Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Rupert Murdoch Hates Google, Loves the iPad

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the consume-consume-consume dept.

The Media 412

Hugh Pickens writes "The Register reports that News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, reiterated his disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web. 'It's produced a river of gold, but those words are being taken mostly from the newspapers,' said Rupert. 'I think they ought to stop it, that the newspapers ought to stand up and let them do their own reporting.' Murdoch added that the iPad was a 'wonderful tool' for listening to music, watching videos and reading newspapers. 'It may well be the saving of the newspaper industry,' by making it cheaper to distribute content to a broader audience, Murdoch said. 'I'm old, I like the tactile experience of the newspaper,' Murdoch said. '(But) if you have less newspapers and more of these, that's OK. It doesn't destroy the traditional newspaper, it just comes in a different form.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Endorsement (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771350)

This is sort of like an Endorsement from Satan right?

Re:Endorsement (4, Funny)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771428)

Right, except there's a logic to his madness. Murdoch loves the idea of people paying 15 dollars a month to read foxnews.com or the WSJ on the ipad. Its a tempting offer, I hear every new subscriber gets a free vial of Glenn Beck's tears and a used mustache comb once owned by Geraldo Rivera.

Yeah, we know who Rupert Murdoch sounds like (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771562)

Stewie Griffin: Uh, excuse me, it's been brought to my attention that a few bad apples out there are smoking marijuana. Uh, I've got news for you, my friend. Marijuana's illegal. Not cool. [audience starts booing] Alright then. [Begins singing, to the tune of America the Beautiful] Establishment, establishment, you always know what's best... Man in audience: You suck! Stewie Griffin: Learn the rules!

Re:Endorsement (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771496)

No, it's like an Endorsement from Beelzebub.

The CEO of Microsoft didn't endorse it, at least not yet, that I know of.

Re:Endorsement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771962)

You bet - I mean wouldn't he like to stop people from sharing a paper in a household

Who Cares (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771352)

Get over yourself Rupert. We are all tired of hearing your bitching!

Logically... (4, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771354)

If Rupert Murdoch praises something, it just can't be good.

Re:Logically... (4, Insightful)

blankinthefill (665181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771420)

It really makes sense that he would praise it, too. The strict control that Apple keeps over the app store is something that our good friend Rupert would love to see people get used to, since it falls right in line with his paywall schemes.

Re:Logically... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771808)

The strict control that Apple keeps over the app store is something that our good friend Rupert would love to see people get used to, since it falls right in line with his paywall schemes.

wait what? the only similarity is that you have to pay... Is it that bad to pay the fair price of items? Is it bad for any website to have a paywall if they have a fair price? Is it wrong for apple and the developers in the app store to charge for their apps? I understand several of the problems with the apple store, but they have nothing in common with the over priced paywalls that some websites are trying to charge other than charging for money for their content. So it's pretty much apples and oranges, other than they are both fruit.
Posting anonymously because the mentality in slashdot right now is to hate apple and to hate paywalls (oh and lets use no-script to remove ads from the websites that have no paywall!)... because paying is baaaaad..

Re:Logically... (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31772004)

I was actually quite shocked when the Economist site went free. Beats me why - those were high-quality articles I was willing to pay for. As in, pay to access the site.

Here's what's not cool though: bitching that Google is stealing from you, when you're not even following Google's suggestion on how to prevent Google from indexing your content. That's just pure whining and ass-hattery.

Re:Logically... (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771582)

The next logical step to ask is who paid him to endorse iPad. Google? Microsoft? ~

Re:Logically... (4, Interesting)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771674)

Actually, the Old Media fixation on the iPad and their false hope of how it will revive their failing empires will only help to hasten their destruction, so it is a good thing.

Re:Logically... (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771752)

Well, that is a Godwin-ish comment.

The reductio ad Hitler issue is the fallacy that "if Hitler likes something, it must be bad" or "if Hitler disliked something, it must be good", and you're doing the same thing with Rupert Murdoch.

Re:Logically... (1)

shacky003 (1595307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771786)

Agreed.. It would be nice if someone would take away his mic once in a while.. Too bad he owns so many mic's..

I'm torn... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771358)

I'm an Apple fan, I think the iPad is an incredible media consumption device....

But then Murdoch had to open his stupid mount.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:I'm torn... (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771378)

It doesn't exactly help dispel the notion that the iPad is for douchebags.

Re:I'm torn... (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771404)

The only way this could get worse for Apple is if Osama Bin Laden reads his next set of crazy pronouncements off an iPad.

Re:I'm torn... (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771604)

Gee, and I thought it was bad when Steve Jobs did it! Touche!!!

Re:I'm torn... (3, Funny)

shrimppesto (766285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771618)

The only way this could get worse for Apple is if Osama Bin Laden reads his next set of crazy pronouncements off an iPad.

hitler beat osama to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_EcybyLJS8 [youtube.com]

Re:I'm torn... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771986)

Bin Laden is a huge Mac Geek!

Re:I'm torn... (5, Insightful)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771672)

Nothing says cool and hip like an endorsement from an old geezer.

The Sooner the Better (4, Interesting)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771366)

The sooner the "old media" of mega corporations deciding how millions should think passes away, the better. Murdoch has proven to be worse than most in that regard. His misery at the passing away of the bad old days only makes me smile.

Re:The Sooner the Better (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771390)

I like to read simple people opinions. Like yours. I wish I could go back to a time where I could not just state a simple opinion, but also sincerely believe in it. An opinion where you take a side, and you're against the other side: it's simple. There are good guys, and bad guys.

Ignorance is bliss, and you're gifted with plenty of it. Have fun, my friend!

Re:The Sooner the Better (2, Insightful)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771552)

Pot, Kettle much? At least I sign my name to my opinions.

Re:The Sooner the Better (2, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771688)

When your mother named you dmgxmichael did your father object?

IOW: you're no less anonymous than any other coward on here.

Re:The Sooner the Better (0)

Caraig (186934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771652)

Troll fail. Please try again. =)

Re:The Sooner the Better (2, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771748)

I agree the analysis was simplistic, but maybe I can state it a little more clearly... old monolithic media organizations provide an invaluable service, in terms of investigative reporting and on site presence of people during important historical moments. However, the monolithic organization AC rather ineloquently derides above truly is outdated. In an era when communication is nearly free, a monolithic entity throwing tendrils all over the world doesn't make any sense.

In my estimation, it makes the most sense to have independent journalists (i.e. bloggers) reporting on local events and having those individual reports being compiled or organized by a central figure, like Google is doing now, or any newspaper could do if they get their head out of their ass. Eventually, in such a system, folks could establish credibility, networks and trust. They would be independent in every sense of the word. It's not a perfect model, but I do think it's a workable one.

Oh, and by the way, screws to the douches like Murdoch who think they can tell others what to think through their media empires.

Re:The Sooner the Better (5, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771992)

I agree the analysis was simplistic, but maybe I can state it a little more clearly... old monolithic media organizations provide an invaluable service, in terms of investigative reporting

That's why they investigated Madoff and brought about ...... uh, wait..... they ignored the information they were given about Madoff and did not investigate.

IMHO, traditional media has lost the right to claim that they provide an invaluable service through investigative journalism. Madoff isn't the only example where traditional media failed, there are many others. How did Drudge get started? Because traditional media would not touch a story, etc..

Re:The Sooner the Better (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771760)

The sooner the "old media" of mega corporations deciding how millions should think passes away, the better.

Murdoch is a 79 year old Type AAA. He's not long for this world.

Re:The Sooner the Better (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771930)

Tell that to his Mother, Dame Elizabeth murdoch who is 101.

He could easily be around for another 20+ years! ):

Re:The Sooner the Better (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771882)

"The sooner the "old media" of mega corporations deciding how millions should think passes away, the better. Murdoch has proven to be worse than most in that regard. His misery at the passing away of the bad old days only makes me smile."

Judging by the fanfare of the Ipad by those who think its a great E-reader/Ebooks I wish I could agree. Consumers have proven they love drm and not owning the things they have but maybe I am wrong. I got modded down quite a bit when pointing this out and mentioning hte freedoms of a $299 netbook with Ubuntu. You can actually edit your own iwork or word files on it! ... sad day indeed.

Suggestion for Rupert (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771370)

robots.txt

Re:Suggestion for Rupert (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771610)

You mean robots.destruction(); right? Ooops. I've said too much.

Re:Suggestion for Rupert (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771708)

You realize that anything in robots.txt can be overridden in a person's ~/.wgetrc file, correct?

Put this line in your .wgetrc file:

robots=off

I also add

no_parent=on
recursive=on

Makes mirroring entire html trees a snap.

Re:Suggestion for Rupert (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31772014)

Sure, but then he has a legitimate complaint. In the meantime, he's bitching that Google is doing exactly what the site says it should be doing.

Re:Suggestion for Rupert (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771766)

Rupert's company knows [newscorp.com] about robots.txt. See, they allow everything.

And Foxnews is even kind enough to provide sitemaps targeted at facilitating Google [foxnews.com]

Rupert's mantra should probably be listen to what I say, (pay no attention to what I do)

Re:Suggestion for Rupert (4, Insightful)

Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771974)

no way! Like the MPAA and RIAA before him. Rupert wants to have his cake AND eat it too.
He wants Google to stop pinching his content - but DOESN'T want them to stop indexing his sites.
He wants to stop others from pinching his content - but he WON'T stop pinching content from other FREE sites if it'll embellish a story. (eg. pics/quotes from Facebook tribute pages of people who've ended up in the news)

You WILL submit!

Yes of course (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771380)

It's no surprise the media loves a locked down device. If enough people have these kind of crippled devices, they can stop making content available online and require apps or subscriptions for everything. This also helps to explain the media's unabashed love for the iPad.

Re:Yes of course (4, Insightful)

Budenny (888916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771626)

Agreed. This is where Apple has been going for a long time now, and the world of a locked down device, where you only access media through one controlled point, where all apps have to be obtained from one supplier who keeps a tight lock on what can be installed, that's a wet dream for Big Content. If you think about it, the most important aspect of it is that you can bar hacks that will unlock DRMd media. As long as you just had DRMd media, but freedom to install whatever software you wanted, and the ability to transfer files from machine to machine simply by copying them across, DRM was always going to be readily hackable.

What we are moving towards is a situation where you will buy your content from Apple only, you will not be able to copy it without Apple's consent, you will install no apps that Apple does not like. So DRM will really work. Not only that, but all the content will at last be family friendly and politically correct. No need to worry about nasty subversive political sites, or swimsuit pictures showing up unexpectedly.

Apple is far, far worse than Microsoft. Microsoft is an old fashioned tech company, similar in attitude to IBM or HP etc. Its anti competitive of course, very market share focussed. But it does not have this stifling desire to control what customers do and read, it does not worry much about what content is accessed by the products it sells which give it its market share.

Apple is not really, in spirit, a tech company at all, or rather, its a unique sort of tech company, its a tech company in the tradition of Walt Disney 1955. So it is always thinking, how to use its tech position to control what customers do, think and read. That is the fundamental aim to which all its design tends. Its natural allies are Big Content companies. It has sometimes been said that Apple had DRM imposed on it against its will. Don't believe it. DRM and lockin are central to the Apple value system, they are shared values with the content and media industries. It seems inexplicable to Apple fans that it should be trying to ban the reading of perfectly lawful publications on its devices. You have to realize that Apple thinks of itself as Walt Disney 1955, but who in the 21st century has chosen to deliver its family friendly and politically correct content via computers and tablets. This is all of a piece, part of the same thing. This is why your music was DRMd, even when the rights owners did not want it to be. DRM is central to the Apple vision of how the world should work, as is content censorship.

I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux. Now, why would that be, exactly....? Its because open source is the enemy for Apple, even more than for MS, because it represents intellectual freedom. That is what is really at issue here. Do you want to live in a world in which a sort of latter day Disney tells you what you can read? Most of the press and media do. They cannot wait to be part of that latter day Disney consortium. That's the appeal of Apple today.

The Slate article is spot on. Its come a long way, and its ended up, like many revolutionaries, turning into a far worse version of what it originally campaigned against.

Re:Yes of course (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771806)

I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux.

You can't activate the iPad from the iPad, either. Which is just silly.

Re:Yes of course (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771884)

Agreed. This is where Apple has been going for a long time now, and the world of a locked down device, where you only access media through one controlled point, where all apps have to be obtained from one supplier who keeps a tight lock on what can be installed, that's a wet dream for Big Content. If you think about it, the most important aspect of it is that you can bar hacks that will unlock DRMd media. As long as you just had DRMd media, but freedom to install whatever software you wanted, and the ability to transfer files from machine to machine simply by copying them across, DRM was always going to be readily hackable.
man, if there was only some kind of web browser, we could get content that apple hasn't even approved or seen.

What we are moving towards is a situation where you will buy your content from Apple only, you will not be able to copy it without Apple's consent, you will install no apps that Apple does not like. So DRM will really work. Not only that, but all the content will at last be family friendly and politically correct. No need to worry about nasty subversive political sites, or swimsuit pictures showing up unexpectedly.
again, for some of the stuff you said, the browser works perfectly. And hey, you can even buy stuff non apple, like said, kindle books.

This is all of a piece, part of the same thing. This is why your music was DRMd, even when the rights owners did not want it to be.
because really, the music companies always wanted non drm music but apple was forcing them to only offer drm music.

I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux. Now, why would that be, exactly....? Its because open source is the enemy for Apple, even more than for MS, because it represents intellectual freedom.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/ Some of the stuff is BSD and they dont need to offer the source, yet they do...

Re:Yes of course (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771956)

>Apple is far, far worse than Microsoft. Microsoft is an old fashioned tech company, similar in attitude to IBM or HP etc. Its anti competitive of course, very market share focussed. But it does not have this stifling desire to control what customers do and read, it does not worry much about what content is accessed by the products it sells which give it its market share.

False. Microsoft has the exact same wet dream (case in point: The xbox program used (created?) as loss leader to place DRM media machines in the consumers living room). The 'trusted computing initiative' is a considerably widespread corporate masturbatory fixation.

Since it's Rupert saying this... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771386)

...has anyone checked if he has a short position in Apple stock?

I mean if Rupert likes the iPad then, ipso facto, the iPad can't be a good thing. And that means Apple's stock is going down.

Re:Since it's Rupert saying this... (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771416)

You should start the anti-rupert index fund ;p

It still kills the traditional paper. (1)

Jason Pollock (45537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771388)

If, say, _anyone_ released an RSS feed reader for the iPad, newspapers are just as dead as they are now.

Oh wait, someone has... A quick Google search returns several.

It'

Re:It still kills the traditional paper. (5, Funny)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771776)

It'

Damn, looks like the Old Media got to him before he could finish the post...

Not bloody likely (4, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771392)

Unless newspapers delivered via iPad are going to consist of something other than lightly-edited wire stories and insubstantial fluff reporting, they're not going to be a whole lot more appealing than the paper kind, and arguably less appealing, since lining the bottom of bird cages with iPads will be prohibitively expensive. And don't get me started on how much it would cost to pack boxes for a move.

Re:Not bloody likely (3, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771504)

lining the bottom of bird cages with iPads will be prohibitively expensive

There's an app for that.

The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (5, Insightful)

caladine (1290184) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771394)

Wall Street Journal:
Online + Printed: $2.99/week
iPad only: $3.99/week
Anyone else see the problem here?

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771514)

Define "problem"

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771516)

Wall Street Journal:

Online + Printed: $2.99/week

iPad + WSJ ipad edition: $602.99/week

fixed it for you

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771580)

you're buying the ipad every week?

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (0)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771658)

I was really just making a point and not going into a detailed analysis of the costs, but since that seems to have gone whooshing over your head lets spread the cost over a 12 month subscription with the assumption that you'll use the device 10% of the time reading the paper. $5.39

still a pretty shitty deal considering there's a large upfront cost.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771792)

It's $499 to begin, and why would the purchase of the iPad be per week? if you're going to make a point, average it over a year or something (hint: still come out way ahead)

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771952)

Hold it - you mean you don't have to throw it out when you are done reading the day's news? Gosh, that is going to take some getting used to.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (3, Insightful)

enoz (1181117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771542)

The Ipad app includes mandatory douchbag hipster tax.

I suppose a subset of people who buy the Ipad also know how to use a web browser and thus can access the Online WSJ without the added tax.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771728)

And then you have to read it in Safari.

Not having to use Safari is clearly worth something.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1, Troll)

okmijnuhb (575581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771680)

I have no problem with right wing zealots paying more for the WSJ, New York Post, Fox News or any other sources Rupert Murdock right wing media.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771788)

Anyone with enough spare cash lying around to pick up an iPad and pay the monthly plan fees, probably won't notice the $1 extra cost enough to even shrug their sholders.

They'll probably buy both, for a total of $6.99

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771804)

Yeah, they're only making a buck a week to sell it to people who will clearly pay a lot for something with limited functionality.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

wtmoose (639328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771896)

Don't think the outrageous pricing will last long; the WSJ app currently has a 1.5 star rating in the app store.

Re:The other reason Murdoch likes the iPad... (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771902)

Anyone else see the problem here?

Apparently, what I've heard is that the Kindle-WSJ deal has something to do with the price. I'm not 100% sure how it works, but that's what I heard (TWIT podcast) and read somewhere (cant remember where). They are not the only ones, the popular science mag+ app is charging 4.99 per issue. Although the app is very pretty and what not, not many are going to pay that much. I think the price will have to be adjusted if they want to sell more issues.

Go ahead, Rupert, make our day (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771410)

reiterated his disgust at how search engines handle news and called on old media to rethink how their stories are distributed on the web.

Then do us all a favor and pull your tabloid rags off Google. What's stopping you? I'm sure the core of your readers will stay with you, it's the only source that tells them what they want to hear.

Re:Go ahead, Rupert, make our day (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771714)

Tabloid rags? WSJ? Geez, I'm as non-Republican as they come but you sound like an idiot saying that.

I'd prefer avoiding going into some redundant spiel, but basically:

  • It's true that newspapers are dying, because they're not getting paid for what they used to get paid for and nothing is making up for that loss of revenue.
  • No matter how much you want to argue that this paper or that newpaper isn't doing "real journalism", they are all dying and they are almost the sole original sources for most news we hear, including most news the government or various corporations don't want you to hear.
  • Blogs and Google News on their own would be almost completely devoid of news if all the newspapers closed shop today. Their value, with rare exception, is derived from the value created by these news companies that are losing money. (Which leads back to the first point.)

Finally, I'm close friends with some journalists. People who've written for the NY Times and Village Voice, rags like Entertainment Weekly, and more local papers you probably don't know. These people do good work (though more rarely when it's EW or People), and some of them are having problems figuring out what to do once they can't do what they're good at. It seems very likely that we're entering into a period that will historically be known as the nadir of journalism, the time when something not under any one person's individual control lead to the loss of a generation of reporters.

Re:Go ahead, Rupert, make our day (3, Insightful)

Obyron (615547) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771894)

They could maybe go out and do some real journalism instead of thinking they deserve a check for writing an article about who Britney is fucking. There will always be room in journalism, in some form, for the good writers who do good work. The problem is that there are a lot more hacks who can be replaced by a monkey, and their job has suddenly gotten a hell of a lot more competitive.

Re:Go ahead, Rupert, make our day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31772006)

It's interesting that you replied to my post and yet you appear not to have read it.

iPads as newspaper replacement (1)

ISurfTooMuch (1010305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771414)

While I disagree with most everything Rupert Murdoch says, I think he's at least partly on to something with the iPad as a newspaper replacement. OK, let's ignore the fact that it's terribly overpriced for this function, but he is right in that many people would like something that's lightweight and portable. Build a device like that and make it cheap, and you may have a winner on your hands. People would be able to sit on a bus or train and read the publication of their choice, be it a traditional newspaper or a blog, whatever they like. Sure, a laptop can easily do that, but show me a device that costs $49.99 that can do it. And at that price point, a modest subsidy from a newspaper could bring the price down to a point where it's almost a disposable item. That's the goal. Figure out how to make one of those, and you'll make a mint.

Re:iPads as newspaper replacement (5, Insightful)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771614)

Have you ever watched that movie called Big, with Tom Hanks? I remember very clearly this scene in which Susan is presenting her new revolutionary idea to her company. It is a cyber-comic book, in which you can display the pages of your favorite comic book and change the page and everything. Sounds familiar?

The executive, disgruntled, then asks: Why would a kid pay $100 for that device if he can get a comic book for just 15 cents?

Everyone laughs at Susan.

Rupert Murdoch who is this cat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771434)

I'm a democrat, so all I can watch is MSNBC.

Re:Rupert Murdoch who is this cat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771492)

As a republican, I can tell you that he owns newscorp. Newscorp owns FOX news, which is one of the channels I can watch. As a republican I also watch CNN, ABC, and CBS. NBC is the only one I am not allowed to watch.

Wait, what?

Let me get this straight... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771446)

Most publishers are desperate for readers. In fact, many sites *pay* for advertising to get people to their sites.

Rupert gets this for free from Google and other search engines, but fails to seize the opportunity to make money off it, or even to make a compelling enough site to keep subscribers around, and somehow this is Google's fault?

It seems like (4, Insightful)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771448)

It seems like Google would be better off not linking to any of Murdoch's sites. It will be a small loss of income for them, and a rather large loss of income for him. Seeing as how he constantly bitches and moans about Google I think they're well within their rights (not just legal rights) to do this.

Re:It seems like (5, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771532)

Sergei Brin: Last week we pulled out of China, and today we're pulling out of Rupert Murdoch.

Re:It seems like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771624)

and today we're pulling out of Rupert Murdoch.

When will people learn...that's not an effective method of birth control!

We don't need more Rupert Murdochs...

Re:It seems like (4, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771646)

Sergei Brin: Last week we pulled out of China, and today we're pulling out of Rupert Murdoch.

Really... Wrong image there... Now I will have nightmares.

Re:It seems like (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771544)

I think the best option for google would be to write a formal letter to rupert asking him to confirm he'd like to be delisted from google. this puts the ball squarely in his court and denies him any recourse when he realises his site's traffic has dropped 100%.

We need a better free press (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771454)

Forget paying money to Murdoch and support Wikileaks!

Re:We need a better free press (5, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771620)

Indeed I have noticed that most of the breaking stories these days have come from Wikileaks. Although not technically news it's been much more informative then traditional rags that put a spin on everything.

Whats good for the goose (1)

teknosapien (1012209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771476)

Is not always good for the Gander? this is the guy that wants a double standard . Complain about fair use then evoke it when it makes him money. Rupert how much is enough?

Oh grandpa! (5, Interesting)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771512)

He's like the elderly relative at Thanksgiving who keeps saying racist things that would make everyone uncomfortable but they're so used to it they just roll their eyes and say "Oh Grandpa!" Is there any way this guy could not get it less? He understood how to be a Newspaper tycoon, but these days that skillset makes him roughly as useful as a candlestick maker or a wheelwright.

He keeps saying all this crazy stuff, but the guys who actually run Newscorp keep doing the opposite, lucky for them. They could easily edit their robots.txt and keep Google out, but they're smart enough to not only let Google in, but to let users coming in from Google slip past the pay wall . . .

Re:Oh grandpa! (4, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771586)

don't kid yourself, rupert run's news corp with an iron fist. he knows what he wants to achieve but he doesn't understand how to get there. he want's a slice of google's billion dollar ad business.

if he was clever about it, he'd offer apple a partnership where ipad users get free subscription to all news corp material for a year, and fund an apple search engine to take on google. throw in digitised copies of historical papers as part of the search service.

Re:Oh grandpa! (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771932)

You're just not going to beat google in search. It's just not going to happen. You might split the market, but you're not going to replace them, and I realize that's a bold prediction, but I'm being practical. You have to beat google by outgoogling them. You have to come up with a cool new idea that fulfills an old, common need in a new and interesting way; ie: you have to innovate. Rupert Murdoch is not an innovator. He has made his name taking things that were already there and hyping them by appealing to a small but very loud niche market.

If he made a search engine with Apple it would return only hits on conservative websites, and it'd be Applefied so that you can't pick your own search terms-- you just have to take what Apple gives you. Now, they might let you add certain search terms that other people make for them, but they have to approve them first, and they'll cost you 99 cents. You see where I'm going with this.

I'm not saying the guy's not intelligent, I'm just saying he's not flexible enough. Give it a decade and we're done with him. He'll be as obsolete as Standard Oil. All the money isn't going to go away overnight by any means, but his star will fade.

Re:Oh grandpa! (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771676)

they are like people who hire illegals so they don't have to pay a fair wage and then complain about illegals.

Re:Oh grandpa! (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771756)

Here in the US we call those people "Republicans."

Re:Oh grandpa! (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771846)

He understood how to be a Newspaper tycoon,

Make that Media tycoon - Fox (incl. Fox News, 20th Century Fox), Sky (UK), and Star (Asia) are all attributable to the Murdoch empire.

but these days that skillset makes him roughly as useful as a candlestick maker or a wheelwright.

y'know, I think it's a bit early to be calling someone who has had the canny ability to come into markets long established and shake them up entirely as an outsider; he's simply got more competition in the form of others who are able to do the same with the leverage of the internet, but don't pretend for a minute that Murdoch doesn't have the mental ability to take on the status quo. Remember, this is a guy who started with a single city paper in the 5th largest city in Australia (Adelaide's Advertiser) and grew it into a multinational media company.

He is getting old, though.

Re:Oh grandpa! (1)

H0D_G (894033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31772028)

Adelaide's Advertiser is still a horrible paper.

Whiteants at work (1)

zekt (252634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771612)

The world is whiteanting away his empire.

Rupert - stop going on a money grab. You make money from the advertising in newspapers - and the "cost" of the newspapers is the cost of covering raw materials, printing, distribution costs and a small slice for the seller.

You really make your money out of the ads. What you are really bitching about is Google taking some of your advertising share - because you can Google a story and jump off to millions of sites and blogs.

Of course the way to prevent this is to provide quality content. But Newscorp's second line of business is wholesale news provision (al la Reuters). Of course, every blogger, tweeter and facebook poster is working against you.

You are under attack from every side. So all you do is try to protect you empire, rather than recognising the empire is changing.

It is all about social networking now. You own press has been saying this. I am doing it now. Jump on in - you have brilliant people in your IT departments, you have brilliant people in your Business Development units... use them. Build something special. Build the nest generation of news. God knows you have the money to do it - an in doing it you'll help your grandkids grandkids be as wealthy as you are.

Re:Whiteants at work (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771722)

The world is whiteanting away his empire.

Ants are not white, you insensitive clod. Try the termites in the backyard.

Resolved: Rupert Murdoch is a whiny bitch. (0, Troll)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771636)

Rupert Murdoch needs to stop bitching and swim in his money like Scrooge McDuck.

What a fuckin' whiny motherfucker. Fuck him. Don't give him the attention his attention whoring self desires. Don't link stories about him here. If I see another story about him on slashdot, it will be too soon.

Someone needs to take him out with a cast iron frying pan.

--
BMO

Re:Resolved: Rupert Murdoch is a whiny bitch. (1)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771940)

How is a driveling, abusive, content-less post like yours modded up for insightful? You are compliant with the GIFT [penny-arcade.com] .

For what it's worth, the Wall Street Journal was and is an excellent source of objective news and discussion on the op-ed. Murdoch is old and out-of-touch, but rather irrelevant, it seems to me. I think Steve Jobs has as much potential to damage the Internet's openness than Rupert Murdoch or Comcast.

Brwoser? (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771642)

I don't get it, the iPad has a web browser doesn't it? How is the iPad different from a computer in this example?

Re:Brwoser? (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771828)

Flash?

Not surprising (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771648)

There are an awful lot of similarities between Republicans and Apple fanboys. They're both submissive, they're both religious in their single-minded devotion. They both believe you must sacrifice freedom for security.

Re:Not surprising (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771826)

Just recently, not a single Republican voted for the most massive freedom->"security" bill ever.

Re:Not surprising (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771862)

Only because it'd be political suicide to vote for it after they whipped the mob up into a frenzy.

Hey Rupy, boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771656)

How's that MySpace thing working out for ya?

Sincerely,
Eric Schmidt et. al

murdoch bough myspace (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771664)

enough said on this man's stupidity regarding technology. Many sites would pay buckets of money for the kind of hit rate that search engines are sending them, but murdock cannot find out how to make money. What an idiot, he should just retire.

Yet again... (2, Insightful)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771670)

So aggregation of news, which is best for the consumer because they get the best writers everyone could hire (theoretically speaking), sucks for the big guys, so shut it down? I too like to have my cake and eat it too.

Flawed logic from Murdoch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31771818)

Not quite the full story from TFA, this has a better quote: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/murdoch-to-limit-google-access-20100408-rt04.html

''I think when they've got nowhere else to go, they'll start paying."

Rupert, mate, there will always be somewhere else to go to get news for free on the internet. Right there is where your logic fails you.

I'm so glad... (2, Funny)

StupiderThanYou (896020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31771982)

...that bastard isn't Australian any more.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?