on the iPad or anything related to Apple.
Nice references.
If I looked as old and ugly as Rupert Murdoch I'd hate the world too.
The sooner dead tree newspapers die the better. Google can't put them out of their misery fast enough.
The net view Murdoch as damage and routes around him.
What a piece of you're-o-trash he is.
M
given that most "news" these days seems to be verbatim copies of press releases passed around by AP or similar agencies...
the investigative journalist are a myth these days, much the same as the rugged individual and other such concepts that US people wraps themselves in each day.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
I miss the days when Apple was associated with liberal causes.
This just in:
Adolph Hitler condemns my beloved kitty as "an enemy of Nazism", praises my ex by saying "let the world know, MQDuck's ex is great in the eyes of Hitler".
Naturally, I'm devestated.
Property is theft.
The only way this could get worse for Apple is if Osama Bin Laden reads his next set of crazy pronouncements off an iPad.
Need a teleprompter? There's an app for that.
Reply to That ||
Who cares what this clueless idiot thinks?!!
he is doing so much evil and filth that he not only plagues america, but infects overseas.
so, god, gods, whatever (he/she/they) holds the power of life and death for this locale of the galaxy, please kill that fucking man and get us rid of him.
Read radical news here
Although the wsj and the economist are good reads, they present the globalist/statist/looter viewpoints more often than not. You won't find much in the way of contrarian analysis at those sites, so you need some balance. Check out the market oracle http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/ and global research http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home for some alternative views.
Go here:
http://news.google.com/
Find an article. Click on it.
Hey, what do you know it takes you to the site to read the story.
The only exception I can find is AP stories; which Google pays for.
RM is scared that eventually people will go directly to AP as a news source. RM doesn't sell news, he sells 'appeal to emotion'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Based on Murdoch's track-record, it seems like none of what he would define as "News outlet" would actually qualify as being bona-fide Journalistic entities. Take Fox News for that matter...they don't report news, they manufacture it. I am certain all of Murdoch's "News outlets" are manufacturers of News. I guess that does qualify them as "News outlets" sans the Journalism.
So it is not very clear why he is mad at Search engines for distributing. Isn't the fact that one is able to distribute one's propaganda for free a dream-come-true for a Propagandist? What else does he expect now? Google should pay him $$$ for the garbage that his "News Outlets" produce?!? :o
The fact is, running a web site and having a staff of 20 writers and good salaries would cost under 3 million dollars a year.
Less if the writers mostly work from home. You could have a small office to meet in.
A 3 million dollar a year business might justify perhaps 10 million a year in revenues-- divide that by 10 million readers and you get a cost of $1 a year.
All of these businesses are trying to charge the SAME price for when they had printing facilities, physical products, shipping costs, heating and airconditioning for a huge marble palace of an office in one of the more expensive cities in the world.
Songs should be $.25-- NOT $1.00. Because the audience size is not the 100,000 listeners it was 30 years ago but 100,000,000 listeners.
JK Rowlings Harry Potter books were grossly overpriced. They were priced for a single country audience but sold to a world wide audience.
We are not getting the benefits of capitalism. The books could have sold for $4 and she would have still had a hundred million dollars-- and we could have bought other books by other writers. Instead we pay $13-- she has over a billion dollars- and other writers get starved out.
So many products should cost a fraction of what they charge these days. MP3's have NO VINYL RECORD BREAKAGE for cripe's sake. And no restocking costs.
Lots of people could be making solid amounts of $500k to a few million- but instead we have a small number of people making hundreds of millions and a larger mass of poverty.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Compared to what it was 25 years ago, it is a rag.
There is an outlet for reports, it's called 'Blogs'. Guess what? good ones make money. There is also the AP.
"Blogs and Google News on their own would be almost completely devoid of news if all the newspapers closed shop today"
False.
There are Blogs that have original content, and there is no reason your reporter friends can't start one.
Google News PAYS for the AP stories and only lists the beginning sentence or two from other news organizations,. If you want to read the story, you click on the link and get taken to the appropriate website.
Google News does it exactly right. Clearly fair use, clearly not 'stealing' revenue.
Maybe you should actually go to google news instead of sounding like an idiot?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Now, hang on, isn't most of the news in Murdoch's papers just regurgitated wire items? What does he think "reporting" means?
But aside from that, I actually agree. Google doing their own reporting would kill the newspapers stone dead, and let's face it -- it's about time.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I would be all over alt.rupert.murdoch.die.die.die
You don't know about 2nd breakfast? ;)
Seriously, though, I've been looking at e-readers for a while. I've been thinking I'd like something like one (long battery life, similar form factor) that also had some general computing capabilities, a touchscreen, and the option to attach an external keyboard. Something that could both replace the stack of books that rotates through my laptop bag and serve as a sketchpad for code, music ideas, random text/writing, and as a general web surfing device, something with significantly longer battery life than my laptop. Some netbooks are close, but I don't think a fold-out device is right for what I have in mind. The iPad fits the requirements pretty well. If it were $300, I might already have one.
Tweet, tweet.
That's part of the reason print newspapers, especially print dailies, are dying. Though its not the only one -- another thing is that a lot of the cheap, low-hanging fruit of journalism, the stuff that amounts to just relaying press releases with minimal work -- has dropped in value to the consumer as there are more competing outlets for that (including, since the advent of email, getting them straight from the horse's mouth.)
If the Ipad is going to revolutionize anything, it's going to be big media. Itunes pretty much did it a while ago with the hurting music industry, and I believe the Ipad is another venture to keep big media happy and make apple a fortune. I personally don't think the ipad is that appealing, and I will probably never own one, but I DO think it's an attractive platform for big media, and maybe that is why it is being hyped so much. Big media sees it as a possible answer to some of it's problems, so if it can make this thing popular enough, then it has a way to prolong it's survival.
What I think is interesting about this though, is that if advertising via big media still works, then obviously big media is doing just fine. If newspaper is failing, fine, just move it to a more current medium. I don't see an issue here. There is plenty of room to expand to digital mediums instead of printing everything. If you don't want it to be a (mostly) open technology like the internet, fine...pretty sure there is enough similarly-minded money out there to back whatever your silly idea is. I believe this is exactly what the ipad was created for.
You hit the nail on the head. There's a fair amount of pathological hatred here for anyone who doesn't think the same way the open source/freedom zealots do. Reading some of these rants, you'd think Apple is roasting babies on the spit.
That's because, from a software freedom point of view, Apple IS baby-eating bad. They're at the cutting edge of promoting the adoption of totally closed, vendor-controlled software environments - now Microsoft has gone from an open to totally closed environment with their mobile OS, copying Apple verbatim, and Palm did almost the same thing going to WebOS. Even Android phones aren't as open as, say, earlier Palms or Windows Mobile phones. Apple is lowering society's expectations about software freedom.
Services that might have been offered as platform-independent web apps or J2ME applets in the past are now being offered as iPhone apps instead.
Now a totally closed OS is on a tablet. Next maybe a netbook, then a laptop, then a desktop, who knows. So, to anyone who gives half a shit about software freedom, Apple is the devil.
Hope this gives you some perspective.
- Freedom zealot
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You're no longer relevant. This item, and the last five or six, are not about Apple. They are about how some people think Apple is terrible, and Google is good. Well, good luck to you. Apparently, one way that Apple is bad is that Rupert Murdoch hopes to make money from the iPad. Well, I don't know. The WSJ app sucks, big time, but nobody cares. The rabid conservatives loves them freakin' editorials, and then people get the news and stock market stuff to make money. Google doesn't have to make money this way. They give away Android, because they make their money selling you to advertisers. They've got a business, and so does Apple. Bless 'em both. Bye, all.
If anyone here wants to support journalism in the public interest (not Corporate controlled or all about supporting the status quo) donate to the organization Pro Publica and/or read their stories and forward them to your friends and colleagues.
Pro Publica is "an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclusively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them." See Pro Publica.
BTW, I just saw on their site a recent award...
And they are a 501c3 tax-deductible organization. Donate to them here.
(for the record, I'm not affiliated with them, I just think they are groovy.)
That's so funny considering that "Journalists" today take most of their infos from wikipedia (and a little bit of google)
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Murdoch loves the iPad? Proof positive that he's evil.
-Dave Haynie