Thoughts on the Guardian’s iPad app, and why it’s a good thing

"Users will quickly become frustrated if they know what they are reading about a major story is 12-18 hours out of date or plain wrong."

I don't agree with this statement at all, that's been the norm for newspapers for over one hundred years. It's even worse if you think about the economist magazine which is published only weekly, where the "news" might be nearly 7 days out of date!

The problem with live and recent updates to a news story that are less than 12 hours old is that it get's progressively harder to fact check and verify the story the quicker you try to publish. The number of live news sources that called the Amanda Knox verdict wrongly because they wanted to publish the verdict before the judge had finished speaker, meaning they heard guilty, and publshed their prepared stories for if she was found guilty of murder. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/amanda-knox-mistake-media-guilty-secret for an interesting comment on that issue)

A thoughtful, well edited piece of news that could be up to 24 hours behind the news cycle is very much desired by many people, and in the extrmely rare case that there is such a significant story out that it's essential to the readership to read it now rather than in 12 hours, it is of course possible for the iPad app to receive an updated edition (in the same way most papers update their physical edition throughout the night)

bruntonspall I think we do a lot of things badly online at the moment as we learn about what works and what doesn't, but just because the 'norm' has been to be 12-18 hours behind (because of restrictions imposed by the medium - not by choice) doesn't mean it's a good thing.

One of the powers of digital is the ability to be up to date. The restriction of print means newspapers can miss the story of the day and be closer to 24 hours behind by the time they catch up.

I'm not advocating that the app should have access to their live coverage or that it should be updated every time it is opened. If there is nothing new to add then I don't think there should be an update for updates sake, but if a good piece of analysis or a significant additional piece of news is published in the afternoon it should be available.

I also think that the Economist point is moot - their content is far more considered analysis and tackles the broader picture and the long term view around the stories they cover. Their content is designed and written for the long term. Unlike a daily newspaper.

Of couse the Guardian is not locked into a system they cannot change or update (the beauty of a digital product), but I still maintain that they missed a trick by starting with an app updated once a day - however well the content is presented.

As someone who pays for access to news content because I believe that good content is worth paying for - there is a lack of incentive to pay £9.99 a month to read the 12 hours old Guardian on my sofa. (As there is with most newspaper iPad apps at the moment)

Why don't you wait for the free trail before judging - you'll see how we have integrated when a story has been updated into the edition format.

currybet I think that's fair - while the Guardian app has been the catalyst for this conversation it's more about how I feel about the newspaper experience on the iPad, rather than the Guardian specifically.