I wonder if personalized news has that much appeal, really. Part of the success of traditional tv, radio and newspapers is the shared experience with some group you identify with.<p>Incidentally, this is why I read news.YC also, it's fascinating to read what smart people have to say after they have been exposed to the same stimulus like you. With traditional media, this discussion was in the pubs or the workplace the day after.<p>Traditional media is not necessarily dying because the stories are not interesting, well that's the symptom, but the cause is maybe that the group is not one that you feel you belong to anymore, and the content is taylored to the mean of that group anyway.
News is a funny market. If you say to someone "we'll help you find interesting or relevant news articles" they'll shrug and say it isn't a problem. Keeping informed as to what is happening in the world is a solved problem - by editors.<p>And whilst the current solutions (eg: everyone sees the same content on BBC) aren't <i>perfect</i> they're <i>good enough</i> and this is a tough product to justify to users.<p>Additionally, changing habits is really really hard. People habitually load nytimes.com every lunch time to see what is happening in the world - and you expect to shift that habit - for a marginal improvement in life? The brand loyalty with publications is ridiculously strong, not only do I <i>trust</i> The Financial Times, I <i>hate</i> the alternatives. "You just called me a Daily Mail reader? I am <i>literally</i> offended."<p>A lot of people insist that RSS Readers are too complex, and juggling multiple sources without an RSS Reader is too hard. That's true, but in reality most people don't care. If you think about it - people use different destinations for just about everything, so it's tough to imagine why <i>this</i> should be consolidated.<p>Another small problem with this market is that algorithm aggregators become over tuned. You read six articles about BP and suddenly your newspaper is less of the brilliant news paper and more of a BP quarterly earnings report. So then you down vote a few articles and then you miss the next BP scandal a few months later.<p>Also with this product - I'm expected to "thumb up" interesting news articles, this hurts emotionally if I'm "thumb up-ing" a news article about six 21 year old american soldiers being limbless in Iraq. "Show me more like this?" I think not.<p>I think there is significant value in topic communities and curation, an example of this is the Reddit Subreddits, if you want to stay informed in Venture Capital, in Golf, or in MotoGP it's quite hard to scratch that itch and always find cool new content (eg: a few articles a day)<p>Ask yourself: How would you find up to date content about Fashion? Or Coeliac Disease? Or Graphic Design.<p>I think news needs a fundamental shift towards social consumption, I think Google Reader, Twitter and Facebook have incrementally shifted this towards a social experience - which is exactly what news is about, it isn't about "being informed" per se, it's about "being informed <i>amongst your friends</i>" people want to look like they are in tap with what is happening in the world, and do not like having to ask their friends what they missed.
The thing about technological progress is that the replacement is never just "the old thing, only on computers". When people in the 90s wrote about the Internet and the Digital Library, quite a lot of them were envisioning something like Google Books, which is just a collection of books, <i>only online!</i> What actually <i>happened</i> was Wikipedia. (And a lot of other stuff, all of which further proves my point, but Wikipedia is sufficient.) Nobody in the 90s but the wildest visionaries saw Wikipedia coming. The Digital Library wasn't just the analog library writ large, it was something new that an analog library could never do.<p>Digital newspapers already exist. They are fed by RSS/Atom and do a variety of exciting things. Adding a top layer of formatting driven by a computer to make Google Reader (or your favorite RSS/Atom consumer) look like a old-style paper newspaper is a waste of time, and even worse, a waste of valuable screen space. Especially if you're going to try to write an algorithm to automatically figure out what the "top story" is, which will never be as good as a human. (And as in the first paragraph, there's also a variety of other things, like Slashdot, Reddit, HN, and all kinds of further digital elaborations on the fundamental newspaper template as modified by what digital makes easy and/or possible.)<p>Trying to replicate the old analog way of doing things is just silly.
<i>>>and thus "deliver the final blow to the newspaper industry".</i><p>Language like this generally makes me more skeptical that they'll accomplish this<p>It is one thing to blog or to aggregate "news", it is another to actually investigate and report the news. I don't know if they realize this, when they talk about delivering the "final blow to the newspaper industry"<p><i>>>The first 100 TechCrunch readers to retweet this article and add the hashtag #freeapollo (ha ha, retweet bots!) are getting a promotion code for the app on iTunes.</i><p>Their 1.0 version launched today. Apple only gives you 50 promo codes for an app version. I wonder whether they really have some way to hand out 100 promo codes today or whether this is just going to be their first case of over-promising and under-delivering.
This endeavor relies on a healthy ecosystem of news. This product is a recommendation system, a glorified web browser--not a newspaper. And it's insane to think that destroying the newspaper business is in these founders' best interest, if indeed they wish to "deliver the final blow to the newspaper industry." The arrogance and short-sightedness of the statement is thick.<p>I will never understand so many technical folks' glee in watching the decline of investigative reporting, media companies, publishing houses, and so on--especially when so many applications like this simply exploit the work of others, add a layer of abstraction on top. ("Exploit" being non-pejorative, simply descriptive.)
The future of news, as I see it: traditional media mostly dies, leaving a giant vacuum that part-time enthusiasts can't fill. People don't know what their local and regional government is up to because research is mostly boring, and who wants to do boring stuff for free? Corruption increases until investigative media outlets rise up to do full-time research and exposure. Frustrated citizens value this enough to pay for it. Paid-for media rises again, albeit in new forms, supplemented by volunteers.<p>In other words, the pendulum will swing back and forth as fickle humans change their mind, just like in politics and most other things in human history.
/pushes button<p>>modal dialog: "Are you sure you wanted to push that button? No / Yes"<p>/pushes yes.<p>/pushes another button<p>>modal dialog: "You pushed that button you pushed!"<p>/pushes ok.<p>Yep, I'm really seeing the Bing/Microsoft side of the application's design. I wonder if it asks if you want to launch the application when you launch the application?<p>I find it particularly ironic that the yes/no dialog comes up on the button with the <i>greatest</i> amount of error-room, while the one that just says "yaay!" has essentially the <i>least</i>. Apparently they're not a fan of Fitts' Law or its ramifications; they just put the double-check cost on the hardest button to miss, and the "congrats" on the one easiest to miss.
Does anyone know if there are amateur news sites that do things like collect shit people just report like "oh shit, this guy just got hit by a car on Damen & Wolcott" or "Hey, guys, the regime is cracking down on our protest", or has Twitter somehow filled in that gap?
Sounds like they have an extremely talented tech team. I'm not sure I find what they are doing to be particularly groundbreaking or interesting, though.
This is interesting considering some of the reaction to the new google news redesign: <a href="<a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/news/thread?tid=3b7b3632b344057f&hl=en>http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/news/thread?tid=3b7b3632b344057f&hl=en</a>" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/news/thread?tid=3b7b36...</a>;
There has never been and never will be a computer algorithm that can take the place of a good editor. Period, cannot be done but it won't stop the clueless from trying.<p>For example I may not wish to ever see stories about say Britnney Spears but I guarantee if she dies from an overdose tomorrow I will want to know it.
Nice to know the problem of content overflow is being solved intelligently.<p>Haven't spent time finding out it this exists already, but would love to have sometime which lets me follow a news item over a time period, like a story unfolding everyday and I could track it from its beginning and analyse like a detective :P
So they're going to kill newspapers by....stealing all their headlines and packaging them in a (marginally) better UI...that they charge money for?<p>Yes, that's definitely going to kill newspapers. Good luck with that one.<p>Looks like I've got one more line to add to all my robots.txt files.
Any ideas what they are doing in their source of their homepage with G-analytics JS written 4 times in a row? Then also it seems 2 more times at the bottom; Is that A/B testing or are they pumping numbers>? (and surely pumping numbers this way wouldnt work)
Interesting that the company uses @gmail.com email accounts and not their own domain name: <a href="http://www.hawthornelabs.com/about.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.hawthornelabs.com/about.html</a>