Andy Ihnatko Reviews the iPad 2

post from Daring Fireball on 21 March 2011 10:04:11 PM. © Daring Fireball

Andy Ihnatko:

After a week with the iPad 2, I?ve come to realize thatApple?s true revolutionary change has been conceptual. The firstiPad wasn?t just a new product … it was a whole new categoryof computer. I think in 2010, Apple instinctively understood thatwith something this different on their hands, they couldn?t gofor broke. They could only lay out their cards and imply theiPad?s many strengths and then they?d have to stand back andwatch what happened. After all of their efforts, they could onlyhope that consumers and developers figured out what the iPad wason their own. Only then could Apple make their next move, based onthose reactions.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.suntimes.com/technology/ihnatko/4396870-452/review-ipad-2-is-not-revol
utionary---but-it-is-great.html

Digg this

How Many People Think a Digital NYT Subscription
Is Worth $455/Year

post from Daring Fireball on 21 March 2011 09:05:01 PM. © Daring Fireball

Frédéric Filloux (Jean-Louis Gassée’s Monday Note colleague):

The New York Times paywall is like the French tax system:expensive, utterly complicated, disconnected from the reality anddesigned to be bypassed. […]
The New York Times? pricing structure, the fact that it isalso designed to protect the paper?s physical circulation,the paywall?s porosity all complicate projections. One thingis sure: $35 a month ($420/year) to view the online paper onthree devices is ridiculous, not matter how elitist the targetgroup is fantasized to be. You simply don?t charge such anamount in a (US) market where services like Hulu or Netflixcost $7.99 per month.

Worse: because they charge by four-week increments rather than “months”, it actually works out to $455/year.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/03/21/nytimes-?fair?-prices/

Digg this

How Many People Think a Digital NYT Subscription
Is Worth $420/Year

post from Daring Fireball on 21 March 2011 07:04:53 PM. © Daring Fireball

Frédéric Filloux (Jean-Louis Gassée’s Monday Note colleague):

The New York Times paywall is like the French tax system:expensive, utterly complicated, disconnected from the reality anddesigned to be bypassed. […]
The New York Times? pricing structure, the fact that it isalso designed to protect the paper?s physical circulation,the paywall?s porosity all complicate projections. One thingis sure: $35 a month ($420/year) to view the online paper onthree devices is ridiculous, not matter how elitist the targetgroup is fantasized to be. You simply don?t charge such anamount in a (US) market where services like Hulu or Netflixcost $7.99 per month.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.mondaynote.com/2011/03/21/nytimes-?fair?-prices/

Digg this

Apple Sues Amazon.com, Seeks Order to Stop Use of
App Store Trademark

post from Daring Fireball on 21 March 2011 07:04:53 PM. © Daring Fireball

The App Store vs. an app store.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/apple-sues-amazon-com-over-use-of-app-st
ore-trademark.html

Digg this

A Rule of Thumb: Pricing Should Be Simple

post from Daring Fireball on 21 March 2011 06:04:11 PM. © Daring Fireball

One thing many companies — in any industry — can learn from Apple is the importance of simple pricing. If you make it easy for people to understand how much they’re paying, and what they’re paying for, it is more likely that they’ll buy it. Or perhaps this is driven more by the converse: if people are confused about how much they have to pay, they’re more likely not to. The decision to purchase and the act of paying are part of the experience for any product or service, and should be designed accordingly.

Not paying is always simple.

Those companies that succeed with complex pricing schemes tend to be those with no competition (e.g. cable companies and land-line phone services) or those with a limited number of competitors, all of whom offer similarly complex pricing schemes. E.g. new car dealers and cell phone carriers. Car dealers get away with loose, uncertain “try negotiating down from a ‘sticker’ price almost no one actually pays” pricing because that’s how all other car dealers work, too — and because (at least here in the U.S.) a car is something most people need (or at least think they need). Cell phone carriers get away with confusing bills, chock-a-block with nickel-and-dime fees and charges, because there are only a handful of carriers (and as time goes on, we need fewer and fewer fingers to count them all — again, at least here in the U.S.) and, again, because cell phones are something most people consider a necessity.

For non-necessities, simplicity of pricing is key. Apple thrives at this. Their consumer products tend to follow a simple good/better/best pricing hierarchy, where the only difference is storage capacity. iPods, iPads, and iPhones all follow this model. When they deviate from this, the reasons are relatively easy to understand. For example, a regular Wi-Fi iPad costs $499/599/699 for 16/32/64 GB of storage. If you want an iPad with built-in 3G, it costs $130 extra for the iPad itself, and offers a simple no-contract two-tier pricing plan: $15/month for 250 MB data, $25 for 2 GB. Easy to sign up for, easy to cancel, no hidden fees, and several warnings before you hit your data limits.

Another great example: Netflix. You pay $8/month for Netflix streaming:

For only $7.99 a month, you can instantly watch TV episodes &movies streaming over the Internet to your TV via an Xbox 360,PS3, Wii or any other device that streams from Netflix. Watch asoften as you want, anytime you want.
Are there really no late fees and no due dates?
Yes, it’s true — there really are no late fees, no due dates, andno hidden costs.

Once you sign up for a Netflix account, it works for all Netflix content from any device that supports Netflix. You don’t pay extra to use it on your iPad in addition to your iPhone. You don’t pay more to use it from both a PS3 and an Xbox 360. You pay $8/month (after a free 30-day trial, that is), and you get Netflix streaming. Easy to understand, and sounds like a great value.

This brings me to The New York Times’s new digital subscriptions. They’re neither easy-to-understand nor sound like a great value. Unlimited access to the NYT costs four times more than Netflix — $35 every four weeks. You can pay $15 or $20 every four weeks instead, but then you’ve got to choose between using a Times app on your smartphone or iPad (respectively). And how many normal people realize that if you, say, opt for the $15 plan, that you’ll be able to access the Times website from your iPad?

Netflix: one price, access from any device.

New York Times: three tiers, arbitrary division between devices based on screen size.

Both companies also have legacy businesses. Netflix’s legacy business is home delivery of DVD and Blu-ray discs. Pricing for this service starts at $2/month in addition to the basic $8/month plan. It makes sense: every Netflix customer gets a digital subscription; those that want a physical product too pay a little more. The pricing steers people toward a digital-only future.

The New York Times’s legacy business is the printed newspaper. They charge less for a print subscription than an all-inclusive digital subscription, despite the fact that all print subscriptions include an all-inclusive digital subscription. This makes no sense. You pay less but get something that intuitively bears a significant real cost: hundreds of pounds of printed newspaper delivered to your home throughout the year.

I want The New York Times to thrive. It’s long been my favorite source for national and world news. But printed newspapers have a limited — perhaps very limited — future, and the digital subscription plan they’ve unveiled looks doesn’t look like a winner to me. I’m pretty sure it’s too expensive — that is to say, that I think The Times would make more money by charging significantly less, making up for the difference per-subscriber in the number of people who’d be willing to sign up. But even worse, it’s too complex. Further, by offering relatively generous access to the nytimes.com website for free to everyone, the Times is providing an enticement to read the Times less.

A digital NYT subscription is something few people will feel they need. Many people might want one, to one degree or another, but for few will it be a necessity. That means it ought to be priced simply. (Even necessities ought to be priced simply on general principle, I say, but they don’t need to be in order to succeed.)

I’m almost entirely in agreement with Khoi Vinh on the matter. Vinh writes:

The effects of this decision probably won?t be seen in theimmediate future, but the long-term damage to the brand may besignificant. The amount of notoriety that this new endeavor willreceive is sure to be tremendous, but all the subtleties ? andcomplex mathematics ? of this new pay model are likely tobe lost on most news consumers. Its many rules and semantics aresimply too complex to be communicated effectively, and what?smore the marketing tends to use blatantly tricky language (e.g.,?$15 every four weeks? ? just tell me what I have to pay,already). I?m willing to bet that what most people willunderstand about this new development is that now you have to payto read The New York Times. Period. With that misunderstanding, itwouldn?t surprise me if users start staying away in droves.

Jean-Louis Gassée attempts to elucidate the entirety of The Times’s new rules for accessing its digital content — what do you get for free, and what do you get for how much when you pay. It takes him eight paragraphs and 350 words. He concludes that it’s simply too complicated:

Customers don?t make decisions with their neocortex, an organthat is too easy to bullshit. They decide within deeper,comforting recesses, and they rationalize when the culture demandsa seemingly logical, socially acceptable?post-plantation?.
What price do NYT?s execs put on simplicity, on ease, on readerenjoyment vs. catering to their own internal discourse? If theydon?t like talking to Steve Jobs (and vice versa) theycould turn to Jeff Bezos for tips on simplicity.
iTunes has taught us that customers are willing to pay forcontent if the process is simple if it?s easy on the mind andthe wallet. One could argue that consumers aren?t paying for thecontent, they?re paying for the delivery service. Regard Netflixon Demand, to use another example. Restricted content, instantdelivery, success.

I don’t know that a simpler, lower-priced digital subscription plan would work for The Times, but I feel strongly that it would be more likely to work than what they’ve announced. I have a bad feeling about this.

Read The Full Article:
http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/pricing_should_be_simple

Digg this

Boxer: The DOS Game Emulator Thats Fit for Your
Mac

post from Daring Fireball on 21 March 2011 06:04:11 PM. © Daring Fireball

Mac-style DOS game emulator. Splendid design and attention to detail. (Via Kottke.)

?

Read The Full Article:
http://boxerapp.com/

Digg this

Ivanovich Games Donating Profits of iOS Sales to
Japan Relief

post from prMac on 21 March 2011 05:17:00 PM. © prMac

Ivanovich Games will donate any profits resulting from the sale of all their games on March 23, 2011, to the families of the victims of the Japan earthquake. To reach as many people as possible, the price of all their games will be reduced to $0.99 during the whole day. This initiative will include popular games such as Operation Wow, Type Type Train, Time Geeks and all other games in Ivanovich Games iOS catalogue.

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-23273.htm

Digg this

Amazon Kills Lendle

Via Lendle’s Twitter account:

Amazon has revoked Lendle’s API access. This is why the site isdown. It’s sad and unfortunate that Amazon is shutting downLending sites.

And:

According to Amazon, Lendle does not “serve the principal purposeof driving sales of products and services on the Amazon site.”

?

Read The Full Article:
https://twitter.com/lendleapp/status/49919939456409601

Digg this

Pomfort Silverstack SET Now Supports ARRI Alexa,
RED and H.264 Cameras

Pomfort introduces on-set data management for RED and H.264 cameras with their brand new update of Silverstack SET. Silverstack was developed in close collaboration with DITs, DoPs, workflow professionals and camera manufacturers to ensure easy of use and compatability. Silverstack SET Edition is a reliable and easy-to-use software solution for media management, quality check and backup on the film set. It simplifies media management in the emerging field of digital production environments.

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-23272.htm

Digg this

iPee Plus a New iPhone App Designed to Relieve
Tension

iPeeMobile has released iPee Plus 1.0, for iOS. We've all been in situations where we've needed to relieve a little extra frustration. From the annoying boss in the office and the irritating teacher in the classroom, to the nerve-breaking referee in the football game and the cheating spouse. with the release of iPee Plus all your problems can be instantly flushed down the drain with the push of a button. It is indeed a non-violent tool designed to calm down any kind of aggressive emotions.

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-23271.htm

Digg this