The link below was an interesting article published in the standard the other day, I couldn't help responding, though by the end of my response I was getting tired and bored so the grammar was dropping off,...sorry :-)
First of all I'm writing this on my iPad, and whilst a huge fan of Apple, am not scared to criticise them. The iPhone wasn't perfect when it first came out, and still isn't. I guess the iPad will be the same, however like the iPhone, the iPad is so far ahead of it's compitition I don't feel that compelled to complain too much.
Some of your scepticism though is unfounded on a number of points.
numbers don't stack up? The iPad isn't on it's own going to save newspapers, but the collective competition could. No doubt the copycat devices will be cheaper and do a similar job. Apples laptops don't have a dominant market share but they are still great pieces of kit.
You argue that no one will pay for content when they can get it free on the Internet, but if that was the case why do people still buy newspapers? Clearly the newspaper and an iPhone app will offer something more than the Internet. Have you seen Wired, Time or Popular Science magazines? Far more engaging than the Internet content.
Then there is the advertising. Admittedly, most advertisers have failed to grasp the potential in these first Apps, however then ones that have some kind of rich content such as video clips of animation have a massively more sticky appeal to them, compared to their standard press ad style equivalents.
I could actually argue the case for tablet devices being great for publishers, but I'd rather go to bed
Regards
Alistair Gillan
I'm currently working at Ogilvy & Mather Advertising - Mobile Technologies
WPP - Leaders in Advertising, Branding, Marketing.
