|
New York Times iPad app versus Wall Street Journal app
I´ve wanted to like the New York Times app since it came out but simply haven´t been able to (apparently, I´m not alone based on the ratings in the iTunes store for that matter).
On the other hand, the WSJ app actually improves upon the paper´s reading experience. I documented pluses and minuses for both apps (and both had minuses, all is not perfect with the WSJ) in an article in Executive Road Warrior magazine that is now available on the Web - but I would be interested in getting the feedback of FTers here as well since I presume many of you carry your newspapers on your iPad. All the News? New York Times versus Wall Street Journal iPad Apps – Review With the advent of portable devices such as the Kindle eBook reader and Apple iPad, how we get our newspaper has started to change dramatically. In designing their first generation iPad interfaces, both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal started with a tabula rasa. The Wall Street Journal chose to adopt iPad conventions in terms of the use of gestures. As a result, the experience the reader gets doesn’t simply replicate the look and feel of the print paper, but the interface is actually an improvement. The Times, on the other hand, is a different story. A Journal reader on the iPad can get the day’s paper or the most up-to-date news and swipe from article to article. The look and feel resembles the print edition but the images are far superior. Thanks to its intelligent use of gestures and scrolling, I find reading the Journal on the iPad more enjoyable and far more informative than reading the paper version. Readers can swipe between articles and sections (left and right for articles, up and down for sections) and can also close an article and return to the both the front page of the “paper” or of each section by pinching the screen. Finally, I can also switch to the European or Asian edition with two taps, a feat that is not obviously possible with the paper version. On the other hand, I find that reading New York Times via its iPad app is an exercise in frustration thanks to a poor user interface that leaves me constantly wishing I had the actual paper in front of me. |
I don't bother with the nyt app, for the reasons you mentioned, but I do read the nyt online every day. The normal web (browser) interface is fine. Do you need an app for that? :)
-David |
Originally Posted by LIH Prem
(Post 16663509)
The normal web (browser) interface is fine. Do you need an app for that? :)
-David While I am almost always connected to Wi-Fi on the aircraft if it exists, the slow speeds I've observed recently can slow your browsing down tremendously. Of course, a lot of aircraft still don't have Wi-Fi (hard to believe). Hotel Internet speed is still the wild wild west. I was just in the Dearborn Inn for a few days and the speed was so slow that I couldn't even do a speed test. |
Originally Posted by jspira
(Post 16663540)
IThe apps allow one to read off-line.
-David |
Originally Posted by LIH Prem
(Post 16663669)
ah, good point.
-David |
My friend just left the WSJ and he was in charge of Tablet apps. They put a significant amount of effort into the app and its flow each day.
|
Originally Posted by armattheus
(Post 16663709)
My friend just left the WSJ and he was in charge of Tablet apps. They put a significant amount of effort into the app and its flow each day.
|
wsj app rocks
Hands down the wsj app on the ipad is simply the best single source newspaper app out there. It was already QUITE good coming out of the gates when the ipad was released of lo these many 15 months of so, but it only continues to improve (the ONLY thing I find truly missing is a way to SEARCH the pages on the tablet or online from within the app)
I can't get enough of it and it has totally replaced the paper for me for reading the wsj, and even wsj.com is somewhat more cumbersome. Great great app |
Originally Posted by nmenaker
(Post 16670884)
Hands down the wsj app on the ipad is simply the best single source newspaper app out there. It was already QUITE good coming out of the gates when the ipad was released of lo these many 15 months of so, but it only continues to improve (the ONLY thing I find truly missing is a way to SEARCH the pages on the tablet or online from within the app)
I can't get enough of it and it has totally replaced the paper for me for reading the wsj, and even wsj.com is somewhat more cumbersome. Great great app |
good to hear!
I think part of the problem with the TIMES app was actually - historically, and advantage. They HAD a program called READER which was a client (And is now a webapp available on chrome) that was ahead of the whole "app" craze. Nobody really had anything like it, it allowed one to download the entire paper, several issues, email articles, SAVE articles, etc. This was many years ago -READ like HALF A DECADE ago. I know I was testing it in '05 for an '06 launch. It was a paid app, can't remember if one needed a monthly sub or not. What nytimes has done with their ipad app is to simply appify the READER app to make an ipad app. no thinking about the specific opportunities or advantages of the table form factor or touch UI or data organization and consumption. It really was just a conversion to a tablet app. That is why they fail! Here are some links to the webapp http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/#/Top+News chrome app/extension https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search?q=nytimes |
If only WSJ would get their act together and get a decent Honeycomb tablet edition working....
|
Originally Posted by elCheapoDeluxe
(Post 16674355)
If only WSJ would get their act together and get a decent Honeycomb tablet edition working....
Definitely evidence of an act not quite together... Regards |
Quite. Considering Android handsets went from 0% to 38.1% of the market in just a few years (that's a good 43.2% greater than Apple's 26.6% share) and with over half a million new Android handsets activated each and every day, it is clear to everyone outside Cupertino that Android is in the game to stay (see comscore data). Why WSJ wouldn't want to be a forerunner in the Android tablet market is tough to say. Of course Honeycomb is new - but with the Motorola Xoom, Asus eeetab Transformer, Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Acer Icona, and Toshiba Thrive all recently released and running Honeycomb - there is some pretty good momentum going I'd say. Furthermore I'd love to see WSJ take it to the next level and make use of features lacking in iOS, like making use of resizable homescreen widgets for news feeds. Here's hoping.
|
Originally Posted by elCheapoDeluxe
(Post 16684126)
Quite. Considering Android handsets went from 0% to 38.1% of the market in just a few years (that's a good 43.2% greater than Apple's 26.6% share) and with over half a million new Android handsets activated each and every day, it is clear to everyone outside Cupertino that Android is in the game to stay
Honeycomb 3.1 is going to help this, as are new tablets coming from samsung and a XOOM replacement. |
Originally Posted by elCheapoDeluxe
(Post 16684126)
Quite. Considering Android handsets went from 0% to 38.1% of the market in just a few years (that's a good 43.2% greater than Apple's 26.6% share) and with over half a million new Android handsets activated each and every day, it is clear to everyone outside Cupertino that Android is in the game to stay .
I suggest you go do some research on Android tablet penetration rates, let's just say they aren't nearly as impressive as handsets. If I'm a software development manager with the WSJ and I have finite resources at my disposal, I'd be quite comfortable focusing those resources on an iPad app versus Android tablet app at this stage of the game. Regards |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:43 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.