RupertMurdoch
Latest
WSJ iPad subscription sets you back $17.29 per month
You know that free Wall Street Journal iPad app that was introduced yesterday? If you want anything more than the top articles and basic market data you'll need to fork out US$17.29 per month. That's what an iPad WSJ subscription will cost you. That's $3.99 per week. Engadget is quick to point out that a subscription to both the print and online versions of the WSJ will only run you $2.69 a week. The Wall Street Journal is offering full access to the WSJ iPad app for free "for a limited time" to current subscribers of the print and online editions so technically, you can save $6 to $9 a month and get access to the full iPad app if you just sign up for their paper. It's that "for a limited time" that's iffy though. Does that mean one month or six? We all know Murdoch loves the iPad, but man Rupert, you're entering a whole new category of digital distribution. Why price people out of wanting to try out the whole experience?
WSJ iPad subscription officially $17.29 per month -- is Murdoch insane?
So we now have the official price for the WSJ iPad app subscription: $3.99 per week with a monthly credit card charge of $17.29. For that you get subscriber-only content areas such as Business and Markets with access to a 7 day archive that can be downloaded and read at any time. It also offers personalization features and the ability to save sections and articles for later reading. And hey, it's actually a bit less than the rumored $17.99 rate. Without the subscription, the free WSJ iPad app is limited to top articles and market data. Here's the catch: a subscription to both the print and online versions of the Wall Street Journal will currently set you back just $2.69 per week (plus 2 weeks free) for a monthly bill of $11.67... eleven dollars and sixty seven cents. Granted the WSJ claims that the 80% discount is a limited time offer but these newsstand discounts are always available in some form. Greed or insanity? Either way, a pricing model like this won't save print. Update: Fine print says, "Already a WSJ subscriber? Get full access to the iPad™ app for a limited time." That offers some hope to existing subscribers but doesn't make the prospect of subscribing any more attractive to new customers. Unless of course the whole iPad rate can be circumvented by obtaining a login ID and password via the cheaper online-only rate (currently set for $1.99/wk or $8.62/mth). Who's going to try this on Saturday?
Rupert Murdoch loves the iPad, sees everything in the world on it
News Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch was interviewed last week by Fox Business Channel. During the interview Murdoch blasts Google for stealing his content and talks about how tablet devices will reinvigorate the advertising industry for new media. As for the iPad, Murdoch states, "...all media will be coming to the iPad whether it be music, or books, or newspapers or movies" and contrasts it with the "black and white" Kindle. He imagines reading a newspaper article with a photograph in it and just touching the photograph to watch it become a video. He goes on to say that the iPad is physically "small to start with" but says "there'll be more iPads" implying that they'll eventually come in larger sizes. Even though he is one of the most important people in the media world, Murdoch's comments are most likely conjecture and not inside knowledge. Skip to 1:45 for the iPad mention. [via 9to5Mac]
Murdoch confirms WSJ coming to iPad, device kept 'under padlock and key'
It only came at the tail end of an announcement of a new New York metro section for The Wall Street Journal, but Rupert Murdoch has finally confirmed that the paper will indeed be heading to the iPad. The really interesting bit, however, is that not only is the company now being allowed to work on an iPad, but that Murdoch says it's kept "under padlock and key," and that "the key is turned by Apple every night" -- a bit of hyperbole, maybe, but then again, maybe not. In other newspapers-going-digital news, Murdoch also said that the WSJ would be heading to half a dozen or more other devices within a year, although he didn't name any specific devices.
Rupert Murdoch: Amazon now 'willing to renegotiate' e-book prices
You didn't think the price hike would stop at Macmillan, did you? In today's News Corp. earnings call, chairman Rupert Murdoch gave indication that his HarperCollins would also soon be changing its e-book prices with Amazon. As relayed by All Things D, the mogul has been unhappy with the $9.99 tier, that Apple's iBookstore "does allow some flexibility and higher prices," and here's the kicker: "And now Amazon is willing to sit down with us again and renegotiate." Nothing's changed yet, but we gotta imagine it's only a matter of time -- not just with HarperCollins, but probably all "big six" publishers before too long.
Rupert Murdoch staying out of the e-reader business, Red Eye sadly still on the air
With the news biz in obvious (and some might say terminal) disarray, of course folks in the industry will be seeking out ways to stay afloat in the age of the e-reader -- and it's long been rumored that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp is looking to launch a device of its own (if by "long" you mean "since early April or thereabouts"). When asked yesterday if this was the case, Murdoch answered: "I don't think that's likely. We're looking and talking to a lot of laboratories and big companies around the world like Sony, Fujitsu, Samsung. We're all working on wireless readers for books or for newspapers or for magazines. I think they're a year or two away, being marketed in a mass way, high quality ones. And we will be absolutely neutral. We're very happy to have our products distributed over any device provided it's only going to subscribers who are paying for it." Of course, the man may have some sort of diabolical scheme up his sleeve (when doesn't he, really?), but for the time being, he says, the Wall Street Journal is doing "very well... you've got the wallstreetjournal.com and you pay for it. And there is 1.25 million people nearly who are doing that. And we get a lot of advertising with it. It's a big business for us." So it's more likely that we'll see more News Corp papers adopting an online subscription model before the advent of any Fox News e-ink device. But if it does get in the hardware business, we'll gladly shell out for a Glenn Beck signature model. But only if it's ironic. [Via GigaOM]
Report: Rupert Murdoch forms global team, looks into hardware for content revenue stream
In case you didn't think Rupert Murdoch was serious about e-book readers before, The Daily Beast has it from its sources that the News Corp mogul has assembled a global team, with members hailing form London, New York, and Sydney, to find some way to better monetize / charge for online content. Unsurprisingly, that leads to hardware and possibly creating a more "user-friendly way" to deliver content that'll incentivize consumers to pay -- Kindle does it, Hearst wants to do it, so why not the world's biggest media conglomerate? As for the mythical device itself, let's recap what we've heard so far, from the man himself: a bigger screen than Amazon's now-antiquated models, a four-color pallette, and"you can get everything there." Now how about putting a name to the manufacturer, hm? [Via Electronista]
Rupert Murdoch wants in on the e-book action
Apparently News Corp. chairman and multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch likes the Kindle. He likes it so much that while he's not trying to buy the company, he is instead trying to buy any competition that could undermine it and perhaps ultimately send it into financial ruin. Okay, so he's probably not trying to take down Amazon, but he does want in on the e-reader action, looking to invest in someone, anyone, who might be the next e-book contender. It makes perfect sense, what with print newspapers failing left and right and magazines not faring any better, but just which company might be the lucky recipient of Murdoch's favor and finances? We're guessing he has no shortage of willing recipients.
Least credible New York paper picks Wii over PS3
America's fifth largest newspaper votes Wii. Rupert Murdoch's oft-criticized sensationalist rag, New York Post, has weighed in on this weekend's launch match-up, going with Wii over PlayStation 3: "[Our] testing of both machines found that the Wii was more entertaining -- at less than half the price."Don't schedule the victory parade just yet, according to a 2004 survey, the Post is considered the least credible major news source in New York. Regardless, with a circulation exceeding 660,000, the endorsement certainly has its benefits.
DirecTV and EchoStar talking merger again?
Nature abhors a vacuum, so now that the AMD/ATI deal has gone from rumor to reality, we're in dire need of another potential mega-merger to fill the void. Luckily for us, News Corp. owner and the real "king of all media" Rupert Murdoch recently made some tantalizing comments on the Charlie Rose Show that may indicate DirecTV's renewed interest in merging with Dish Network parent EchoStar. Although he obviously didn't come right out and say that the two companies were involved in talks of any sort, Murdoch did suggest that the television landscape has shifted enough since the last merger attempt in 2002 that "it would be much harder for the government to turn it down" this time around. However, he also cautioned that a deal would be difficult if EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen -- whose clashes with News Corp. execs reportedly put the kibosh on merger talks all the way back in 1997 -- insisted on running the new entity as one of EchoStar's conditions. Ars Technica sums up the situation nicely by suggesting that although a merger would help both companies in their quest to offer broadband service should they succeed in picking up some spectrum at next month's FCC auction, government regulators would be unlikely to approve such a deal for the same reason as last time: there are still too many consumers out there whose only option is satellite TV, giving a combined DirecTV-Dish entity monopoly status in certain areas of the country. Long story short: there's an excellent chance that Murdoch would love a deal to go down, but chances are it ain't gonna happen.[Via Ars Technica]
