Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Wired's App Really the Future of Magazines?

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the at-least-bandwidth-is-free dept.

Media 207

MBCook writes "Interfacelab has put up a review of Wired's new iPad app, and declared, 'The only real differentiation between the Wired application and a [1990s] multimedia CD-ROM is the delivery mechanism.' While providing little interactivity other than a fancy page-flip, the application is made of XML and images, including two for the text of each page in portrait and landscape mode. This seems to be why the application is 500MB. The article suggests this was done to get the app out quickly after Flash was officially vetoed by Steve Jobs."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (3, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370280)

Wired made something like $115,000 in four hours of sales.

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370474)

And the novelty factor lasted for ... four hours?

Re:Well... (5, Informative)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370706)

Nope, more like ten minutes. I got it because people were crowing about how great it was, but it was mostly ads, and some fairly lame interactivity that could have been done better in Javascript on a web page. If this is the future of magazines, they can keep it. Don't waste your money.

Oh, plus, they warn you that they're tracking your viewing. I guess it was nice of them to warn us, but part of the Brave New magazine experience I am *not* looking for is a little mini- Conde Nast- panopticon.

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370736)

Have you ever bought the print edition of Wired? Half of it is ads already. They were simply trying to replicate the print edition feel :)

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370966)

At least now when you flip the iPad up-side-down, subscription cards don't come falling out.

Re:Well... (4, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371088)

Get the past issues and a cheap micrometer.
Graph the health of the US tech sector based on the thickness and ads packed into years of Wired.
The 2010 issues are thin :)

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371098)

At least now when you flip the iPad up-side-down, subscription cards don't come falling out.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's an app for that.

Re:Well... (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371236)

Their color scheme also induce seizure, but I'm told that's just a bonus feature.

Re:Well... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371134)

Oh, plus, they warn you that they're tracking your viewing. I guess it was nice of them to warn us, but part of the Brave New magazine experience I am *not* looking for is a little mini- Conde Nast- panopticon.

With the next release of the app, the built-in camera will be used to monitor the presence of an unauthorized over-the-shoulder reader (the content is licensed for use by the end-user only); the good news is that it will automatically create a facial recognition database so you won't be automatically dinged another $1.25 if the same person reads over your shoulder twice.

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371268)

No, the person reading over his shoulder will be billed $1.25 - he will be fined with illegal distribution of copyrighted content.

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371264)

I'd say at least then they know what content you're interested in, but they already know that from the website.

Really, they need to re-invent presenting text-based information in a way that takes advantage of the iPad's strengths above and beyond HTML. For the life of me, I can't figure out what those might be. You could do walkthroughs of 3d models and spaces, but nobody wants to generate those resources. You could create interactive systems that replicate what the article is talking about, but nobody wants to generate those resources (and could be done in flash anyway). Any sort of discussion system is better suited for HTML.

Really, the only way this will be anything other than an additional way of selling a dead-tree edition or a PDF of the website is if they broke the structure entirely and went with some sort of whacked-out information metaphor spacing similar articles near eachother in 3D space, floated related back-issue information nearby, and possibly had unicorns that crapped screen readable serif fonts. They don't seem to be willing to take the risk making a jump into a radical new way of browsing information, so the actual use of the program is a bit moot.

The Thrill Wears Off When the Math Kicks In (5, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370750)

I get dead-tree Wired for $10 a year; less than a buck an issue. So for the price of more than 5 such issues, I should buy a single issue with a glorified shovel-ware interface?

Hmmm, let me think about that for a second. OK, no.

Bad enough Wired never grew up out of its hipster typeface fetish, rendering many of the paper pages barely legible; I shudder to imagine what it looks like on an iPad.

Re:The Thrill Wears Off When the Math Kicks In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370960)

bloody. oh wait.

Re:The Thrill Wears Off When the Math Kicks In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371476)

Bad price comparison...subscriptions will always cost less per issue than individual issues bought outside a subscription.

Re:Well... (1, Flamebait)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371244)

that was $115,000 in revenue. how much did it cost to make this monstrosity? i bet they lost money.

all the news i've read about the digital magazines on the iPad is that they are a bust. the print media screwed up their business model 10 years ago and no one wants to pay crazy prices to bail them out

Re:Well... (1)

Aklyon (1398879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371432)

No one seems to notice that with the banking systems, that screwing up of the business model. they got bajillions.

Re:Well... (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371674)

Well, they managed to make #1 top paid selling App on the App Store in just over 24 hours.

I had no idea that there where that many dumbtarbs that bought iPads...

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371648)

But it is all gloss and glitter. Apps for magazine content delivery (even if it means getting some iPad users to rush to buy it at first) using a very proprietary implementation for delivery (Obj-C + Cocoa subset, ahem- not exactly the ultimate in publishing ease) gives you a lot of latitude about what you can do, but it is expensive and time-consuming. It would make more sense for them to spend less money on glitz and development of apps and use that money to continue reporting great content. Personally I don't give a crap if the article I'm reading is printed on a dot-matrix printer or not if it has great content.

Yes. (0)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370294)

Next!

Obviously... (1, Troll)

Spyware23 (1260322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370302)

The answer is no. Also, anyone using the iPad as ereader is mentally insane and hates his/her eyes.

Re:Obviously... (4, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370350)

Indeed. The only real innovation in term of e-readers since the first handheld ones (ala Palm Pilot or similar) has been e-ink, and with color ones coming out soonish, this is seriously the way to go. You don't read several hundred pages in one sitting on an Ipad or similar devices, its just painful. And a book shouldn't need to be recharged every couple of days. E-ink readers and their month-long battery life (if you have a kindle, remember to turn off wifi =P) is the way to go.

Re:Obviously... (1)

lazyDog86 (1191443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370566)

You read Wired? I just get it to look at the pictures.

Re:Obviously... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370648)

Too many ads in dead-tree magazines, I'll stick to the internet with adblock.

Re:Obviously... (2, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370680)

Hey! Wired is the magazine that I can trust to print long, insightful articles about how the print media is dead!

Re:Obviously... (1)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371738)

I just get it to look at the pictures.

So Wired is the anti-Playboy?

Re:Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370376)

ROFL. As opposed to the screen you're reading now, right?

Re:Obviously... (0)

Spyware23 (1260322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370432)

The idea of e-reading devices was that it was a portable computer that would mimic/be like a regular paper. I would never attempt to read books on this awful LCD display.

So, to answer your "question", yes. Yes, as opposed to the screen I'm reading (from) right now, I'd use a proper e-reader with technology that helps ease my eyes (and in effect, my mind).

Re:Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370514)

I'm not saying you're wrong, as such, but I will say that if your reasoning holds water, it'll be the very first time in human history a technology like eInk has survived a competitor that doesn't cost any more money and that does a hundred times more things.

Re:Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370688)

Intriguing point. However:

Cost of iPad in UK: £429-£699
Cost of Amazon Kindle in UK: £177 + VAT
Cost of Sony PRS-300 in UK: £160

The competitor here costs a lot more money than the eInk devices, at least in the UK. True, it does a hundred times more things - albeit at a much higher rate of power consumption - but so do lots of other expensive devices. There aren't many non-eInk things out there with a particularly e-reader-friendly form factor, which would seem to imply that the technologies aren't seen as equivalent from a hardware development perspective. I'd presume that's probably got something to do with the power consumption issues?

Re:Obviously... (2, Insightful)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371004)

by competitor you mean paper?

Re:Obviously... (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370510)

The answer is no. Also, anyone using the iPad as ereader is mentally insane and hates his/her eyes.

Really? This meme again? Someone always brings this garbage up. I guarantee you using the iPad as an eReader will have zero effect on your eyes. People have spent their whole working lives reading worse-quality desktop screens with no eyesight issues. So, you hate the iPad, good for you -- but let's knock the eyesight myth shall on the head shall we? Millions of people will be using the iPad as an eReader with no ill-effects.

But yeah, the answer is no -- purely because this is an extremely inefficient way of delivering content.

Re:Obviously... (1)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370594)

Just because viewing a screen isn't damaging to the eyes exclude that it can be more tiring to read on the iPad compared to the Kindle for example.

Re:Obviously... (4, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370698)

I have one, and reading on it does in fact give me a headache.

If one could control the font and turn off antialiasing, perhaps it would be better.

Re:Obviously... (5, Interesting)

thms (1339227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371060)

the eyesight myth

That is not a complete myth, you do indeed develop shortsightedness from reading from an iPad or anything else held at an arms length. Though develop means you still have to be growing, i.e. a kid. So sending them outside to play instead of sitting in front of a screen does have its merits.

The study I remember was comparing kids in Israel. Some grew up in highly religious communities where they spend a lot of time reading the Torah, the other half grew up in more secular communities. The result was that those who read more were more likely to become short sighted. There is truth to the bespectacled intellectual stereotype.

IIRC the proposed mechanism is that the signal quality which the neurons receive influence the elongation of the eye, and focusing on near objects somehow makes them grow longer. Terrible control mechanism for the correct eye size, typical evolutionary hackjob :)

Re:Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370602)

May I ask what you've been using to read web pages over the last 15 years? CRT monitor for me. I must hate my eyes. Regardless, still don't need glasses, and those 15 years don't include the other 10 years prior to having web access where I was staring at low-resolution CRTs or television displays for my "computing activities". Did I mention, still don't need glasses?

Re:Obviously... (1)

Touvan (868256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370726)

I read text all day on an LCD and find it superior to the hard to look at reflective surface of curved printed paper. To each their own I guess.

Re:Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371560)

Actually I never thought about this before, but it's so true. Glossy white text-book pages combined with bright overhead lighting do end up with so much reflection on the paper that you can't read it sometimes. I've never thought about it consciously except when I went to take a picture of a sheet of paper and realized that it wasn't readable on portions.

Re:Obviously... (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370758)

Obviously. Because you've tried it and it sucked, I presume? Or possibly you're just sure, because it's your opinion, so it must be true.

I've read quite a few books on it already, and it's been great. And no, I am not mentally insane (is there some other kind of insane?). Nor do I hate my eyes. My experience of it is that it's a lot like reading a hardcover book, only a little easier to hold up. The fonts aren't perfect, but they don't totally suck either. If every book I wanted were available on iPad, I probably wouldn't buy any paper books anymore.

Re:Obviously... (2)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371496)

I can't stand the low pixel density, maybe a tenth of print.

again with the flash? (3, Insightful)

DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370304)

re:"The article suggests this was done to get the app out quick after Flash was officially vetoed by Steve Jobs"

Why quick? Wasn't all the years flash was excluded for the iPhone at all a hint? OOOOOh I get it - controversy = hitcounts! Linkbait me baby - linkbait me!

I think the interface still needs a little work - but at least it wasn't nearly as painful as PopSci's efforts. NYT still rules the interface roost. I know where to go - it stays out of the way - and no tutorial on "how to read this magazine" (Time, I'm looking at you).

Might also be nice to have the video play in the page as an option like the NYT too. Or stream it to save on space. I can live without video when I'm on a plane.

Re:again with the flash? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370374)

To be fair, it does appear to be related: Adobe built this app in Flash for Wired, intending to use the beta CS5's iPhone compilation. Once Apple banned that, they did a fairly hasty port, which appears to still use some sort of auto-compilation from InDesign. [venturebeat.com]

Re:again with the flash? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370430)

Why do you need a special application for "magazines"? They need text and images, which can easy be done in html and the iPad comes with a perfectly serviceable web browser that can read and display html. Or if they want to ensure offline viewing, just have the app grab a bunch of html and image files, store locally and browse there.

Re:again with the flash? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370704)

Because the print guys are grasping at anything they can to distinguish themselves from the reams of text-and-images-in-HTML available for free in any browser.

They are hoping(with some mixture of sheer desperation and modestly interesting UI quirks) that there is somehow a "digital magazine" that will allow them to get with this "digital" that they are losing all their readership and ad money to; but without sacrificing the "magazine" part.

Re:again with the flash? (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371274)

Why do you need a special application for "magazines"?

It's a form of DRM..

Re:again with the flash? (3, Interesting)

DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371320)

integrated instapaper (seriously - try instapaper for the ipad - it's scary cool when used with "print this page") functionality would be cool as shit. I'd pay through a paywall if the content was better than the web version - and wired.com is mostly a macroblog site - not their magazine content.

They could create a paywall site for their paper content - and a little more - and create an instapaper-type version for offline local. They'd get both ipad and non-ipad readers all in one go.

Re:again with the flash? (2, Informative)

DeadJesusRodeo (1813846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370446)

I thought the article scored more points on addressing the HTML 5 arguments (which are far more valid - and possibly why the NYT app is better (I don't know it's dev-dissection)).

Bonus points for your book link. I meant to get that title a while ago and forgot about it. Just downloaded it for my kindle-reader iPad client - thx!

PDF!!! (5, Insightful)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370320)

Haven't they heard of PDF? I mean, it's not as if the iPad doesn't have PDF written into its DNA from top to bottom, and that the format was pretty much invented for the very purpose to which they are not putting it here.

Jobs may have declared war on Adobe's Flash format but Adobe's PDF format is a whole other story.

HTML? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370540)

I mean, really, is it *so hard* to create an online magazine? I never got the point of people downloading apps just to browse magazine articles and images. The web is pretty much designed for just that, so why not use it? PDF would work to, but I don't really see the point of not having it online? Maybe to allow you to download it and read it even if you don't have an Internet connection at the time you want to read (like, maybe, in-flight for example)? I suppose that might be a valid reason to want a pdf.

Re:HTML? (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370970)

well pdf does have some advantages, as you mention it is available offline. It also has doesn't have a load time anywhere near that of a rich web page over 3g. As for having it online, you then have to deal with keeping it inaccessable and taking payment, the app store sucks, but it does handle those rather well.

Re:HTML? (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371066)

There's nothing stopping anyone from viewing an HTML document stored locally as long as it has all the content stored locally as well. I'm fairly sure you can design pages that gracefully reflow if they have optional online dynamic content thats temporarily unavailable as well.

Re:HTML? (4, Insightful)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371016)

people wont pay for HTML. They think that HTML should be free. People will pay for an "app" because OHHHH its an APP Ohhhhhh!

Re:HTML? (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371358)

Well, just make the rendering engine webkit or something and POOF pretend it's a real app.

Hell, Google just introduced a font API so you could replace all the normal text with some cool font to make it look more "bookish".

http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/ [google.com]

Re:HTML? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371136)

I mean, really, is it *so hard* to create an online magazine?

Yes. Yes, it is. HTML is just not up to the task of doing fancy layout.

Re:HTML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371746)

It's a MAGAZINE. How much fancy layout do we really need?

Re:PDF!!! (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370556)

Well, you know the iPad/Pod way... a separate app for everything. Even if that means a separate 500 megabyte reader for each magazine subscription(!?) (For that size, it better have the next 10 years' worth of Wired pre-loaded!)

Re:PDF!!! (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371276)

That's larger than my emacs installation, and I have three versions.

Re:PDF!!! (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371758)

Wait, Wired even had to *code to flip pages portrait or
landscape?

I thought the makers of iPad had reached an agreement with the
earth's gravitational forces to achieve such perfect harmony that
you would know exactly when your plane is taking off,
simply by the way the page is doing a 'Star Wars' thing.

Re:PDF!!! (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370588)

I agree. And PDF is no longer really an Adobe format (I say this having recently created a PDF slideshow using LaTeX which I intend to show using Evince).

No, I think its based on Zinio (2, Interesting)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370864)

That is the proprietary magazine app that Apple was bundling with Macs for some years. It has the same animated page turning and a few other little touches. I think the sample issue that came with it was MacWorld.

Re:PDF!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370882)

Didn't adobe invent the internet?

Re:PDF!!! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371020)

The iPad is now a living organism?
How do you get a document format expressed in Deoxyribonucleic acid?

Re:PDF!!! (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371068)

metaphor |mtf| |-f|
noun

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable : "I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression," said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors | her poetry depends on suggestion and metaphor.
a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract : the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering.

DERIVATIVES
metaphoric |-frk| adjective
metaphorical |-frk()l| adjective
metaphorically |-frk()li| adverb
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French métaphore, via Latin from Greek metaphora, from metapherein 'to transfer.'

Re:PDF!!! (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371118)

Some magazines have gone insane over digital delivery. While sane popular magazines just deliver the magazine as a PDF, and journals allow you to download individual articles, some magazines are fighting the future as much as the music labels once did. One of the worst offenders is Make, and is why I don't really subscriber every year. They have the lamest online reader in existence, and it pretty much destroys any cred they have a DYI site.

Wired not available in Canada... (1)

seanvaandering (604658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370322)

Well not for the ridiculously low price you can get it for in the USA anyways.... Maybe this is finally the solution for Canadians, because I like reading that magazine, good bathroom fodder. Unless they decide to cripple the app based on geo-location. Now can we get an Andriod app for this?

Re:Wired not available in Canada... Uhh... (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370870)

I can buy Wired at probably 15 places within a 10 minute bike ride of my house. In other words, nearly every magazine rack. The cover price? $5.99. Same as the US. A few cents better, actually, considering the exchange rate.

Oh, unless you're talking about the awesome subscription deals. But I haven't subscribed to a magazine since I was 14. I prefer to pick them up when there's something compelling I want to read.

Re:Wired not available in Canada... (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371084)

"...because I like reading that magazine, good bathroom fodder."

Yes, but the side effects of using the pages as emergency toilet paper are...undesirable.

500MB??!! (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370324)

Insane!

Each full page is a giant image...

Ah ok... Don't want any copying and pasting...

Re:500MB??!! (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370516)

500 MB? Yeah seriously, WTF?

> Each full page is a giant image...

Oh, that would explain it... a jpeg of each page at 300 dpi...

Re:500MB??!! (2, Interesting)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370660)

The Popular Sciene magazine on the ipad only about 25MB. Downloading 500 megs is just crazy, specially if they are doing in app sales for future issues. The PS magazine does the in app sales. I'm pretty sure that the Time magazine also does the in app sales too. The problem with those magazines and several newspapers is that they have very high prices. $5 for an issue is insane.
I think the PS magazine is very close to the Wired one, except for videos and so many ads:
Video of PS mag [vimeo.com] (fast forward to the 1 min mark).

Re:500MB??!! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370770)

Don't want any copying and pasting...

Allowing copy/paste is optional, not required. The only way this could possibly be their reasoning is if they have an extremely ill-informed developer, or if they were so paranoid as to worry about someone hacking their app and then enabling copy/paste. (At that point, the hacker would be better off just saving the image and running OCR on their desktop.)

So black and white (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370470)

For such a critical piece, it sure was a poor online reading experience; No graphics, fully justified blocks of text, as soon as I clicked the link my shoulders drooped a little.

Images? For the whole page? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370484)

What, do they have a full-page glossy photograph on every page of the print magazine? Or are they being incredibly stupid?

Or maybe they lay out the original pages in MS Paint rather than as real text?

iPad review or Wired App review? (5, Insightful)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370580)

Is this a review of the iPad as a magazine-reader ("Is This Really the Future of Magazines"), or a review of the Wired magazine App on the iPad? Judging from the title, it sounds like the former. I'd recommend looking at some other magazines or newspapers on the iPad if you're going to judge it as an eReader. For example, here's the USA Today App for the iPad (jump to 0:50) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5nJVtLygOM [youtube.com]

Re:iPad review or Wired App review? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370710)

Interesting. Quite a good merging of the traditional magazine with the modern website.

After reading through the article, I found a mentions that Wired also dropped the ball compared to their initial concept.

For all of the interactivity that was touted in the Flash prototype, what we’ve really ended up with is a glorified slide show.

Combined with the line in the summary

The article suggests this was done to get the app out quick after Flash was officially vetoed by Steve Jobs.

I had to check what the original concept was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFbwHaP5tE Approximately 1:04 in.

All in all, it seems like the two concepts were similar, but Wired had to sacrifice quite a bit to get it in on time. I've gotta say that USA Today might also end up with quite a few flaws once they get it out in the real world. Or..they just redo it in HTML5 and make it less dull. Who knows!

Re:iPad review or Wired App review? (1)

thms (1339227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370948)

(jump to 0:50) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5nJVtLygOM [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFbwHaP5tE Approximately 1:04 in.

(OT) Hint for jumping to a specific time in youtube videos:
Add #t=TIMESTAMP to the urls, like so

Thanks in advance for using a bit of more your time to save us n-times our time (n = |viewers|) :-)

Re:iPad review or Wired App review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371768)

Wonderful thing to know!

And if I think about it in a certain way, I can imagine myself as a chronomancer, hoarding up thousands upon thousands of seconds to myself.

Separate content from presentation? (5, Insightful)

nurbles (801091) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370628)

I had to cancel my subscription to WiReD because they have never, ever learned anything about readability and my eyesight has gotten to the point where I need a very bright light and a magnifying glass to read WiReD. I have no problem with books (paperback or hardcover) or most other magazines or newspapers, because for all of them, content is more important than style -- something that has NEVER been true at WiReD.

I mention this because it is a perfect case for providing the magazine content in a format who's style the user may customize -- if they can understand that some people are actually trying to read their stuff and not just saying, "Wow! That's looks really cool. I wonder what it says?" It sounds like they did everything they could to avoid giving the user the ability to manipulate the presentation of their content, which seems to be almost the exact opposite of XML's purpose. I seriously hope that WiReD (and similar content providers) can get back to providing interesting/meaningful/useful content and restraining their style tinkering to the margins, where it belongs.

I hope that the iPad version of the magazine at least allowed the reader to zoom and pan around the page, but knowing WiReD, they probably even disabled that because their strange sense of style demands that we suffer, um, I mean, view the entire page as a whole only.

Re:Separate content from presentation? (4, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370656)

You're too old to be reading Wired. You're not their target customer.

Re:Separate content from presentation? (2, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371028)

Over the past 6 months their target audience seems to have been people who want to buy an iPad. The ratio of Apple content on the site is higher than Slashdot, which has been bad enough itself lately.

Re:Separate content from presentation? (2, Interesting)

vilain (127070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370928)

When Wired first came out, I couldn't read it either. I flip through it while standing in line at FRYS only to put it back wondering who could read it. Seems after reading various books on aging that wired was targeting young eyes intentionally. Now that it's been out a while, the original crowd can't read it any more. Ironic. Appropriate. We should all send an email to their layout manager saying "GET OFF MY LAWN". I wonder who their revenues are doing with the original readers now to old to actually read the thing.

Re:Separate content from presentation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371162)

Whatever dude. The fact is that I've loved Wired for many years, and I trust they'll fix this app as soon as they can do it, and probably with the money from this sales boost. Then only thing I know is that when I'm flying next Sunday, I'll be reading Wired on the plane, along with another 30 books, 5 movies and a large music collection, all without having to carry additional devices or paper. That alone is worth it for me. Written on an iPad BTW.

Re:Separate content from presentation? (4, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371196)

Dear God, yes. If they ever do a Hellraiser movie in which one of the cenobites is a graphic designer, he'll drag people to hell using issues of Wired.

Re:Separate content from presentation? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371238)

i would like to give you props, however, for properly captializing Wired's titles every time you used it.
i am impressed.

Apple status : Told (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32370638)

Also if you're a britfag and I catch you buying an iPad today you're going to get 12 inch nigger dicks up your ass.

Why we shouldn't care about ipad-based magazines (5, Insightful)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370780)

Is the iPad (and similar devices) the future of magazines? Short Answer: No

Long Answer: Just do the numbers. Time Magazine has a circulation of 3.3million [wikipedia.org] . Which is 1% of the US population roughly. Now if the same ratio holds true that Time would get a 1% market share of ipad users, that would make for currently... 10,000+/- ipad subscriptions. Even if the ratio is skewed totally out of proportion... Its simply not interesting from a business perspective to shift your content strategy to targeting ipads anytime soon. It will take a lot more than a few million ipads and ipad type devices sold for magazines to shift focus.

Re:Why we shouldn't care about ipad-based magazine (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371638)

Agreed.
You won't be sitting in a dentist's waiting room where they have provided a pile of iPads to browse while you wait.
Physical editions will be around for some time yet.

So... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370788)

Does that means the iPad is MPC Level 8?

An App to distribute a bunch of text and images? (5, Insightful)

Punto (100573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32370826)

Doesn't the iphone have a web browser?

Re:An App to distribute a bunch of text and images (2, Insightful)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371036)

people wont pay for HTML. They can already get the HTML for free. the Mactards will however, pay for an app because "ohhhh its an app ohhhh!"

Re:An App to distribute a bunch of text and images (1)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371376)

Because hiding behind a paywall that can only be passed by an ipad app is just too damn hard right?

Re:An App to distribute a bunch of text and images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371040)

The advertising types are getting all excited over using a proprietary app for each media outlet because people won't have a simple way to skip the ads. You'll be a hostage to however *they* want you to experience it. Then again, this is an Apple product, so users have already given up their choice of what software they can use...

Old Wireds, where to find? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371312)

I looked everywhere, torrent trackers and all warez forums I know, and couldn't find any collection of Wired scans. Can anyone give me a hand here?

Do magazines have a future in the first place? (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371392)

It was always pretty rare for a magazine to be worth reading from cover to cover. Arguably, editors try to avoid that, since a magazine all of whose contents are interesting to its readers is going to have a very small and specialized subscriber base. Instead, editors try to appeal to a wider group, with the end result being that any given reader is only going to care about a fraction of the content. And this model worked pretty well as long as publication was capital-intensive. The web pretty much put an end to that.

Obviously, it depends on what you're interested in, but nowadays you can find some or all of the kind of content that interests you for free, so unless you're after something highly specialized, you don't have to purchase access at all, much less buy a bunch of content that you aren't interested in to get to the small fraction that does interest you. The old magazine model no longer has much relevance. If so many people hadn't been exposed to magazines before the rise of the web, it would probably never occur to anyone to create online "magazines".

In the long run, someone is going to figure out how to aggregate related content, probably with a high degree of personalization, in such a way that both the aggregator and the content creator get to expose readers to ads and thereby make money. This is basically already Google's approach, and they're making money hand over fist, but they're the ultimate generalists. The more specialized territory is still up for grabs, though it appears likely that specialized aggregators are more likely to evolve from blogs and wikis than search engines.

But the magazine? It existed only because of a resource scarcity that no longer exists. Trying to make the magazine work in the age of the Internet is like trying to keep a ferry business alive after the bridge has been built.

Re:Do magazines have a future in the first place? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371682)

Why would you not have a "on demand" personal magazine, that pulls content from many sources, brought together in a single place, complete with formatting controlled by the client?

But what to name it?

I suppose since we could get content from anywhere, we could call it "global" or "world-wide" or something. And with the data coming off the internet, we could make reference to the "mesh" or, more poetically, "web". That's it: the "Global Mesh". Maybe not, "GM" is already taken. Hmmm....

Re:Do magazines have a future in the first place? (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371762)

I'm not so sure.... I think there's always going to be a market for inexpensive "dead tree" publications, geared towards pleasure-reading. The web is a great, powerful resource - but it still has some "barriers to entry", including a need for a relatively expensive electronic device to view it with and some type of connectivity. Until we reach the point envisioned in cyberpunk novels where we're all networked to the "grid" with chips implanted in our brains, a paper magazine is going to be really practical in many situations where electronic readers just aren't.

What about those camping trips where the *point* is to get "unplugged" from everything? You still might want to lay in your tent or outside in a hammock and read for a while. What about airline flights where you're asked to "please turn off all electronic devices until cruising altitude has been reached"? Or how about just wanting your reading material to be on a relatively low $ value format, so you won't care if something gets spilled on it or it gets rained on, stepped on or stolen?

All this being said? I'm actually a big fan of this whole e-publication thing. I bought an iPad 3G the first day it was released and I've read several books on my iPhone in the past, too. The problem I have with it is that publishers haven't gotten creative enough with the possibilities for the digital format. Stand-alone apps that constitute 1 issue per app? Terrible idea! For the iPad, specifically? They need to offer magazines so they interact the same way the electronic book downloads do. I want my magazine issues to display on the virtual bookshelf, the same way the e-books do -- and hopefully not use up a whole lot more storage space than the e-books do, either! I also want to see them do new, interesting things with digital versions of magazines. Don't just imitate paper copies, or add 90's multimedia B.S. How about dynamic content? As I've suggested on other forums, a magazine like Consumer Reports would be AWESOME in a digital format if you knew the reviews in a given issue were updated to add new products in the category over the length of time you subscribed!

Really, I don't know what some people were expecting, who are whining that digital magazines look "just like something they could have done years ago on the web". Of COURSE they do! Once you progress from black and white to color, from text to images, and from images to video and even sound (which the web did already), what other kinds of content are there to display? And WHY would a small computer tablet enable forms of it that a full-size computer and display couldn't do? A book or magazine is only as good as its written content, and that will never change. That's what it's all about really .... so leveraging the advantages of digital media should include promising more timely content, and as I suggested, content updated dynamically. (Remember how the newspapers used to release several editions as the day progressed, so you could buy one with the latest news items in it? Again, a digital version would presumably deliver you the news as early in the AM as you'd ever want to read it, followed by automatic article updates and corrections throughout the day.)

This is the real potential. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32371548)

I think this is some of the potential of what a magazine should/could do on the iPad.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/18/fascinating_motion_magazine_demo_highlights_ipads_potential.html

No (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371578)

Magazines don't have a future. Magazines suck. Just about every other information delivery mechanism has huge advantages over magazines.

This is the world I live in (5, Interesting)

tyhockett (543454) | more than 4 years ago | (#32371678)

So, I'm a long time prepress guy converted into a web designer and ultimately an online application developer. I make my living at a printing company that makes money putting ink on paper, and am always caught up in discussions and planning sessions where we prognosticate about what new electronic development is going to put a dent in the magazine business.

Lots -- and I mean lots -- of industry experts have been predicting that the Apple tablet would be the beginning of the end of print. Of course, this has been predicted many times before: CD-ROMs were going to do it, then the web, then web-based digital editions, and now the iPad. But this time, the talk was at a fever pitch. Bosacks alerts were coming out months before the mainstream media picked up on the initial iPad hype. Lots of people thought this would be the one.

And, it's not really, is it? And I didn't really think it would be either. When I try to imagine the electronic invention that replaces the utility of ink on paper (especially for magazines or other non-time-sensitive publishing), I can't really come up with an idea of what that might be. The online digital editions and iPad apps are cute -- even cool -- but they wouldn't stop me from throwing 128 pages of bound paper into a briefcase on a travel day. Besides, portable electronics are expensive and precarious. They need cases and screen protectors. They don't roll up. They aren't disposable if you spill your coffee on them.

So, what's it going to be? What will the technology look like that actually makes publishers stop printing on paper altogether? I really don't know.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?