Apple stops free Ipad newspaper subscriptions

[Sweetpea]

"Sorry, we don't make enough money, so, please, newspaper publishers, give us some of yours..."

http://www.padgadget.com/2011/01/15/...or-publishers/

[Maggie Leung]

I usually use newspaper Web sites, rather than newspaper apps. On smaller iDevices, apps were more useful, because limited screen real estate made navigating tough. iPad's screen size makes Web sites much more accessible.

[Nexutix]

That's why I say... Honeycomb 3.0!

I always prefer open source systems. (OSs, Clouds, Programs, Web-based Engines, etc.) Not because they are free, but because they are either Ad-based (Android apps) or done by community which REALLY understands what users want. (Linux, MR forums )

No doubt Apple is best at providing highest quality user experience, but the monopoly and money-based closed ecosystems are going to collapse one day with rise of completely open ecosystems. (Is there just a start of it? )

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I usually use newspaper Web sites, rather than newspaper apps. On smaller iDevices, apps were more useful, because limited screen real estate made navigating tough. iPad's screen size makes Web sites much more accessible.

That's the response on one of the Dutch publishers: we'll just make our web site more accessible to Ipad users, instead of going the easy way of an app.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

That's the response on one of the Dutch publishers: we'll just make our web site more accessible to Ipad users, instead of going the easy way of an app.

I also tend to skip news apps because the content is more stripped down than that on news Web sites.

[rhadin]

Interesting article at the New York Times, "Verizon Deal May Expose iPhone Flaws". Although not directly relevant to the magazine app issue, the article discusses Apple's arrogance and how "cool" is more important than making something work correctly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Interesting article at the New York Times, "Verizon Deal May Expose iPhone Flaws". Although not directly relevant to the magazine app issue, the article discusses Apple's arrogance and how "cool" is more important than making something work correctly.

I really can't agree with the criticisms of the iPhone made in that article. I get excellent voice quality with my iPhone, and the battery life is all I'd expect from a handheld device; I use it on-and-off all day for mobile internet, and only have to recharge about once every 3 days or so. A chap I work with, who has an HTC Android phone has to recharge his phone every day.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Interesting article at the New York Times, "Verizon Deal May Expose iPhone Flaws". Although not directly relevant to the magazine app issue, the article discusses Apple's arrogance and how "cool" is more important than making something work correctly.

The writer seems to assume that users settle for AT&T because of iPhone. I was an AT&T customer long before iPhone. I don't have a beef with AT&T service.

[elcreative]

Hmmm... interesting and New York Times in the same sentence...

[Graham]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really can't agree with the criticisms of the iPhone made in that article.

For that matter I can't agree with his criticisms of Android. My Galaxy S is dazzling, quite extraordinary. The article seems to miss the fact that Android phones range from cheap and cheerful to high-end premium.

For the record, I'm getting two or three days charge out of my Galaxy, with phone calls and syncing with calendar and tasks, and light internet use.

Graham

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Graham

And for the record, I'm getting two or three days charge out of my Galaxy. Comments like 'the HTC has to be charged every day' without an indication of how heavy the usage is are pretty pointless.

Graham

My friend at work, Mike - the chap with the HTC phone: his one criticism of it is the fact that the battery life is so awful. He loves the phone, but finds that to be a real shortcoming with it. I certainly wasn't intending it to be a general condemnation of all Android devices; I'm sure they come with a wide range of battery lifetimes.

Apple drastically increased the battery life with the iPhone 4. The older iPhone 3 had a pretty poor battery life, too.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My friend at work, Mike - the chap with the HTC phone: his one criticism of it is the fact that the battery life is so awful. He loves the phone, but finds that to be a real shortcoming with it. I certainly wasn't intending it to be a general condemnation of all Android devices; I'm sure they come with a wide range of battery lifetimes.

Apple drastically increased the battery life with the iPhone 4. The older iPhone 3 had a pretty poor battery life, too.

Hi Harry, you caught my comment before I deleted it! I realised immediately after posting that I'd done exactly what I was criticising in my own post - given a battery life for my Galaxy without explaining what I was using it for!

Graham

[fjtorres]

This is actually a great development.
Dedicated site-access apps exist to make up for the deficiencies--relative to the full, open web--of the iphone formfactor and its browser. Especially where it comes to rich, interactive sites that rely on Flash. With Apple banning first Flash and now free access-apps, the publishers really only have one option to provide unified subscriptions to their content: reworking their websites with HTML5.
Once enough publishers do so, the rest will have to follow suit so the likely result of this is to accelerate HTML5 adoption and put an end altogether to site-access apps. For the publishers it means lower costs since they no longer have to code, distribute and support even one app, much less 4 or 5 for iOS, Android, Symbian, Blackberry, WP7 etc. It also means the recover control of the customer relationship from Apple.
For users it means the pubishers have no excuse for *not* providing unified cross-platform access subscriptions.
So the publishers win and the customers win.
That's a good thing, no?

[Andrew H.]

The article also reflects a NY bias. Dropped calls and bad call quality aren't universal to AT&T; although NY City, San Francisco, and maybe a couple of other locations do have bad AT&T service. My iPhone's phone service is as good as the phone service I previously had from Verizon.

Battery life is another weird complaint, as the iP4's battery is much better than that on the previous phone, and is slightly better than the battery on any comparable phone - even with heavy usage, I don't have to charge the phone everyday.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The article also reflects a NY bias. Dropped calls and bad call quality aren't universal to AT&T; although NY City, San Francisco, and maybe a couple of other locations do have bad AT&T service. My iPhone's phone service is as good as the phone service I previously had from Verizon.

Do you think that complaints of poor voice quality might be a reflection of the network rather than the phone? As I say, I get very good quality with my iPhone 4, but I'm using it on Vodafone in the UK, not AT&T in the US.