Why Apple’s iPad didn’t save newspapers

This post was originally published in April 2010, days after the first iPad launched. Updated January 2026 with fifteen years of hindsight on how the tablet revolution reshaped—but didn't save—news media.

Rupert Murdoch described Apple’s iPad as a “potential saviour of newspapers” not long after the tablet computer first appeared. At the time, his optimism was misplaced. Both the numbers and the economics showed otherwise.

Small savings, big costs remain

Moving to the iPad saves publishers money on paper, printing, wrapping and distribution. Yet Apple’s 30 percent cut of subscription revenue is roughly the same as the margin taken by newsagents and other retailers. Editorial costs don’t go away, so the overall savings are relatively small.

More importantly, fewer readers are willing to pay for digital subscriptions than for printed copies. Evidence in 2010 suggested only five percent of readers would pay. Even if that number had climbed to 25 percent, copy sales revenue would still fall.

Fewer readers means less advertising

Print newspapers also enjoy a secondary audience. A copy bought in a shop is often passed from reader to reader. Digital editions make sharing harder because of copy protection. That reduces the number of readers per subscription and in turn makes advertising less valuable.

True, digital readers are more identifiable, which improves targeting. But advertisers ultimately want reach: fewer readers meant less ad revenue overall.

Analysts warn of limits

Ovum, a technology analyst firm, reached the same conclusion. In a May 2010 report, principal analyst Adrian Drury wrote: “Apple’s much-hyped tablet device alone will fail to secure the future of news and magazine publishing.”

He argued that while the iPad offered publishers new distribution channels, it was still just one device. Sales volumes would take time to build, while the challenge of finding a sustainable business model for publishing was immediate. Ovum also predicted the iPad media market would quickly become congested.

A turning point, not a saviour

Apple forecast it would sell 13.2 million iPads by the end of 2011. That compares with 25 million iPhones shipped in 2009 alone. While the iPad and later tablets reshaped media, they were never the cure for declining newspaper fortunes Murdoch and others hoped for.

Fifteen years later: What actually happened 

The prediction proved accurate. The iPad didn't save newspapers, though tablets have reshaped how people consume news. 

By 2026, newspaper print circulation has collapsed to a fraction of 2010 levels. The iPad's failure wasn't about the device—it was about the business model. Publishers eventually learned that how they frame digital subscriptions matters more than the delivery mechanism. 

What actually saved some news organisations wasn't a technology but direct reader relationships. Email newsletters, podcasts and reader-supported journalism have all succeeded where app-based distribution failed. Journalists who learned to use their core skills in new ways thrived, even as their erstwhile employers struggled.

The iPad became ubiquitous—Apple sold over 500 million iPads in the fifteen years since Murdoch's prediction. But news apps didn't become the dominant way people consume journalism. Instead, social media, web browsers and direct subscriptions won out. 

Meanwhile, the cost-cutting that seemed attractive about digital distribution—no printing, paper or physical distribution costs—accelerated newsroom layoffs. The savings went to shareholders, not journalism. As predicted, newspapers missed crucial opportunities to adapt their business models when they had the chance.

More on journalism and media: 

This post is part of ongoing coverage about journalism business models, digital adaptation and modern reporting:

• Journalists too mean to tech companies.
• Lack of local technology news damages industry.
• Dealing with the pay wall economy.
• Online paywalls vs print: Why readers resist.
• Why I'm a technology and business writer, not a geek.