New Tablets: Taking Off or Falling Flat? (Part 2)

I recently wrote a post concerning the new e-reader by the Philadelphia Media Network, the Arnova 10 G2 tablet. That post mainly focused on the challenges that the Philadelphia Media Network faced in creating this tablet & highlighted negative aspects of the tablet, but there are quite a few positive aspects to the tablet as well, aspects that may have been overlooked by those who are or have considered buying it.

There are a few plus sides to purchasing this seemlingly obsolete tablet. Besides working in the price of the Daily News, Inquirer & Philly.com apps into the cost of the tablet, customers are given a large discount on the subscription via the preloaded Arnova app as opposed to having to pay the price of a regular newspaper subscription. According to Osberg, "a couple of loyal print readers... were drawn in by the cut-rate deal and soon became comfortable with the unfamiliar medium." With that being said, this tablet should (at least theoretically) be able to draw in those who are familiar with & already reading the Daily News, Inquirer & Philly.com. If the Arnova can draw in a few already loyal PRINT readers, then perhaps it can do the same with non-loyal readers, thus rejuvenating this newspaper and bringing up sales (& possibly sparking back up interest). A newspaper is just a newspaper & an e-reader is just an e-reader but this tablet is special because it is combining the two functions for a very good price, giving the reader the best of both worlds.


In addition to this, the Arnova's creators definitely seemed to have the reader in mind when creating the tablet. Two different editions of the newspaper can be downloaded via wi-fi in a few minutes: one version is for those who are more newspaper- orientated with a layout very similar to that of an actual newspaper & the other version is for those who are more technologically- geared because it looks more like a regular website in a compact form. Another plus is the access to books & magazines via the Amazon app store.

So, to sum things up, there really are a few positive aspects to purchasing the Arnova 10 G2 tablet. The main convenience is that it's basically a cheaper alternative for the actual print newspaper, allowing for the readers to get more for their money. It was a good idea to make the app for the newspaper designed to look exactly like the newspaper itself & this tablet would be far more successful in terms of sales if it weren't attempting to compete with the brand name, all-ready-known tablets that have already been circulating for some time now. Alan Mutter, a San Francisco-based media & tech analyst says, "if you are offering your own, proprietary tablet from some company people never heard of, you are fighting the market. Nobody wins by fighting the market." Perhaps close relationships with the companies that have created the more well-known tablets would have been better suited for Osberg & his team, perhaps this would have helped the tablet actually take off. Still though, Osberg is confident in the tablet's success predicting that, despite his inaccurate first week calculations, the tablet "will be profitable within two years."

There are many different viewpoints on this particular situation & I invite anyone who would like to share their viewpoints to comment on the post. Will the Arnova 10 G2 ever really take off? Do the perks outweigh the disadvantages? Will loyal tablet users even pay attention to this new addition to the tablet competition, or just ignore it as a insignificant competitor? Only thing left is to wait & see...

New Tablets: Taking Off or Falling Flat? (Part 1)

Over the last couple years, tablets such as Apple's iPad, Kindle's Fire & Barnes and Nobles's Nook have continued to grow in their success since they were first introduced to the market. Despite some of the tablets having a rocky start, it definitely seems that they are becoming the norm in terms of readers preferences for tablets over printed books.

According to James Rainey's last On the Media column post, computer tablets could be the key to help save newspapers. Throughout his piece, Rainey sheds light on whats seems to work & not work when it comes to tablets & e-readers. For example, he focuses on how "the publisher, Gregory J. Osberg, of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News has begun selling not only the fruit of its news gathering but one version of the newfangled tree: a French-made, mid-market tablet." Basically, what Osberg did was create a competitor for the already existing tablets & e-readers.

This specific tablet, however, is supposed to be special because it has four paid applications that're specifically designed for it, no adapting necessary. These apps are factored into in the actual price of the Arnova 10 G2 tablet & include the Inquirer, its sister, the tabloid Daily News & Philly.com. The Arnova also include the Amazon app store while icons for sponsors such as healthcare providers appear on the screen.

Despite the hard work & effort that Osberg & his teams are putting forth for the Arnova to take off & become a true competitor with the iPad, etc, challenges are quickly arising & the challenges are turning customers away. The tablet does have its disadvantages turning off the technologically-geared because of the lack of "instantaneous connectivity," the tablet does not have 3G or 4G speed. It also has a "cramped & bulky keyboard," making it more difficult to work with & not as easy to transport in comparison to other e-readers. Though there hasn't been any recorded remarks made in reference to the keyboard, customers have been promised 3G and/or 4G connectivity in later models... which is interesting because the current model has yet to take off into the market & is in the middle of a miscalculation considering the first batch should have been gone by now while in fact, half is left, and yet Osberg is already making promises of fixing the future models.

There are already complications in the estimated success of these tablets, is Osberg getting ahead of himself in assuming that the company will make enough of a profit to manufacture a more advanced version of their Arnova? And if advances such as a more speedy internet connection were so obvious, why not simply put more effort into perfectly (or improving) the already existing tablet, instead of releasing it, only to share the advances & extra features the newer one will have? Regardless, now it's just a matter of time to see how well the sales for this tablet go. Osberg claims that within two years, the tablet will be profitable. Guess we'll just have to wait & see.

The Premature Death of Printed News

As a society, we’ve become so technologically advanced that some may feel that technology is the only means we have to communicate with one another. But that’s just our society in America, where not having a computer is completely unheard of. What happens to those in less developed countries that aren’t as advanced as we are? When print-hunters seek to eradicate newspapers, what happens to those who depend primarily on print? When this same group of people wishes to kill off the newspaper, do they mean only in America or in general?

Though most of these questions are often times left unanswered, it doesn’t change the fact that we are currently dealing with the premature death of printed news. According to an article in the Lock Journal, a hard copy of news is now completely obsolete and any are behind the movement to have it completely eradicated. However, there are still many places, such as smaller African nations, that are not as up to date on technology as we in the U.S. are. The elimination of newspapers for them would essentially be keeping them out of the loop consisting of current events. It would isolate them in a kind of state of confusion or unknowingness in comparison to those who are able to get a hold of alternate means of communication other than print.

Though newspapers will inevitably die-out, forcing them to die would be rushing their death. The very fact that the process is being rushed & forced says a lot. It’s not natural & the time isn’t right, otherwise it would be happening on it’s own. Totally killing off newspapers would ultimately hurt those who depend on them for news. They still have a great deal of life left in them & valuable information to provide.

One of the main reasons why experts say that newspapers will die out is because newspapers are very much a dated form of communication, one generally used by those of an older generation who aren’t accustomed to computers or fancy gadgets & gizmos. As those who read the daily newspaper start to die out, the newspaper itself will go with the, so to speak. An easy enough concept, this makes sense. But rushing their would throw things off or make them unbalanced. Older folks or those without computer access wouldn’t really have another alternative.

Right now, our basic situation is this: the newspaper is standing on the plank- it’s going to die but not for a while; it still has some time. Forcing newspapers to die out earlier than necessary would essentially be pushing them off the plank into the deep end, and when was the last time that ended well?

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Well, it’s finally beginning to happen. The musings & “maybe’s” are quickly turning into a harsh reality that may take some getting used to. But what’s this unprecedented change, you might ask? Well… Wait for it… Online newspapers will officially start (& some have already officially started) to charge readers for viewing their content.

Though it's been under speculation for quite some time, it seems that the financial aspect of this issue has unfortunately caught up to the newspaper companies because according to Janet Guyon, "free online access has contributed to the financial difficulties of dozens of newspapers." Different newspapers are responding to the paywall in different ways, but it's safe to say that readers aren't too thrilled with the new system. What once came free now has an unwelcomed price tag attached to it and the majority of readers haven't taken too kindly to this new ultimatum of paying for news content or not receiving the content at all, so when faced with the choice to take it or leave it, most have decided to leave it.

The issue in it of itself is actually very simple. Those in charge of online newspapers have decided that they must charge readers to view their content because their printed newspaper sales were suffering too much to keep the online version free of cost. They feel that the cost to view the material online is simply "subscription" with its purpose rooted in the goal of "protecting the sales of their printed editions." However, in an effort to gain money, it turns out that some newspaper companies have actually lost money or they haven't made any money at all. They've started to charge for online viewings, so people stopped reading their publications & switched to a publication that was still free. Granted, most newspapers (every single one that I've read about that has an online version) offer special deals & discounts for the online version. The online edition is cheaper than the printed version and some newspapers offer deals where, for example, if you subscribe to the printed newspaper, you then have access to the online newspaper for just a penny more per week or month (keep in mind that the online version allows the reader to view clips of news stories, videos, links, etc. that you simply can't get from a printed newspaper).

When you get down to it, the number of publications that don't charge for their online editions is growing smaller all too quickly & unfortunately, readers aren't pleased. But the unsupportive response shouldn't be too surprising considering that every time we search on Google, we don't have to pay a dime. Perhaps we've been spoiled. We've gotten the idea into our heads that as long as we have the necessary means to look up information (laptops, computers, etc.), then the actual acquiring of said information should be free; it never crossed our minds that we would actually have to pay for this content, whether people want to call it a "subscription"or not. But one thing continues to remain true: the cost of maintaining an online newspaper is exponentially lower than the cost of maintaining a printed version. So why are the prices for an online subscription generally just a few cents less? Why do the numbers seem a bit off? In short, how far are newspaper companies willing to go in order for them to save or make money, & who exactly is going to be feeling the effects of their measures? Them? Or us?

The Line is Growing Thinner

Newspapers were created by the people, for the people. Though initial purposes may have been to make money, it’s difficult to believe that this was the only purpose for newspapers because if money was the only issue that mattered, then surely there would have been another invention to bring home the bacon. No, newspapers were most definitely (& quite obviously) written to also keep its readers up to date on current events. With that being said, I repeat, newspapers were created by the people, for the people. BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. PEOPLE. So, if we’re dealing with people here, why does it seem as if we're slowly being replaced?

It used to be where pretty much all a journalist had to look out for was someone who was a better writer- someone higher up on the food chain who had the potential to kick you out of your comfy desk or someone who was potentially more valuable as a writer. So, you kept your pieces coming in a timely manner, made sure your articles were well-written, thought-out, cited, etc, & made sure that people wanted to read what you were writing about (& made sure that others knew just how comfortable you had gotten in that desk & how you intended on staying there). But now, instead of having to watch your back to make sure you don’t lose your promotion to your coworker, or lose your job to a newbie with a “young attitude” & “fresh, hip ideas,” you have to make sure that a machine doesn’t leave you with no where to stand other than the unemployment line.

Granted, when looking at the whole picture, yes, Neimen Reports clearly states that "our concern should not be solely a fear of robots replacing us," but the article does make a few interesting points & got me thinking that sure, perhaps machines aren't a threat to us because the idea of a machine composing its own article is unheard of, not to mention impossible. However, was it not also unheard of & impossible in the time of the first newspapers for a computer to pull stats together on its own? What I'm trying to get at is that a machine can't write its own article... not yet. But with our ever-prospering technology, the line separating what a machine does & what a machine can do is perpetually growing thinner, and it's starting to make me wonder, how long before the two sides bleed into one another? How long until what a machine "can do" becomes what a machine "does?" In short, how long until the already thin line completely disappears?

Digital Paper Boy

When early journalists first began to write newspapers, they had no idea the publications would ever come as far as they have. The periodicals whose initial purpose was to "make money" have definitely come a long way. We’ve gone from early newspapers with just a few pages, to newspapers with multiple sections, to most newspapers now being available online. However, hundreds of years ago, using “new-fangled” contraptions such as computers, servers or a database was merely a dream… and that might just be what’s most ironic about it all.

Nowadays, online newspapers are prospering more than ever before, while actual newspapers are shrinking in size, making a softer, more inaudible “thud” as they hit the front porch every morning. Online newspapers initially had a few simple purposes: to make the paper available for those who couldn’t afford a subscription, to keep up with the changing times, to “go green” and conserve paper, etc. But, there are a few sides to the story that have yet to be examined. Are digital newspapers yielding less readers? Is it in fact more difficult to obtain computer access that to obtain an actual newspaper, itself? Are readers getting too lazy to turn on their computers and find a site that provides them with a newspaper they’re comfortable with? Having a newspaper delivered everyday was a much more “in your face” kind of approach to updating people on current affairs, so, are people getting too lazy to look into an online newspaper? Has the slow switch to online made it more difficult for some avid readers? Has the go green/ save paper advantage balanced itself out with the electricity bill for using the computer more often?

In short, has the online publication of newspapers been a benefit or a disadvantage?