Mobile web seems to be the way of the future, and I would like for our paper to be ahead of the curve when it comes to this. I might make that a pet project over the summer, to research mobile web, but I was wondering if you knew much about it through your web design work.

And you’re right about newspapers not investing in technology. But I don’t know if the news industry can do better than the market can.

I’m not sure how far off we are on actually reading stories on mobile devices. I think it can happen, but reading on such a small device doesn’t sound that appealing to me. My eyesight isn’t the greatest. That said, if the right technology comes along, I’m all for it. Instead, I’m advocating for QR codes, or 2D bar codes, that would integrate newspapers, the standard internet and the mobile web. I think QR codes are something newspapers could start exploring right now to get ahead of the mobile curve.

@Kiyoshi I agree with you that it’s more likely another online entity will push this initiative toward better mobile reading, but why shouldn’t it be newspapers? I think there are a number of papers investing in future technology and trying to figure out a way to better connect with readers. It can happen, if newspapers are willing to invest in it. Look at the Publish2 (http://blog.publish2.com/about/) system. Could that be a step in the direction news needs to go? It’s a sad state we are in if newspapers really aren’t the ones who would want to invest in their own futures.

I think you’re on point about the way mobile will change how news is received. Indeed, with the wireless spectrum opening up to allow more bandwidth and the always falling cost of technology, we’re bound to see more opportunities to have media delivered.

The problem, again, is how is that going to be monetized? Will part of my data package fees I pay to my mobile carrier go to the services I can read? Odds are it won’t because I’ll want the entire Internet and for there to be that tiered structure that would require disabling net neutrality on the mobile spectrum.

So, this would mean mobile advertising has to rise. Again, this is a possibility, but will it be an annoyance to those who are trying to access the internet on a VERY tiny screen? This means that advertising on mobile will have to change rapidly (if not more so than newspapers) to adapt to the users.

Also, it won’t be the FIRST company to do all those things you mentioned (and I mentioned) that will make a killing. It will be the company that does it BEST. The Internet’s already on my phone. It’s also on the iPhone. One exactly isn’t leaps and bounds above the other. There’s still room for the killer Internet phone out there (namely, one with Flash and higher data transfer rates).

On your second point, I think you’re on to something with this algorithm. Have you heard of “Persai” (from the lovable guys at uncov)? It might be a step in that direction. I would like to see their idea teamed up with something along the lines of what Amazon.com does with their product recommendations, except to make it include what my friends like — not what the masses like. I’m more interested in what my friends read and liked than what everyone else liked.

Odd are, however, this won’t be created by a newspaper company. Newspaper companies don’t invest in technology, they license it. If I had to bet on who would develop this first, I’d say either Google, Facebook or Amazon would do it. Why these three?

Google: Sheer volume of engineers. Throw enough bodies in an environment that’s creative, has money and already has their hands dipped in the media news aggregation business combined with millions of users’ data to play with and you’ve got the best shot of this happening.

Facebook: They care about relationships and tracking what individuals do in relation to their friends. They have so much person-to-person data it’s not even funny. Creating this algorithm could be a boom for them (and actually give them revenue for a change!), but they’re more focused on … well, I have no idea what they’re focused on.

Amazon: They like relationships. They have a lot of talent, too. But they’re not in the search business like Google is. And they aren’t as peer-to-peer as Facebook. Still, they know how relationships work in terms of actual purchases, which gives them a lot of psychological and mathematical data to work with. Still, how do you relate someone’s book-buying habits to what they want to read online? Is that even something you can correlate?

Sorry for the long comment, but I liked your post!

Good post, lots of thoughts for me. They’ll be dispensed here without organization.

Are newspapers going to lose power..? The power to put on a front page of what is most important to that newspaper? Surely newspaper Web sites are barely ahead of print newspapers on the road to extinction for subscribed, regular readers. If I have my news for me, my front page will be different than yours, no?

Relatedly, do you think this means far greater consolidation of news sources or the fracturing of newspapers into smaller, regional, hyper-local publications? Will the Inquirer take over the whole region or be forced to merge with the Philly Daily News and cover the city because the suburbs will cling to suburban papers?

Will radio, TV and newspapers merge because they’ll all be providing the same online content?

Oh, and what the hell is the word ‘newspaper’ going to mean? Will that be a relic in 50 years when there are no newspapers? We’ll be reading NEWS or COMMENTARY, not a NEWSPAPER. Will they still be newspaper companies? Or will the word itself begin to dissolve?

Sorry for all those thoughts.