Now that is the million-dollar question for all newspapers.
Newspapers make money through selling advertising and the higher the claimed circulation and readership figures, the higher the rate they can charge for advertising. So in many ways the debate about the future of newspapers is not about is the content worth it when there are free websites out there, but is there a market that wants to buy print advertising and how big is it?
I suspect the new London papers won't last long. One might emerge battered and bloody but I'm not holding my breath. The Standard said that it didn't see any drop in its sales yesterday and I wonder if there is enough advertising to support two new evening papers. There might be for a while because the advertisers will play one paper off against the others, which is good for nobody except of course the advertisers themselves.
On the editorial content, this is something that newspapers around the world are grappling with. I think the answer is to give newspapers more personality, and by that I mean distinctive layouts (look at the Guardian and the Independent) and distinctive columnists. As you say, news can be accessed anywhere and of course with newspapers it's old by the time the paper lands on your doormat.
That sort of links into your final point about the Mail, which I think is a repellent, small-minded rag. However, it's a successful repellent small-minded rag because it delivers very precisely what its readers want. It has a personality - strident, small-minded, xenophobic and blustering - that reflects and reinforces the depressing worldviews of many people. That's what makes a paper successful.