
Steve Jobs Will Save Print Media - Flemlord
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/inevitable-apple-tablet/
======
JLaramie
I'm not willing to bet the house against Steve Jobs but unfortunately, just
like this article and just like today's world, no one has announced a plan or
much less hinted at an idea of how to save the print media world. However, I
think there is an important distinction here - one between the actual art of
print dying (the physical paper) and the other of monetizing the digital
aspect of it. The latter is so challenging because the online distribution
model is so vastly inexpensive to produce that charging for it goes against
everything free out there - which is the majority of the market.

Now, if a tool such as the tablet is such a cool way to read the paper in the
morning - then maybe, just maybe, apple can work with publishers on some fee
based solution. I think that this article leads us back to the underlying
point that technology can and has saved some industries from dying and now,
how can tech save print media from running out of ink.

~~~
Tangurena
The reason that no one has hinted at "an idea of how to save print media" is
that there is _no_ cure for print media as we have had it in the recent past.
Their business model has been in decline for several decades, and they're not
interested in changing. If you graph subscription/readership, you'll notice
that somewhere between 2015 and 2020 the last newspaper in America will close.
The industry is dead. It is just a matter of time before the corpse finally
stops twitching.

------
lloydarmbrust
What's killing publishers is not a content monetizing problem, it's a basic
business-model problem: publishers have been making too much money on print-ad
sales and like everything else the internet has made advertising cheaper.

Publishers don't just need to perfect a micro-payment solution for content,
they need to change the way they create that content to make their entire
business cheaper to operate.

~~~
natrius
Unless you're going to pay journalists less or hire fewer of them, journalism
isn't going to get any cheaper. It's a revenue problem, not an expenses one.

I want the best journalism possible, and I'm willing to pay for it not just so
I can read it, but so others can be informed and our democracy will actually
have a chance of working. Producing journalism as cheaply as possible won't
result in the kind of democracy I want to live in. The sacrifices that have
been made have already led in that direction.

~~~
Tangurena
> _pay journalists less or hire fewer of them_

That has been the practice of media companies for more than two decades.
Mergers and aquisitions have reduced the number of print media owners to a
tiny handful. The problem is more that those businesses are used to 20% profit
margins, and with over-inflated prices paid during the acquisitions, there is
far less incentive to pay market rates for journalists, or even to keep them
employed.

While _you_ might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring
the journalists sure aren't. Furthermore, the line between editorial content
and actual reporting has become so blurry that the smart thing to do is
presume that the entire newspaper is editorial.

~~~
natrius
_"While you might be willing to pay for the best journalism, the people hiring
the journalists sure aren't."_

I agree. That's why I think the best option is for people like me to hire our
own journalists by funding non-profit journalism. Then again, I'm biased.

<http://www.texastribune.org>

------
stuartjmoore
He'll save print by making it digital?

