I logged onto The Times' website earlier to sift through content, to see if there was anything inspirational I could add to my journal. Clicked on a headline, and was subjected to a pop up telling me that i'd have to pay £1 in order to view the content online.
So this got me thinking; with the advent of the iPad and Blackberry's rumoured future ebook release, and systems like The Times', just how long will it be before physical newspapers are rendered obsolete?
By the end of 2011, Apple forecast that they will have sold 28 million iPads, and although that sounds like a lot, when compared to the 13 million + newspapers sold DAILY in the UK alone, it starts to look like a fairly weak contender in the battle of physical versus digital.
I can't find figures for how many people pay to view content on newspaper's websites, but it wouldn't surprise me if those figures too were disappointing by comparison.
And the reason? I believe we don't NEED the iPad to look at newspapers - it's not THAT convenient really. First there's the cost issue to consider, then the battery life, storage, the fact that it's likely to get nicked et cetera.
I'm all for digitalisation if it makes things easier, like the iPod for example - it put an end to having to carry around your bulky CD collection with your player, but I just cannot see how you can, or why you would want to simplify the tried and tested newspaper trade.
It's cheap, value for money, just as portable as the iPad if not more so and okay, no, so you can't go on Facebook with your copy of The Sun, but you can read the day's news, take it into work, have it accompany you on your journey home without having to worry about whether the last bar of battery will get you through the sport section, and even if you feel nice, leave the paper on a train or bus for someone else to read, spreading the love. You wouldn't want to do that with your iPad now, would you?
