Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safari 5

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: Safari 5

#41

Post by dhotson »

ThomPete wrote: post #34
sandGorgon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also want to present the counter viewppoint - http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... Newspapers were dying because nobody wanted to pay for news, which they could get for free at Google News. Newspapers were told to suck it up and instead move online - to an ad supported model. No more ads. I dont think the newspapers are the bad guy here.

Newspapers are dying because they are staffed to heavily, not because people don't pay. Now look at smaller publications such as Gawker, hyper local news. They are doing just fine. Wired sold almost as many iPad versions (75.000 at 5USD a pop) as they did paper version since they launched it. Thats excluding advertising. Clearly there is a market for news. It's just not going to be of the NYT kind.

Yeah, good journalism costs money.

To have a staff of correspondents reporting around the world isn't cheap. But I think it's worth it.

I think in order for newspapers to survive, people have to learn that they need to pay. Advertising alone isn't going to pay the bills.

I personally think that charging people money for things on the internet isn't such a crazy idea. ;-)

Re: Safari 5

#43

Post by pope52 »

friism wrote: post #2

I work for a large newspaper, and we're not very amused by the built-in "Reader" (removes ads and crud, like Readability): http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html ... for users, it looks like a good feature though.

There has been an uncharacteristic quiet at the New York Times about yesterday's iPhone announcement. Usually, there is at least a more prominent article in the Technology section (Their current blurb is the lackluster "On Newest iPhone, Another Camera"). I wonder if "Reader" has anything to do with it.

Re: Safari 5

#44

Post by ThomPete »

dhotson wrote: post #41
ThomPete wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers are dying because they are staffed to heavily, not because people don't pay. Now look at smaller publications such as Gawker, hyper local news. They are doing just fine. Wired sold almost as many iPad versions (75.000 at 5USD a pop) as they did paper version since they launched it. Thats excluding advertising. Clearly there is a market for news. It's just not going to be of the NYT kind.

Yeah, good journalism costs money. To have a staff of correspondents reporting around the world isn't cheap. But I think it's worth it. I think in order for newspapers to survive, people have to learn that they need to pay. Advertising alone isn't going to pay the bills. I personally think that charging people money for things on the internet isn't such a crazy idea. ;-)

I don't think it's good journalism that cost money but the infrastructure to maintain so many journalists being situated around the world. The question is if this is really necessary. My guess is more and more, no it isn't

Obviously you don't really need a journalist for every newspaper being situated in different parts of the world. I understand why they do it, but the problem is that they are often forced to compete with local citizens with cellphones, twitter, citizen journalism etc.

Most people don't really read news for the good journalism, they read it for the value of reading news.

How well this news is being written is in my mind secondary from that point of view.

But obviously it's not so simple. I just don't buy the argument about good journalism.

Re: Safari 5

#45

Post by markkanof »

ThomPete wrote: post #34
sandGorgon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also want to present the counter viewppoint - http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking... Newspapers were dying because nobody wanted to pay for news, which they could get for free at Google News. Newspapers were told to suck it up and instead move online - to an ad supported model. No more ads. I dont think the newspapers are the bad guy here.

Newspapers are dying because they are staffed to heavily, not because people don't pay. Now look at smaller publications such as Gawker, hyper local news. They are doing just fine. Wired sold almost as many iPad versions (75.000 at 5USD a pop) as they did paper version since they launched it. Thats excluding advertising. Clearly there is a market for news. It's just not going to be of the NYT kind.

Your comment makes it sound like gawker is some kind of lightweight, nimble organization that provides all the hard news that say the NYT or the Washington Post do but at a fraction of the cost. Gawker is a tabloid. While there are some entertaining stories it in no way replaces a more serious news organization.

I don't mean to be overly critical. I just think that society needs the kind of information that the large papers provide. They definitely are having trouble coming up with a new viable business model, but it doesn't seem prudent to dismiss them by holding up gawker as a model to emulate.

Re: Safari 5

#46

Post by dhotson »

ThomPete wrote: post #44
dhotson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, good journalism costs money. To have a staff of correspondents reporting around the world isn't cheap. But I think it's worth it. I think in order for newspapers to survive, people have to learn that they need to pay. Advertising alone isn't going to pay the bills. I personally think that charging people money for things on the internet isn't such a crazy idea. ;-)

I don't think it's good journalism that cost money but the infrastructure to maintain so many journalists being situated around the world. The question is if this is really necessary. My guess is more and more, no it isn't Obviously you don't really need a journalist for every newspaper being situated in different parts of the world. I understand why they do it, but the problem is that they are often forced to compet…

I agree that twitter and citizen journalism have shown themselves to be quite capable of disseminating information and news.

It's still not quite the same as reading a well written, unbiased, in-depth analysis of a story in The Economist or The New York Times (or even Al Jazeera).

Sure, there's a large market for "news-tainment". But I think there's also a market for high quality journalism.

I'm also tipping that people are more likely to pay (and pay more) for the latter too.

Re: Safari 5

#47

Post by ptomato »

m_eiman wrote: post #27
upinsmoke wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not only upgrading Safari. You are upgrading Webkit as well! And it is used in many other apps, like iTunes. Webkit is very much integrated into OS X. That's why it needs to restart.

It shouldn't be very to hard to generate a list of running apps that link against the updated libs and ask the user for permission to restart them... Or let the user ignore it at own peril.

Almost everything is (potentially) linked against WebKit (At least judging by how broken my system when a rogue rogue flash plugin broke webkit.). Certainly Finder, for example. It could just get away with enforcing log off/log on again, but if multiple users are logged in it is probably simpler just to restart. "Ignoring at their own peril" will almost certainly result in horrible crashes.

Re: Safari 5

#48

Post by ThomPete »

dhotson wrote: post #46
ThomPete wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's good journalism that cost money but the infrastructure to maintain so many journalists being situated around the world. The question is if this is really necessary. My guess is more and more, no it isn't Obviously you don't really need a journalist for every newspaper being situated in different parts of the world. I understand why they do it, but the problem is that they are often forced to compet…

I agree that twitter and citizen journalism have shown themselves to be quite capable of disseminating information and news. It's still not quite the same as reading a well written, unbiased, in-depth analysis of a story in The Economist or The New York Times (or even Al Jazeera). Sure, there's a large market for "news-tainment". But I think there's also a market for high quality journalism. I'm also tipping that peo…

I too love well written articles. But it is unlikely a big enough market to entertain that many newspapers.

I do however have quibbles with the idea of unbiased journalism.

Personally I prefer highly opinionated pieces, but that's another discussion :)

Re: Safari 5

#49

Post by jasonlotito »

MWinther wrote: post #8
mahmud wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what Windows did the upgrading go without a restart? Firefox, maybe. But upgrading the MS COM component responsible for drawing shadows on a drop down menu in some obscure MS library for accessing DAO databases ALWAYS requires a restart. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm a few days ago and clicked "OK" as I went through the motions .. great, now the machine is rebooting and I lost whatever the fuck I was doing. Compare that…

I assume the comment referred to Safari 5 for Windows.

The original comment was referring to Safari 5 on Mac. Safari 5 on windows does not require a restart.

Re: Safari 5

#50

Post by dhotson »

ThomPete wrote: post #48
dhotson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that twitter and citizen journalism have shown themselves to be quite capable of disseminating information and news. It's still not quite the same as reading a well written, unbiased, in-depth analysis of a story in The Economist or The New York Times (or even Al Jazeera). Sure, there's a large market for "news-tainment". But I think there's also a market for high quality journalism. I'm also tipping that peo…

I too love well written articles. But it is unlikely a big enough market to entertain that many newspapers. I do however have quibbles with the idea of unbiased journalism. Personally I prefer highly opinionated pieces, but that's another discussion :)

I think you would be surprised. :-)

You're right about unbiased news though. It's a myth.

You really need to make up your own mind and read various sources to get some balance. I'm pretty sure all news has some inherent bias.

Opinion is fine, but don't try to make out like it's real news. Techcrunch is a major offender here.

Post reply on HN