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!

'Hulu For Magazines' Relies On Users' Data

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the much-easier-to-ignore-one-object-than-a-rack-full-of-them dept.

Advertising 41

Toe, The writes "In an interesting twist on the free/closed mobile platform debate, Apple's closed platform appears to be at least nominally on the free side when it comes to magazine distribution. Magazines have always relied on the demographics of their subscribers to sell ad space to companies who would want to reach that demographic. This apparently has been a sticking point between publishers and Apple, because the latter is unwilling to allow its tools to expose the vast wealth of data that can be tapped from a modern mobile device connected to a purchasing account. For that reason, the so-called 'Hulu for Magazines,' Next Issue Media, will only be available on Android. Still unanswered: do people even want digital magazines?"

cancel ×


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

I've got an answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34211862)

No, not really.

Wow (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211864)

I didn't even know there were digital magazines.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211884)

I like to call them "web sites."

Re:Wow (2, Interesting)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211964)

Web sites are very poor when it comes to things like typography. Then again, so are Apple's iBooks, and even Amazon's Kindle, etc., as well, but they will improve with time. But yeah, magazines and journals will definitely have a place in digital distribution, like everything else, and no, they won't be web sites. Creating a top quality magazine for a limited readership costs money, and simply isn't viable as an ad supported web site with a more general audience.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212000)

No, no, no... HTML is great for typesetting! Web browsers are just terrible at rendering it.

Re:Wow (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212094)

Blame the CSS, not the HTML.


Re:Wow (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34214040)

How about blaming the font foundries, for switching to a font rental model if you want to use their fonts on a web site (along with depending on third-party services to actually vend the fonts)?

Particularly since it would be FREE if the server converted the text/font to a graphic before getting it to the user...

Re:Wow (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212012)

So it will be a subscription based web site.

There are markets for such things, depending on the subject (note that you'd have to beat out the free fanboy alternatives on content, which may be hard). But they're still websites. Calling them "digital magazines" doesn't change that.

Re:Typo (1)

Inf0phreak (627499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212050)

What? And magazines do have good typography? Every magazine or newspaper I've ever read has had terribly narrow columns and wonky margins. It's as if the lessons learned by book publishers (66-70 characters per line and all that) have completely passed that part of the printing business by.

Re:Typo (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212266)

You're reading bad magazines, then.

Re:Typo (1)

Bredero (1154131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213002)

It is a cost issue. Paper and the distribution of it is relatively expensive and the margins in the newspapers are razor thin (hilarious i know) on a product that is cat. Printers are just trying to sell as many millimeters of ad space as possible. Especially since nowadays the largest papers in many countries are the free Metro style papers. For books the production and distribution costs are obviously a lot lower relative to the retail price and they don't make money selling ads in books. You can easily spend a couple of bucks on a nice quality paper, good margins, binding and a hard cover.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34212392)

Web sites are very poor when it comes to things like typography. Then again, so are Apple's iBooks, and even Amazon's Kindle, etc., as well, but they will improve with time.

The time is now: [] [] []

Re:Wow (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212430)

The Web Open Font Format (WOFF) is a font format for use in web pages. It was developed during 2009 and is in the process of being standardized as a recommendation by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Fonts Working Group.

The format has received the backing of many of the main font foundries and has been supported by Firefox since version 3.6.
Microsoft added full support for WOFF in the third platform preview of Internet Explorer 9.
WebKit development builds support WOFF, and Safari will do so in future releases. Google Chrome has supported WOFF since version 5.0.

CSS3 also includes some new typography related properties.

Re:Wow (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213884)

There are plenty of websites that are very legible - oh, you mean magazines are prettier Guess what? I do not care. I read them for the content.

You also appear not to have heard of a subscription only web site.

Finally, the vast majority of magazines are mass circulation. If something is so specialist that it cannot be ad supported given the lower costs of a website, you are going to struggle to cover printing and distribution costs for print as well. Again, there are plenty of very specialist web sites that seem to survive.

Re:Wow (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34214772)

The world doesn't revolve around you. The fact that you don't care is perfectly irrelevant: web typography sucks. Always.

Re:Wow (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212308)

I call them community forums. Yes I have to read/join one for every subject I want to know about but the vast amount of info that is there is amazing and there is not need for magazines anymore.

Too bad, it would be nice on the Ipad (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211894)

But reading a lot of stuff on a smaller screen than that gets a bit tedious. Ok, so mostly I read /. on my Android phone, which has an excellent browser, but its still too small an unwieldy for my taste.

What does (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211898)

'digital magazine' even mean? How is ti different then a topic focused website or blog?

Would [] be considered a 'digital magazine'?

Re:What does (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211966)

'digital magazine' even mean? How is ti different then a topic focused website or blog?

Would [] be considered a 'digital magazine'?

No, this is what they're talking about: wired, adobe collaboration on a digital magazine [] It's basically what it sounds like, a digital version of a magazine format.

Re:What does (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212400)

But magazine format is horrid.

And I kept expecting that guy to tell me it was the the sound of inevitability.

Re:What does (1)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212480)

It's the encapsulation of the articles and content. Think paywall. It gets around the nasty "open, advertising only" internet without the nasty fist shaking that us spoiled in our freedom webusers have come to expect/demand because we expect magazines to cost and we expect apps to cost too!~

Oh they are sneaky, those marketing types.

Hulu? (2, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211914)

Hulu isn't a selling point for most people. It's a black screen for anyone outside the US.

So the question you're asking is not, "do people want digital magazines?" but, "do americans want digital magazines?".

Re:Hulu? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34213764)

So true. Many media outlets are US only: clear channel radio, certain services on, and many other sources. But in a way, it's no big deal for magazines, as in many parts of the real world, quality printing of magazines on paper is new technology, and the results are quite enjoyable. In Nepal, you can read magazines printed on gloss paper with excellent color rendition just like you were able to do in the USA a few decades ago. Same thing goes for Thailand, but as the internet speeds up here in Asia, the quality of print material goes down. It might be coincidental, but certainly can be correlated. Another aspect of the print media move online is that the quality of the content as well as content display goes down, but perhaps it's just what happens when you take a high-res raw photo and crap it down to 72dpi and display it on an android screen. Same goes for typography, even if you have E-ink. Won't even go into the wages paid to create inferior content, vs. the old school wages once paid to publish the old way. So it's a complete dumbing down of what we consume nowadays...and hell, might as well correlate that with the mindset of the next generation, and compare the critical thinking of the 1960's to what you have in 2011. Could there be a connection?

Re:Hulu? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34214744)

Well, if you're going to be a pedantic asshat, then at least get your nomenclature correct.
Hint/get a clue/pro tip:
'Americans' consist of:
  North Americans, which include Canada, USA, and Mexico
  Central Americans, which include Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.
  South Americans, which include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, South Georgia and
  South Sandwich Islands, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Collectively, we are referred to as 'the Americas', and each country/nation in all three categories is its own sovereign nation.(well, mostly)

So try to be more specific in your asshattery for your future pedantic comments from now on.
Yeah, I assume you meant the USA citizens, but when you engage a war with semantics and pedantry, expect it to boomerang on you.

Does it carry Cook's Source? (1)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211920)

I love that magazine! It's like Slashdot, only with less fair use!

Re:Does it carry Cook's Source? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211942)

I thought all recipe books were fair use.

Re:Does it carry Cook's Source? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212100)

Patent yes, copyright no.

Mobile magazines (2, Insightful)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34211926)

Somehow I doubt that mobile magazines will go anywhere. They're worthless on a desktop browser or a small phone. Tablet's are their best chance, but I really think they'll have to do something novel for it to matter. However, I think the truth is readers are moving away from one source for multiple sources of information, just like music. Why buy an entire album when you really just want one track? With articles and news, even in one sitting session, why limit your focus to one distributor of reading material when a twitter, rss feed or whatever will give you many sources that you can quickly flip through? Even in our local market, well over half of the traffic to our news site is from aggregators and search. As opposed to people who come straight to the site just to see what only we have to offer. I'd guess that that ratio will only increase.

Why be platform specific? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34212020)

Sports Illustrated likes to talk up their Flash-free, HTML5 driven magazine format: []

It seems to me that would work on any capable browser with HTML5 support, regardless of whether it's on the desktop or a mobile device. Yes, it may mean you forego the tight association between user account information and magazine views but you don't necessarily have that with printed media anyway.

Sign me up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34212042)

I mean, who wouldn't want to read a magazine on their phone's tiny little screen?

Ignoramus (1)

cyb97 (520582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212078)

This story seems to disregard the fact that zinio is available for ipad and iphone...

D-Mags are getting pirated ! So "they" want it .. (1)

burni2 (1643061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34212834)

The question de-unanswered itself.

"Do people even want digital magazines?" (2, Informative)

timon (46050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213188)

I used to work for one of the major providers of digital editions for the magazine industry, and given what I've seen in the past 5 years, I think the answer is no. At least, not replicas of existing consumer-oriented magazines in a digital format for the same or slightly lower price. Existing subscribers are also extremely reluctant to sign up for free digital editions even if all it requires is giving someone their email address. No privacy policy will convince them that it won't be sold. Adoption rates are better for B2B or trade magazines, but the readership for those is very small and targeted in the first place, so it often doesn't make sense to try to sell those subscribers on unrelated magazines. "We see you are a subscriber to a journal on the bulk cargo shipping industry. Would you like to sign up for this mass-marketed exercise magazine aimed at women 30-45?"

Re:"Do people even want digital magazines?" (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34214942)

So basically what you're saying is that in the digital world, people are starting to take back their role of being the customer rather than the product for magazine publishers then?

Do people even want digital magazines (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213222)

Still unanswered: do people even want digital magazines?"

Luckily we have companies who answer these difficult questions. What would we do without them?

Do people even want digital magazines? (1)

fermat1313 (927331) | more than 3 years ago | (#34213308)

...not until I can afford to keep a spare digital magazine reader next to each of my toilets.

Magazines are already on iPad -- Zenio (1)

richardtallent (309050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34214292)

I use Zenio on my iPhone, iPad, and Mac for several magazine subscriptions. Works great, and I read my magazines more consistently than before, because the iPad is much more likely to be within reach when I have a few minutes to fill.

Print Mags were a scam and the web doesn't work (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34214932)

like that.

Magazines are basically a collection of web journal article.

Being that I can now just get the RSS links to random people off the web that interest me and get the articles myself, for free, with the money actually going to the writer ... I can not possibly see how magazines would be wanted.

Magazines historically only existed because the barrier to entry to publishing was so high, you had to work in groups to get noticed, printed and paid.

Too bad for the magazine industry that the Internet made publishing essentially 0 up front cost. Now everyone publishes for themselves, cuts out the retarded biased magazine middle man and writes on their blog. There are enough attention whores on the Internet that will write just to be seen that there is absolutely no point what so ever of 'buying' a magazine.

Its back to actually being about the content and people have realized they can find random tripe content anywhere on the Internet for free rather than paying some retarded publisher for the same tripe and a brand name.

Who wants to give their info to magazines? (2, Insightful)

kobotronic (240246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34215742)

I don't want to buy content that can peer back at me.

I certainly wouldn't buy a magazine through an iTunes storefront if I knew that such a sale would result in Apple sharing with the content provider everything they knew about me (which is almost certainly too much but how can I tell?)

The magazine buying experience should be no more entangled than anonymously getting a National Geographic at an airport to pass time. If you choose to subscribe that should mean nothing more than a regularly scheduled money transaction to the content provider.

I don't know why a digital magazine would need to include advertisements specifically managed by the individual magazine content providers. Because that's how things have been done in the paper print days? That is a lame horse-and-buggy argument.

Ad networks for websites manage to deliver globally localized ads without the website content provider having to go in and do anything at all.

Given that these are *digital* magazines, it would be positively retarded for content providers to make the ads static members of the "pages" that would form the content issue. Flip through the pages of any old Nat Geo you might have lying around. How many of those ads are still relevant? The brands may persist but the product-specific ads go stale very fast.

It would make most sense to leave the user in control and make the ads a customizable nuisance you can dial up and down in quantity and personalization and resulting worth to offset the magazine content cost.

The selection and personalization of the optional, and dynamically injected ads, should be performed by a globally operating ad network to ensure the ad content is locally and perpetually relevant. Magazine content providers should be able to tag their content in sufficient detail so that the ads selected by the ad provider can be tactically placed with high relevance (and exposure worth!) to specific articles. This would be similar to how magazine articles reviewing a specific product often have an ad for the same product on the next page. But with a digital magazine, upon later re-reading the original ad might have been replaced with something advertising the newest model, or perhaps a competitor's model.

My point is, there is no reason why the original editorial staff or magazine content providers should have to manage the process of replacing and inserting the digital ads. That should be some org that is above them or serves all the magazines and specializes in this business, and can operate competently in more markets so that magazine content can be translated, localized and resold outside of original target market.

Further, that advertising org should be possible to filter out completely by the premium-paying user so that no ads even enter the picture.

The digital magazine stand user should be able to select which, if any demographic attributes they are willing to (relatively anonymously) expose to the advertising org, and will be rewarded with a higher or lower discount on the magazine issue price depending on how valuable their filtered profile is for those ad networks.

Digital magazines have great potential (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 3 years ago | (#34216274)

Of course people want digital magazines, that's why web sites are so popular. A digital version that strictly adheres to the limitations of its physical counterpart? Not so much. People want to be able to link to specific pages and message their friends about it, you can't do that so much if there's a cost barrier and you can't reference a specific portion with a URL. People also want to cut and paste, modify, change display settings, etc, but if by "digital magazine" you mean a static display that's as interactive as a JPG, you can't do any of that.

Digitizeeeee (1)

Kobe2 (1941778) | more than 3 years ago | (#34251398)

I just feel like who wouldn't want digital magazines? The next best thing is when print comes to life on the apple ipads which will just be amazing
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?