Tasha Harrison

Last week there were two extremely important events in the world of technology. The first was the launch of the iPad, Apple’s netbook/giant iphone/small laptop type device, and the second was the first ever football match broadcast live in 3D.

No one is really sure what the iPad is for. Why do I want an iPhone, a laptop and an iPad? Possibly to read newspapers and books on the go. It’s certainly got a larger screen than the iPhone, but isn’t as big as my laptop, which means that it will fit perfectly in my handbag and I can easily read from it. But that alone is not enough for me to go out and buy one. Does it feels as though Apple have simply created the iPad for the sake of creating a new device?

The problem with the iPad is that society isn’t quite ready for it yet – we haven’t completely come to terms with the fact that we don’t need print anymore. One day, probably not as far in the future as one would imagine, we won’t really read printed material anymore. We will all carry around a device that will be much like the iPad.

And here lies the problem for technology. One day we will probably all sit and watch our televisions with glasses on, no longer wowed by the wonder of 3D, we will simply accept that football is best this way. Each person will carry around their own pair of glasses, ready for a mate’s house or the pub. It will become integrated into our lives.

You’re probably reading this thinking that you really like reading from paper and you don’t want to sit in the pub wearing glasses. The problem with this new technology is that we’re just not ready for it yet.

While the newspaper industry continues to debate the pros and cons of paywalls, Stewart Kirkpatrick, former editor of scotsman.com, has launched the first ever web-only daily. Named after Scotland’s oldest newspaper, The Caledonian Mercury, caledonianmercury.com challenges the perception that the internet will spell the death of the newspaper. By offering high quality journalism, it hopes to attract readers and advertisers through the quality of its content.

There has been much debate about whether such a venture can succeed given the damage the internet has done to the industry. With sites like the BBC and Sky News continuing to offer free news will there be a place for niche news sites? I think the problem that the Caledonian Mercury is going to have is that it is competing against many other niche news sites that won’t have the same overheads – the Scottish publication is going to be paying journalists, including many former staff from the Scotsman.

There are also question marks over the professionalism of the design. Built in WordPress, the site doesn’t exude the same professionalism as the majority of its competitors. Simplicity is always a good starting point, but the curious logo and tag clouds give it more the image of a blog. Perhaps this is what they had planned, but in the longterm it is a concern that they just come across as another blog.

It’s a great idea, but I’m worried that their approach may just prove that blogs will replace newspapers for well written and thoughtful commentary.

This is how far:

SUABVCKBUMM3

Yesterday The Guardian released it’s new app for the iPhone. It costs £2.39, is highly personalised and allows you to listen to podcasts and browse images. The Guardian does have a very good mobile site, but I downloaded the app as I wanted to see whether it would be worth £2.39, which is quite a lot for an app. First impressions are that it makes browsing a lot easier and I can organise it into the sections I read the most. It is a definite improvement, but not completely life changing.

The Guardian are leading the way in monetising the news. I don’t have to download the app to read the paper, I could go on reading it from the web browser, but the app makes it a lot easier and the customisation is great. They have added value to their service and I am willing to pay. It’s a lot like upgrading your Spotify so you don’t receive adverts.

The Guardian recognise, more than any other British newspaper, the need to work with their readers to turn around their declining profits. Instead of rushing backwards to an old model of charging people to read the news (ie what Murdoch is proposing) they have accepted that information on the internet is free. The amount of content that is published everyday has reduced the value of news. Before the internet, everyone had to buy a paper or magazine to gather information and opinions. Now it’s free.

I’ve spoken before about the fact that this is a huge problem for newspapers. The Guardian have reacted by adding value to the experience of reading news on their website. They have subscription services, but they don’t charge for the basic news. They also don’t make a big song and dance of it (like Murdoch), they simply offer these services as a way to add value.

It is too soon to know which model will work, a paywall system, where you must subscribe to read beyond a certain point, or an added value service, where you pay for a better experience. I suspect that the latter will be the more successful.

Rupert Murdoch has declared war on Google. He has long accused the search giant of being responsible for the decline in the newspaper industry. Murdoch now wants to remove his sites from the Google index. He will start charging for content next year and is looking to do a deal with Microsoft for content to appear on Bing.

Murdoch has a massive problem. Less people are buying his newspapers, because the content is free online, and if he starts charging for content people can simply get their news from another source. If he removes his sites from Google he will reduce the number of visitors, which in turn will effect the advertising revenue on the sites. His competitors will still offer news for free – unless he can pursuade them to join him on Bing, behind a pay wall. And then, of course, there’s the BBC, who will not only continue to offer free content, but keep creating better and better online services.

I think that there is a chance that Murdoch’s plan could work, in the end something has to change.  He does have a knack of not only making a great deal of money, but also of forcing consumers to buy his products – how many sports fans have given up being angry about having to pay for Sky Sports and view it as an essential, a little bit like paying your gas bill?