With the benefit of hindsight, there seem to be at least two other major lessons from The Daily’s failure:

  1. 观众清晰度。It was difficult to grasp who exactly was the intended audience of The DailyIt excelled at interactive elements and visual appeal, but the contents were so sprawling and varied that it was tough to know who this publication was speaking for and to.

  2. 一个平台是不够的。The Daily was first imagined as the daily news magazine for the iPad eraGoing with a tablet-first strategy was a great, ambitious ideaBut going with a平板电脑只strategy? In hindsight, questionable.

#1我同意每日都没有个性,没有专注It wasn’t tawdry enough to be a New York Post-style tabloid, and wasn’t serious enough to compete with the New York Times#2我完全不同意相关性不是因果关系,我认为没有证据表明平板电脑只能导致每日消亡。



每日推出一个大量的宣传在苹果本身的帮助和怂恿下,Eddy Cue正在宣布这一消息但应用程序很糟糕每日问题的下载速度几乎令人难以置信,甚至一旦下载,动画和翻页速度都很慢,导航也很混乱“每日新闻”在大门外引起了很多关注,但软件却给人留下了非常糟糕的第一印象这是一个巨大的错误,错过了机会。




但看看The Daily的实际费用(再次引用Sonderman的Poynter作品):

With expenses running at about a half million dollars a week, the publication would have needed near 500,000 subscribers at $3.99 a month or $39.99 a year just to break evenSo one big failing was the business model.

他们以每年2500万美元的费用开展了一项行动但是,每日iPad报纸都没有理由需要这种预算“每日新闻”范围内的每日iPad报都可能(但我对此表示怀疑),但这仅仅意味着“每日新闻”的范围不合理新闻集团没有采取我们所知道的报纸 - 20世纪前互联网定义的报纸 - 并将其塞进iPad包装纸你不能告诉我一份好的每日iPad报纸不能以每年500万美元的价格盈利。




News apps, it has become clear, are unwieldy and clunky things. Every issue of a new publication has to be downloaded in full before it can be opened; this takes a surprisingly long time, even over a pretty fast wifi connectionThat’s one reason why web apps can be superior to native apps: no one would dream of forcing people to download a whole website before they could view a single page.

On top of that, the iPad’s native architecture is severely constrained in many waysLook at any publication you’re reading in an iPad app, and search for a storyOh, wait — you can’t: search is basically impossible within iPad apps, which at heart are little more than heavy PDF files, weighed down with multimedia bells and whistlesNavigation is always difficult and unintuitive, and pages are never remotely as dynamic as what we’ve become used to on the web这不是The Daily的错Again, take any native iPad publication at allRead to the end of a story, and then see how many headlines you can click on: which stories are you being given the choice to read next? The answer is probably none, and again the reason for that is built deep into the architecture of the iPad, and of other tablets too.

大多数现有的iPad杂志应用程序都很慢,设计糟糕,无法搜索等并不意味着iPad杂志的应用程序无法快速,精心设计和搜索Salmon说“这不是The Daily的错”,但他的180度错了所有这些问题都是完全每日的错。

All impossible tasks have not been accomplished; but not all tasks that have not yet been accomplished are impossible对于媒体而言,“每日新闻报”的主要罪恶之处在于开放的网络对于仅限用户的iOS应用程序的封闭花园的影响。如果没有网络优先战略,你就无法获胜但这就是“每个人”对社交网络所说的话 - 直到Instagram出现并成为一种仅限iPhone的策略。

Ben Jackson has a fine response to Salmon

If you’re publishing on the iPad, you’re basically a designer rather than a coder, and you’re far more limited in what you can do.

No, you’re not, unless you can’t find a coder willing to work with youUse Adobe Publishing Suite, and yes, you will have no control over the codeBut that’s a far cry from some mythical limitation on publishing apps which prevents them from deviating from the horrible implementations we’ve seen thus far.



Publishing for a single platform, whether print, web, or the iPad, is a foolish move, and I think we knew that before The Daily was excised from News Corp.’s balance sheetBut to write tablet publishing off entirely due to one poorly-planned app from a massive traditional publisher would be terribly short-sighted.


But what’s foolish about publishing on a single platform? I publish only on the web, and 万博manbetx贴吧 seems to be doing OKMarco Arment的该杂志仅针对iOS发布并且表现良好,以至于他已经扩展到聘请编辑事实上,我甚至会说“每日新闻”成功证明了与Salmon的结论相反:只有iPad的每日新闻应用程序可以成功。

他们的成功是他们有超过10万读者每年至少支付40美元的订阅费用How many digital publications can say that? Not many而iPad - 采用Apple简单,可信,熟悉的支付机制 - 使这成为可能“每日报”的问题很简单,就是他们没有想象每年的收入为5美元或600万美元一个更聪明,更小的团队可以。