Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rupert Murdoch Hates Google, Loves the iPad

Posted by timothy on from the consume-consume-consume dept.

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.'"

27 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Endorsement by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is sort of like an Endorsement from Satan right?

    1. Re:Endorsement by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, except there's a logic to his madness. Murdoch loves the idea of people paying 15 dollars a month to read foxnews.com or the WSJ on the ipad.

      For once Murdoch and I have something in common. I'd love to see all Murdoch's sited completely covered by a paywall, I long for the day when I wont accidentally stumble across one of his poorly written tabloids which contains little more then thinly veiled propaganda.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Endorsement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


      I long for the day when I wont accidentally stumble across one of his poorly written tabloids which contains little more then thinly veiled propaganda.

      Which 'content' in the overwhelming majority of cases they have not even created themselves (Murdoch's business model has no money left for good investigative journalists): they just syndicate the news from AP (which does get paid by Google) or steal it from some blogger (who does not get paid by Murdoch), add their propaganda to it (which Murdoch should be paying for for us to read. A lot.) and then they slap their advertisements on it (which Murdoch should be paying us for as well - my attention has value and Murdoch should not expect to be able to steal it for free).

      Google on the other hand provides good functionality (a good, unbiased search index and good apps) in exchange for my attention.

      Really, Murdoch should not feel so entitled to the resources of this world. He should compete for them like the rest of the planet does. Right now, as far as I'm concerned his business offer to me falls far short of being as competitive as Google's.

    3. Re:Endorsement by Haymaker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There are some people who's adblock behavior is kinda on principals rather than "block everything unless it breaks"

      Early after I made my Slashdot account I had adblock on but didn't pay it any mind, and then I saw the "thanks to you contributing positively to this board, you are eligible to turn off ads"

      I felt it was such an honorable and honest system that I disabled adblock for Slashdot and didn't opt-out of the ads. It also made me disable it for other sites I appreciate, like Hulu or even Google.com. Reddit has a "Thank you for not using AdBlock" graphic in place of an ad sometimes. I think it's what Google was saying some time ago: adblockers aren't ruining free websites, people will eventually use them to block out annoying or undesirable ads while choosing to support the websites they would like to support.

      Not that I'm saying this behavior is in the majority, but it might grow with the usage of AdBlockers.

    4. Re:Endorsement by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Murdoch didn't get rich by being honest and forthright

      Yes, uniquely amongst extremely rich people, he's not a nice man.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Logically... by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Rupert Murdoch praises something, it just can't be good.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
    1. Re:Logically... by blankinthefill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It really makes sense that he would praise it, too. The strict control that Apple keeps over the app store is something that our good friend Rupert would love to see people get used to, since it falls right in line with his paywall schemes.

    2. Re:Logically... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was actually quite shocked when the Economist site went free. Beats me why - those were high-quality articles I was willing to pay for. As in, pay to access the site.

      Here's what's not cool though: bitching that Google is stealing from you, when you're not even following Google's suggestion on how to prevent Google from indexing your content. That's just pure whining and ass-hattery.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Logically... by Rennt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not at all - it is not that Murdoch likes the iPad, but the reason he likes it. It is a locked-down device designed for passive media consumption.

      If the fact that Murdoch is promoting the iPad really should be setting of alarm bells in your geek psyche.

    4. Re:Logically... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whining is because he wants google to cut him checks in exchange for the status quo, but they know he needs them more than they need him.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    5. Re:Logically... by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The bizarre part is Google must have brought far more visitors to his news sites than it ever took away. People who weren't the slightest bit inclined to visit The Times site on a daily basis did visit because the headline link popped up on their news page. That means more advertising revenue than if news aggregation never existed in the first place.

      If The Times or other of his publications go behind a paywall then not only is he losing the random visitors but also his loyal visitors who suddenly pay for stuff they got for free previously. Needless to say ad revenue will fall through the floor and the site must rely on the patronage of subscribers to keep the site going.

      Maybe there is a enough people who regularly fork out for his content that makes it financially viable, but everyone else will be quite content to get their news from the many hundreds of other news outlets providing similar / identical coverage. If someone needs a fix of right wing rhetoric they can get it from countless blogs. I hope his plans tank and tank badly.

  3. Suggestion for Rupert by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

    robots.txt

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Suggestion for Rupert by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rupert's company knows about robots.txt. See, they allow everything.

      And Foxnews is even kind enough to provide sitemaps targeted at facilitating Google

      Rupert's mantra should probably be listen to what I say, (pay no attention to what I do)

    2. Re:Suggestion for Rupert by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no way! Like the MPAA and RIAA before him. Rupert wants to have his cake AND eat it too.
      He wants Google to stop pinching his content - but DOESN'T want them to stop indexing his sites.
      He wants to stop others from pinching his content - but he WON'T stop pinching content from other FREE sites if it'll embellish a story. (eg. pics/quotes from Facebook tribute pages of people who've ended up in the news)

      You WILL submit!

  4. Yes of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yes of course by Budenny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. This is where Apple has been going for a long time now, and the world of a locked down device, where you only access media through one controlled point, where all apps have to be obtained from one supplier who keeps a tight lock on what can be installed, that's a wet dream for Big Content. If you think about it, the most important aspect of it is that you can bar hacks that will unlock DRMd media. As long as you just had DRMd media, but freedom to install whatever software you wanted, and the ability to transfer files from machine to machine simply by copying them across, DRM was always going to be readily hackable.

      What we are moving towards is a situation where you will buy your content from Apple only, you will not be able to copy it without Apple's consent, you will install no apps that Apple does not like. So DRM will really work. Not only that, but all the content will at last be family friendly and politically correct. No need to worry about nasty subversive political sites, or swimsuit pictures showing up unexpectedly.

      Apple is far, far worse than Microsoft. Microsoft is an old fashioned tech company, similar in attitude to IBM or HP etc. Its anti competitive of course, very market share focussed. But it does not have this stifling desire to control what customers do and read, it does not worry much about what content is accessed by the products it sells which give it its market share.

      Apple is not really, in spirit, a tech company at all, or rather, its a unique sort of tech company, its a tech company in the tradition of Walt Disney 1955. So it is always thinking, how to use its tech position to control what customers do, think and read. That is the fundamental aim to which all its design tends. Its natural allies are Big Content companies. It has sometimes been said that Apple had DRM imposed on it against its will. Don't believe it. DRM and lockin are central to the Apple value system, they are shared values with the content and media industries. It seems inexplicable to Apple fans that it should be trying to ban the reading of perfectly lawful publications on its devices. You have to realize that Apple thinks of itself as Walt Disney 1955, but who in the 21st century has chosen to deliver its family friendly and politically correct content via computers and tablets. This is all of a piece, part of the same thing. This is why your music was DRMd, even when the rights owners did not want it to be. DRM is central to the Apple vision of how the world should work, as is content censorship.

      I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux. Now, why would that be, exactly....? Its because open source is the enemy for Apple, even more than for MS, because it represents intellectual freedom. That is what is really at issue here. Do you want to live in a world in which a sort of latter day Disney tells you what you can read? Most of the press and media do. They cannot wait to be part of that latter day Disney consortium. That's the appeal of Apple today.

      The Slate article is spot on. Its come a long way, and its ended up, like many revolutionaries, turning into a far worse version of what it originally campaigned against.

  5. The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... by caladine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wall Street Journal:
    Online + Printed: $2.99/week
    iPad only: $3.99/week
    Anyone else see the problem here?

  6. Go ahead, Rupert, make our day by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Go ahead, Rupert, make our day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tabloid rags? WSJ? Geez, I'm as non-Republican as they come but you sound like an idiot saying that.

      I'd prefer avoiding going into some redundant spiel, but basically:

      • It's true that newspapers are dying, because they're not getting paid for what they used to get paid for and nothing is making up for that loss of revenue.
      • No matter how much you want to argue that this paper or that newpaper isn't doing "real journalism", they are all dying and they are almost the sole original sources for most news we hear, including most news the government or various corporations don't want you to hear.
      • Blogs and Google News on their own would be almost completely devoid of news if all the newspapers closed shop today. Their value, with rare exception, is derived from the value created by these news companies that are losing money. (Which leads back to the first point.)

      Finally, I'm close friends with some journalists. People who've written for the NY Times and Village Voice, rags like Entertainment Weekly, and more local papers you probably don't know. These people do good work (though more rarely when it's EW or People), and some of them are having problems figuring out what to do once they can't do what they're good at. It seems very likely that we're entering into a period that will historically be known as the nadir of journalism, the time when something not under any one person's individual control lead to the loss of a generation of reporters.

    2. Re:Go ahead, Rupert, make our day by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then do us all a favor and pull your tabloid rags off Google.

      Actually he's trying to have it both ways, the headline and first sentence to be indexed by google, the link leading to the paywall.

      I wonder if Google's super secret search algorithm has the ability to tell if this is happening (I.E. the page content essentially not being there) and degrade these results in relevance (which is what I'm asking a search engine to do, order the results by the relevance to the search string)

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  7. It seems like by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:iPads as newspaper replacement by Superdarion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you ever watched that movie called Big, with Tom Hanks? I remember very clearly this scene in which Susan is presenting her new revolutionary idea to her company. It is a cyber-comic book, in which you can display the pages of your favorite comic book and change the page and everything. Sounds familiar?

    The executive, disgruntled, then asks: Why would a kid pay $100 for that device if he can get a comic book for just 15 cents?

    Everyone laughs at Susan.

  9. Re:We need a better free press by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed I have noticed that most of the breaking stories these days have come from Wikileaks. Although not technically news it's been much more informative then traditional rags that put a spin on everything.

  10. Re:I'm torn... by bertoelcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing says cool and hip like an endorsement from an old geezer.

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  11. I posit that by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. Re:Yeah. by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's someone with a reliable track record, then yeah. In this case, it's Rupert Murdoch who has a track record of being reliable, in the sense that all he's endorsed in the past has been bad for me. I simply don't share his taste, and what's good for him makes the world worse off for me. ;-)

  13. No, endorsement from its primary customer by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.