iClones and Newspapers
Found via GalleyCat, Look Out, Here Comes Tomorrow: iPhone Kills Newsprint?
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, speculates in his blog (complete with drawings), about the longevity, or lack thereof, of newspapers.
Quoting GalleyCat:
"I predict that the end of printed newspapers will happen in the time it takes for most people to upgrade their cell phones two more times," Dilbert creator Scott Adams prognosticates. "The iPhone, and its inevitable copycats, (let's call them iClones) are newspaper killers. When you have a web browser in your pocket, a printed newspaper is redundant." Adams runs through all the reasons he believes cell phones will become a more popular medium for delivering news to consumers than paper, then suggests that this shift will be attended by a complete restructuring of the way newspaper companies deliver their product, envisioning "a hybrid of social voting, such as you see on web sites like [Reddit and Digg], but further filtered by human editors who weed out the redundant, the juvenile, and the stuff unsubstantiated by facts."
tags:
| comments: 6
| Sphere It
submit: 
0 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://orm3.managed.sonic.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2484
Comments: 6
[10.08.07 04:10 PM]
I've got to say that I'm starting to agree with Scott on this one. The big media companies that can adapt to the technology will stick around (and possibly thrive), but I can't see newspapers as we know them sticking around once everyone has the web in their pocket (more thoughts on this in the link in my name).
The future belongs to the companies/people that can best work with the new technology - whether they are traditional "old media" type companies or new startups.
Besides, newsprint isn't exactly "green" or eco-friendly.
[10.08.07 04:58 PM]
I'm not so sure about this, for a couple of reasons:
1) There's something to be said for the large format of a newspaper. Unlike a smaller device (a computer screen--even a very large one, or especially an iPhone or similar), the larger format of a real newspaper allows you to see a lot more information at one time, see articles in relation to each other, have your eye grabbed by a word or phrase in an article that you wouldn't normally have read, etc. This very tactile, chance-driven experience is something that's going to be pretty hard to duplicate in an electronic device.
2) There are lots of places where you can't (or really wouldn't want to) use an internet connected device. For example, subway tunnels still generally don't have cell phone, much less mobile broadband, service; I'd much rather risk dripping the ketchup from my burger (or spilling my cup of coffee) on my 25 cent newspaper than my 250 dollar phone or 2500 dollar computer; etc.
I do see Scott Adams' point about the business model for traditional newspapers collapsing based on this sort of device--that much does seem valid, unfortunately. I do hope I'll be able to get a decent physical newspaper for a while more!
[10.08.07 05:25 PM]
I think the browser in the pocket will further erode the base for newspaper readership, but not as quickly as the newspapers are doing themselves. It is becoming obvious that newspapers are more about advertizing than delivering valuable news. People continue buying newspapers for the extra features newspapers offer (Sunday funnies, crosswords, special interest sections). But newspapers cut back on these extras in order to maximize profits, which causes mmore readership loss, etc.
When the browser in your pocket projects its image onto the video glasses you are wearing (so that the image appears to be huge), with the mouse sprite following where your eyes are looking (wink to click?), newspapers will be obsolete - but they will probably be out of business before that happens.
[10.09.07 02:43 AM]
I agree with Ian here. Paper won't die. We shouldn't forget that the discussion here is being led by innovators and early adopters. Besides, people are used to newspapers. I do see a huge future for electronic newspapers, because they can be updated throughout the day, don't ruin complete forests and are similar to the paper product.
Newspapers though have to change their content as well. If they don't become much more user-centered and supply loads of news to loads of market niches, they will die in the end. Because this highly generic, one-for-all product is approaching the end of its life-cycle as we know it.
[10.09.07 02:44 AM]
This is total and utter nonsense... let's not confuse cool gadgetry and adotopin/useage by a small niche group with the realities of business and actually creating all the content that goes into a newspaper. Forget about the iphone or iClones... no publisher makes anywhere near what they make in digital revenues as they still do in print, despite the decline or supposed decline (and the crossover of those curves is a couple of decades aways, regardless of whose crazy forecasts you want to use). If publishers can't make money (which digital still represents a very small portion of), they can't have the big newsrooms that create all the content over a billion people worldwide still like to consume.
And I'd like to see somebody reading the Sunday NYTimes on the iphone... still nothing as convenient as the printed paper, sa cool and wonderful as the iphone is
Post A Comment:
Radar RSS feed
Istvan Belanszky [10.08.07 03:53 PM]
I doubt it will be a decision factor, but when you have a webbrowser in your pocket, destroying more forests for your daily newspaper is no longer necessary.