March 27, 2014 Last Updated 4:33 pm

Media app updates: Adobe updates Content Viewer; WSJ update addresses crash issues

Bad comparison: testing the web app from a financial newspaper against that of a consumer newspaper

If it seems like things have been a little slow around here at TNM this week you are right. Between travel and a lack of news, new posts here have been limited. Come Monday things should be back to normal.

Speaking of back to normal… Apple’s iTunesConnect seems to be back online, and as a result developers have been able to get their new apps and app updates through the system.

Adobe has issued an update to its Adobe Content Viewer app. This brings the app up to version 30.0.0, which is the version of Adobe DPS that is current. The app is used to preview apps before submitting them to Apple and usually the app is updated along side the release the latest version of Adobe DPS but this time lagged behind a few days.

WSJ-iPad-lgThe Wall Street Journal issued an update to its iOS app today that fixes a number of crash issues:
– Fixed crashes on issue downloads and updates
– Fixed crash on issue delete which was causing app size to to expand to multiple gigs
– Fixed a crash when opening the app via Smart App Banners in Safari
– Fixed a freeze on the iPhone navigation menu

Recently The Motley Fool compared the Financial Times and the NYT’s approach to apps and found both were somewhat successful. The FT, of course, has chosen to stay outside the Apple App Store and stick with a web app, while the NYT is inside the store.

But I think this is a bad comparison. The reason is two-fold: first, one can not compare a financial newspaper to a consumer newspaper since there are financial incentives to purchase the business newspaper; second, the NYT has not been an enthusiastic launcher of apps, with only a few apps launched over the past four years.

A better comparison would have been between the Financial Times and the WSJ. Both are similar products, yet have taken different approaches. Yet despite their different approaches, but papers haven been successful at getting readers to pay for their digital products.

Why? I think the answer has less to do with their digital product approaches than a more fundamental reason: readers value the information found inside the newspapers.

I can think of few good tests of the in-store, out-of-store approach. If I were to set up a real test I would use the NYT as my test subject. A good test would be to price both the iPad app and web site at the same price level. My guess is that iPad app readership would increase since it currently is priced at a premium. But I also think that the website subscriptions would not be significantly hurt.

Since the NYT’s goal in not to test things out for other publishers, don’t look for any changes to their approach just for our benefit.

seo_cw_productOther app updates:

WIRED Magazine fixes some bugs with version 4.3 release, though the first two reviews from readers still complain about slow download speeds.

Starbucks has issued a crash fix update of its new, redesigned app. It has been a bumpy launch so far, according to users.

Twitter, which seems to issue updates every two weeks just to annoy its users, has issued its seventh update of the New Year. Most updates simply mention bug fixes, but this update says mentions an enhancement: “This update includes enhancements to sharing and uploading photos.”

Comments are closed.