New York Times R&D group is braced for the future of content delivery, being totally chill

In a collision of journalistic labs heretofore unseen, the folks at Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab hit up The New York Times' R&D lab for a look at what those ink-stained word-slingers think about the future of newspaper delivery. Nick Bilton, "Design Integration Editor" at the NY Times, and ever calm in the face of futurism, gave a guided tour of the devices they're currently looking at, and while there aren't a lot of surprises, it is nice to see they're taking ebooks, netbooks and touchscreen PCs all very seriously. Of particular note is a (sadly damaged) e-ink prototype with a newspapery layout, complete with typography, designed for an "e-ink device that [doesn't] exist yet." Nick also makes mention of Mary Lou Jepsen's upcoming Pixel Qi display, along with the marvelous world of RFID-based ads. Check out the full content delivery nerd-out on video after the break.

[n00b @ May 11th 2009 11:41AM]

Nevermind the joke is old if it ever was a joke, but still better than an Apple comment, eh?

[D @ May 11th 2009 11:46AM]

good too see...

[alex @ May 11th 2009 11:48AM]

If you ask me it's a waste of resources considering NYT is bleeding money hand over fist right now and this tech won't see the light of day before they go tits-up in their current trajectory.

[Jon Acheson @ May 11th 2009 12:19PM]

This is a desperation ploy: they are dying, and are grasping at straws to keep from going under.

Apparently they've given up on competing with Craigslist or rediscovering journalistic integrity, so this is all they have left.

[Seth @ May 11th 2009 1:23PM]

Why is it that print publishers just don't want to accept reality?

No one is asking you to reproduce the 'newspaper' experience on mobile devices, NYT, so stop trying to shove it down our throats by working so hard to make electronic versions of the NYT look like the pulp version.

It's a stupid war-torn idea that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of these devices and where internet communications has been and is going.

Go look at CNN's mobile site on your iPhone - this is all that is needed - some hyperlinked headlines and maybe a lead photo. That's all we need - we don't need complex column layouts etc. - that's just novelty, not usability. For your site, we don't even need an iPhone app - especially if you are just going to organize content in a way which has no added value beyond how a web page would work.

More importantly, look at Twitter - we are seeking to strip away everything that is of no importance and get succinct. No more song and dance, no more fancy fonts, no more paste-up - just native content delivery.

I kinda get sick to my stomach when I think about this guy and maybe 3-5 design people and 2 engineers at NYT wasting 100's of 1000's of dollars trying to make silly little 'branded' versions of the NYT for individual devices - what a waste.

[dchang @ May 11th 2009 2:31PM]

@ Seth:

If Twitter is your idea of news, or even the ideal news format, I hope your news never gets anywhere near my news. No offense; just a total divergence of opinion.

[peter @ May 11th 2009 11:55AM]

Is it some kinda joke that the guy's job title acronyms down to "DIE" ?

[chris @ May 11th 2009 1:22PM]

I have a news reader, it's called a computer. Why would I buy something that is only a news/book reader?

Take a clue guys, subscription based news is DEAD. Nobody wants to pay for news anymore. You can make all the readers you want but if nobody is willing to pay for your content your back to square one holding a flaming bag of dog turds (again).

[Jon Doe. @ May 11th 2009 3:41PM]

Its not dead. The problem is that people are not finding a justifiable reason to get a subscription anymore. Many, many, MANY people simply do not have the time to page through a paper, be it virtual or paper based. They want their headlines, maybe some commentary on the topic, and BAM. Done. Newspapers are in a bad position. Most simply do not have the capability to do realtime updates. These papers weren't designed for it, unlike CNN who at least had a televised medium that was much closer to realtime then papers were.
Newspapers are now trying to retool for the 21st century and most are failing at it. The new uber Kindle won't save them either. It comes down to providing that data in a more realtime fashion and if they did that along with other digital benefits. *shrugs* I don't know. Maybe localized news based on your GPS location or something?
Again they aren't dead. At least not yet. I think there will be a number of papers that will "get it" and transition over. But for papers like the NYT who are either unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall....yah doomed.

[Greg N. @ May 11th 2009 5:26PM]

People are going to have to pay online eventually.

Journalists need to get paid for their work. The internet can't get spoiled where everything for them is free forever.

It's going to change soon.

[decyphersmc @ May 11th 2009 1:38PM]

I for one would enjoy having a news site adjust itself to my browser size, whether I'm on my netbook or my 22-inch monitor.

[Mesonto @ May 11th 2009 4:02PM]

Instead of playing catch-up with a 'me too' attitude/device the NYT has to better their offerings.

[Psycros @ May 11th 2009 11:33PM]

Unless you have a wood stove or fireplace, who needs a pound of newsprint every day? Sure, paper is way more biodegradable than a Kindle, but why use those resources at all? A paper takes up more room than a mobile device, so the whole portability argument is no longer relevant. The battery life of our gadgets has increased to the point that unless you're a jabberjaw or music monger you're not likely to lose that 3G or WiFi ability before the day is out. Then there's the whole lag time problem. Without question, cable killed the newspaper star for most people. Even my grandparents get most of their news from TV (and I am not young). Honestly, about all the newspaper offers at this point is community news and a medium that works when the power is out. Older folks, technophobes or those in rural areas who can't afford satellite are newsprint's only stalwarts now, and I don't see those groups growing in number. If we could just get ubiquitous wireless broadband (or even mediumband) I think the e-book and e-paper market would explode. It could hold its own with the networks we have right now. The NYT and other publications could partner with an online distributor to sell their content at a price anyone could afford (think XM for online publishers). They already transmit their content to printers all over world every single day - this would be even simpler. If you aren't paying for server bandwidth the cost of online publishing is relatively cheap. That virtually assures the success of this business model..if, and only if the parties involved don't get greedy. Anyone with a keyboard can be an online journalist now. Only the quality of your content will set you apart, and if its good you CAN charge for it..just not very much per subscriber. The biggest problem for an online content provider who charges for its product is some guy still giving away decent material that overlaps its own. In that case...well, maybe such an organization should consider buying out these lone wolves or even putting them on the payroll. These folks may not have UC Berkley journalism creds, but so what? Half of the bloggers on the 'net do a better job of fact checking than the New York Times. Ultimately, the biggest advantage of newspapers is their breadth of coverage. If periodicals keep leveraging that ability they'll survive the transition to purely digital distribution and regain subscribers as the Twitter generation grows up. There's a ton of important news out there every day that TV and radio simply can't or won't report..not even on their websites. I get more news from the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen than I do from the talking heads, which is most likely straight off the wires.

[JD @ May 12th 2009 2:49AM]

I'm sorry, I just don't feel like reading that.

[superhobo @ May 12th 2009 9:34AM]

It is possible to hit people over the internet....with a wall of text.

[collide007 @ May 13th 2009 9:31AM]

Heard of paragraphs?