×

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!

Time Inc. Signs Magazine Deal With Apple

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the tradition-be-damned dept.

The Media 83

redletterdave writes "Time Inc., the largest magazine publisher in the U.S., has decided to embrace digital distribution. On Thursday, Time Inc. announced that it will make all of its magazines available over the Newsstand application built by Apple. The agreement was confirmed by Time Inc. CEO Laura Lang and Apple's senior VP of Internet software development Eddy Cue. The two company executives agreed to allow Apple Newsstand users to subscribe to more than 20 magazines owned by Time Inc., including Sports Illustrated, People, and Entertainment Weekly."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

83 comments

What do you get when you combine Apple and Time? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40329167)

Rotten fruit.

Slashdot: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40329823)

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Re:What do you get when you combine Apple and Time (4, Funny)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#40331779)

Or alcohol, depending on what process you use ;)

Although I prefer pear cider myself.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40329201)

It's about TIME!

Time embraced digital distribution long ago (5, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 years ago | (#40329265)

Time already offers digital subscriptions. [timeinc.com] All this does is add the ability to subscribe through Newsstand. A nice win for Apple, but it sounds like Time got the concessions they wanted in order to make the deal.

Re:Time embraced digital distribution long ago (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40329501)

Beat me to it.
The summary "embraced digital distribution" makes it sound like Time, Inc has never provided e-magazines before. But most of them are available through Amazon. Or online websites. The REAL news here is that Jobs was charging 30% and Time said "no" to that. The new Apple arranged for lower rates.

so how much longer (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 years ago | (#40329947)

until other devs demand the same lower rates?

Re:so how much longer (1, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#40330355)

Part of the deal will be that they won't be allowed to disclose the numbers.

People jumping on iTunes publishing is the same as developers jumping into Apple's walled app garden. It's short term greed over longer term benefits for consumers, personal computing in general, and even the developers and publishers profiting from it in the longer term. Allowing Apple to gain market dominance will only lock everyone in even further, at which point you will have very little negotiating power.

It would be nice to see some companies show a little social conscience, or at least thinking beyond the next quarter.

Re:Time embraced digital distribution long ago (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#40330433)

The REAL news here is that Jobs was charging 30% and Time said "no" to that. The new Apple arranged for lower rates.

Not quite. The rates are staying the same for the rest of the publishers.

And as far as I'm aware, this new deal only affects Time, Inc. just in time for Apple's WWDC 2012, which has already started and which is ending this Friday. After all, even if Apple's makes zero percent in commission from Time, Inc, the illusion that Time, Inc. is on board with Apple's onerous terms may persuade other publishers to accept those onerous terms themselves.

Re:Time embraced digital distribution long ago (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40331057)

Apple arranged for lower rates.

You made that up.

What's really changed? Apple now allows magazines access to customer details, provided the customer opts in. That, and the iPad has seen huge growth.

Makes sense... (-1, Troll)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40329269)

After all, Apple's products are assembled by enslaved teenage Chinese girls, sweating for 16 hours a day in steamy, dimly-lit, factories.

Re:Makes sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40329313)

Hey, they're just doing jobs Americans don't want!

I mean that's what people tell me when a Mexican dude comes here and works 16 hour shifts in a restaurant for 50 bucks a day so why doesn't the same apply to China?

Re:Makes sense... (4, Funny)

willoughby (1367773) | about 2 years ago | (#40329391)

Whoa... I didn't know that. Would we have any photos of these sweaty teenage Chines girls.? .. er... for the archives...

Re:Makes sense... (2, Interesting)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40329521)

And your proof is? Mike Daisy's narratives?

And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?

Re:Makes sense... (2, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#40329581)

And your proof is? Mike Daisy's narratives?

And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?

Doing no worse than one's competition is not really a defense or a moral position. It just means that you aren't the only bad person out there, but it doesn't justify what you are doing. Prisons are full of people who didn't do anything worse than somebody else.

Re:Makes sense... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40330565)

His point was that the validity of the claim was in question. But since you brought it up, the reason the moral failing of the competition comes up is that it wasn't a hot button until Apple did it. now that they've improved those conditions nobody is complaining anymore and the moral injustices still abound.

It isn't a comment on how great Apple is if you grade them on a curve, it's a comment about how much of a poser you are.

Re:Makes sense... (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40330679)

And what Apple is doing is moral. Despite the fact China is essentially a totalitarian state, Chinese workers still have options, if Foxconn was truly so absolutely awful, why would the workers work there?

Re:Makes sense... (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#40331817)

And your proof is? Mike Daisy's narratives?

And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?

Doing no worse than one's competition is not really a defense or a moral position. It just means that you aren't the only bad person out there, but it doesn't justify what you are doing. Prisons are full of people who didn't do anything worse than somebody else.

That wasn't his point and you know it. The supposed "moral superiority" of Apple's competitors is frequently used as a justification for hating them or for boycotting their products (it's not difficult to find "this is why I don't buy Apple and only use XYZ's products instead" comments here on /. and elsewhere) when in reality the alternatives are no different, and sometimes worse.

This does not excuse either position of course; we've got to continue to push for elimination of worker and environmental exploitation.

Re:Makes sense... (3, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40329603)

And your proof is? Mike Daisy's narratives?

Nah, Mike Daisy wouldn't know a rosy-cheeked Chinese slave girl if she slapped him in the face.

And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?

Apple's competition is much worse: they buy slaves from Apple, after they're old and tired, no longer full of energy in the bloom of youth.

Re:Makes sense... (0)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40332393)

And your proof is? Mike Daisy's narratives?

Nah, Mike Daisy wouldn't know a rosy-cheeked Chinese slave girl if she slapped him in the face.

Well, go on then... Show us proof that Apple employs underage slave labor in sweatshops.

And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?

Apple's competition is much worse: they buy slaves from Apple, after they're old and tired, no longer full of energy in the bloom of youth.

More dirt? Proofs and references needed.

Else, stop trolling.

Re:Makes sense... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40329649)

>>>After all, Apple's products are assembled by enslaved teenage Chinese girls, sweating for 16 hours a day in [air-conditioned, brightly]-lit, factories.

Fixed that for you.

Apple's extortive prices (3, Informative)

jbwolfe (241413) | about 2 years ago | (#40329333)

have been the issue all along. And Time have done the right thing by holding out for better terms. Thirty percent (though not sure if that's on a continuing basis, regardless) is absurd. Relevant quote:

"They want you to be subscribing to them, and the last time we looked they weren't making the magazines," Bewkes said of Apple.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (2)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40329383)

have been the issue all along. And Time have done the right thing by holding out for better terms. Thirty percent (though not sure if that's on a continuing basis, regardless) is absurd.

Nothing has changed there. Time will be paying 30%, at least according to Apple:

Neither Apple nor Time Inc. would discuss the exact financial terms of the agreement, but Mr. Cue said Time Inc.’s heft did not influence them. “We offer the same terms to everyone no matter how big or how small,” he said.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (2)

jbwolfe (241413) | about 2 years ago | (#40330207)

Not convinced. This:

Neither Apple nor Time Inc. would discuss the exact financial terms of the agreement, but Mr. Cue said Time Inc.'s heft did not influence them. "We offer the same terms to everyone no matter how big or how small," he said.

does not mean the rate wasn't negotiated lower, with other concessions on behalf of Apple. Time has a huge library. Key word: "offer"... The terms are necessarily complex with a deal that involves this much money.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (2)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 2 years ago | (#40330841)

Time Warner (TWX) was valued at 34B today. If Apple really really wanted Time's offerings, they could buy them out.

30% for access to the Apple market is a bargain. I know I won't play around with paper magazines (my apartment's metal mailboxes let rain soak the contents sometimes) and I'm not playing around with entrusting other sites to have my credit card info, using their online service to fetch or read a magazine etc. I'm far far far more likely to buy a subscription that I can read on my iPhone / iPad. There are others like me. I'd bet quite a few.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40331071)

You should be convinced. Apple hasn't budged on it's 30% for any media. It's across the board. Take it or leave it.

Why do you think The Beatles were absent from the iTunes store for so long? They thought they had the clout to get Apple to negotiate terms. But they didn't.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (4, Insightful)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40329759)

Dude!... Write a fucking backend.

Make it process orders in one step for 400M users -- it needs to scale accordingly, btw.

Make it deal with refunds, chargebacks, reverse-chargebacks, complaints, fraud, yada yada, pretty much anything that can go wrong when you do business.

Make it manage subscriptions, including cancellations. And rentals. And DRM.

Make it deal with taxes in 150+ countries, including local variations where applicable.

Make it do your monthly accounting, including subcontractor payments.

Make it provide all sorts of metrics to your subcontractors, too.

Oh, and QA test anything your subcontractors send you, too. Check for malware, crashes, etc., anything that might make those millions of end-users unsatisfied.

Do all that, and more, and you'll appreciate how 30% is a bargain.

Alternatively, just shut up. Because you've absolutely no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate a backend.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 2 years ago | (#40329997)

30% is absurd. Amazon charges 15%, and I think even that's too high.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40330107)

30% is absurd. Amazon charges 15%, and I think even that's too high.

Good to know we can hear something authoritative from a subject matter expert, you publishing magnate, you!

Re:Apple's extortive prices (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40331109)

Apple is up front and honest about what their take is. It's 30%. Amazon has deceptive practices - they've fooled you and they've fooled many more.

A $9.99 ebook, same price at both Amazon and Apple iBooks. Apple takes $2.99. Amazon takes $4.89. (49%)

http://andrewhy.de/amazons-markup-of-digital-delivery-to-indie-authors-is-129000/ [andrewhy.de]

Speaking as yet another person who does actually know about digital downloads, having sold them myself, Apple's 30% is indeed a bargain. Prior to them being on the scene the distributor for my mobile software downloads was taking 43%.

Anyone who says Apple's 30% is unreasonable is simply showing that they don't know what they are talking about.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40336219)

"Anyone who says Apple's 30% is unreasonable is simply showing that they don't know what they are talking about."

That's usually the case with all these arm chair CEO's. Pretty much everything they say shows they have no real experience in the area and haven't really thought it through. Thank god businesses don't take advice from slashdot commentators or the economy would be an even bigger mess. :P

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | about 2 years ago | (#40335417)

30% is absurd. Amazon charges 15%, and I think even that's too high.

That's odd - all I can find is that they lowered their share from 70% to 30% in June 2010. Care to back up your claims?

Re:Apple's extortive prices (2)

jbwolfe (241413) | about 2 years ago | (#40330073)

I take it you work for apple. (been there since 2007, maybe- too young, too naÃve.

Alternatively, just shut up. Because you've absolutely no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate a backend.

Yes, of course. All your content are belong to us.... Regardless of whether you respect Time Inc.'s collection, I'm sure you'll disagree with me that you yourself have "no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate" a respectable journalistic enterprise. Thanks for your rational discussion- were you ever to persuade me of the validity of your argument, you lost me suggesting I've "absolutely no fucking clue". Fuck you very much, sir/madam for making Slashdot a place to "discuss" anything- off to Twitter with you.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (3, Interesting)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 2 years ago | (#40330905)

I do know something about publishing, having been Director of Production for a National magazine in the mid-90's. 30% is not a bargain... it's a STEAL for the publisher! Why? Waste from press runs, torn/mutilated copies, backorders, 3-month trials (counts as a subscriber to advertisers and the Audit Bureau of Circulations even though they didn't pay), subscriber audits, unexpected run outs because an issue was popular, people upset because you don't have a particular issue etc etc etc. All of that goes away with digital.

No more bluelines, no subscription department, no bank runs, no handling cash. Your people can work from anywhere in the world. Put a button in your mag to allow the reader to post on Twitter or Facebook to gather more eyes. It's a steal, I tell you. Apple has the most eyes on digital media right now.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40332531)

I take it you work for apple.

No... But I used to work on back-end systems.

Yes, of course. All your content are belong to us....

Personally I'm more than happy with the idea that my details aren't passed along to Time's, since my trust in most US corporations is about zero.

Regardless of whether you respect Time Inc.'s collection, I'm sure you'll disagree with me that you yourself have "no fucking clue how hard it is to create and operate" a respectable journalistic enterprise.

i don't disagree, actually. I do know this, however: Times, like virtually every other company that tried to create a well integrated back-end system, has been eating crow for years -- and it is failing.

Businesses that get the non-trivial stuff working properly are far and between, and absolutely no one --not even the big IT names-- is out there delivering anything that works properly. 30% for something that works and isn't under your responsibility is a steal.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40343245)

Interesting that someone who does know something about the subject matter at hand pipes up refuting your points...and suddenly you are magically silent. Off to twitter indeed. Just another jackass that talks about shit they know nothing about...which is why most "discussions" on /. are pointless. Good job.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 2 years ago | (#40330141)

That is all very expensive to produce, but do you think 30% of every sale is justified? Really, if writing software to do things takes up 30% of all economic activity, why the hell are we embracing that? The answer is because it doesn't. 30% covers the costs with a massive profit margin for Apple. Are they justified with that profit margin just because they wrote it? Sure, but only until a better deal is offered by someone else (or they use their clout to prevent better deals).

Re:Apple's extortive prices (2)

StuartHankins (1020819) | about 2 years ago | (#40330929)

If you can do better, do it. I'm sure if you can work out the logistics that people will flock to your service. No, really, back up your claims and just do it. I will applaud you, because what Apple is doing hasn't been matched by any of the other companies in this area, and quite a few of them have a HUGE amount of expertise in the industry. If you can beat them, my hat's off to you.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40331181)

do you think 30% of every sale is justified?

Speaking for the app store: don't forget, Apple will still take on stuff that's free. 30% of free isn't much.
Overall the average app sale is $1.39. So Apple is making 42c.

The answer is because it doesn't. 30% covers the costs with a massive profit margin for Apple.

It covers both of course. Costs and profit. Apple is a business not a charity. As are Apples current and potential competitors.

Funnily enough everyone I hear of in the business knows it to be a bargain. It's only people who have no experience, only opinions, who think it's unreasonable.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#40332577)

That is all very expensive to produce, but do you think 30% of every sale is justified? Really, if writing software to do things takes up 30% of all economic activity, why the hell are we embracing that? The answer is because it doesn't.

Indeed. I'd wager it's closer to half in most of the industries I've worked in. Think it through: order processing, managing fraud, managing supplies and inventory, provisioning, shipping, accounting, the list goes on and on. If you were in an industry that delivered goods, you'd also add organizing your production chain based on orders to the mess. All of that automated for 30%? Go run a business for a while. You'll then appreciate how cheap it is.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40332073)

Make it deal with taxes in 150+ countries, including local variations where applicable.

App Store is "available" in 123 counties and territories. In the majority of "second-tier" markets it is in US english and prices are in US dollars and the purchaser is responsible for adherence to local taxes.

Some "bargain".

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

archont (1215492) | about 2 years ago | (#40339823)

Sounds like a 1-month to 2-month project, 6000 polish zloty (about 1700 USD) and it's done.

Wrong. Apple's cut was NEVER the issue (5, Informative)

jamrock (863246) | about 2 years ago | (#40330077)

When Apple announced the terms for Newsstand, the 30% cut was not the major bone of contention between the magazine publishers and Apple. It was the fact that Apple refused to pass on subscriber information automatically. Instead, subscribers had to click an "Allow" button in a dialog box asking if they wanted their personal information sent along to the publishers. The publishers were outraged that Apple made the process opt-in, dramatically reducing the treasure trove of information they could sell to advertisers.

I have no idea if Apple made concessions to Time on the issue of subscriber privacy, but knowing them I think it's unlikely. As far as Apple is concerned, folks with iTunes accounts are Apple's customers, and subscriptions through Newsstand are just some of the services that they offer. I'm actually with Apple on this one. The terms for Newsstand make it clear that subscribers should have a choice about the disposition of their personal information, while the publishers treat it as something to which they are automatically entitled.

Re:Wrong. Apple's cut was NEVER the issue (1)

jbwolfe (241413) | about 2 years ago | (#40330449)

I have no idea if Apple made concessions to Time on the issue of subscriber privacy, but knowing them I think it's unlikely.

Neither do I. Were I Time, I'd have held out for terms that favor me. Why let apple be king? If I produce valuable content (apple does not, emphatically), I can choose to play or not. I contend that Apple's terms were unsuitable- this is contained within the world of iOS, not the WHOLE world of digital content. Let Time make its own digital delivery scheme- in or out of Apple's.

I'm actually with Apple on this one. The terms for Newsstand make it clear that subscribers should have a choice about the disposition of their personal information

Is this about privacy, or extorting content providers? On Slashdot, folks hate Microsoft for the power they wield- does Apple get a pass?

Re:Wrong. Apple's cut was NEVER the issue (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40331217)

On Slashdot, folks hate Microsoft for the power they wield- does Apple get a pass?

You're kidding! Where have you been for the last 10 years? The main target of Slashdotters bile has been Apple for a long time now. Microsoft rarely warrants a mention any more.

The Slashdot mob hate commercial success.

Re:Wrong. Apple's cut was NEVER the issue (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#40331985)

Neither do I. Were I Time, I'd have held out for terms that favor me. Why let apple be king? If I produce valuable content (apple does not, emphatically), I can choose to play or not. I contend that Apple's terms were unsuitable- this is contained within the world of iOS, not the WHOLE world of digital content. Let Time make its own digital delivery scheme- in or out of Apple's.

Because Apple has an audience, that's why. Time actually was available for iOS - it's just that they had to do their own app, and in that app, they had to either use Apple's payment system, or direct customers to go to the website and buy the digital edition there so it can be delivered to their app. Now, if you're a customer, would you go weekly to Time's website and buy a new copy? Or get bugged to download the new issue and pay for it? No, you'd ask why can't the app do it automatically!

And Apple saw that people were doing things like this - some apps were monthly (a new app a month) so holding a huge backlog consumed a lot of home screen space. Others were doing in-app stuff and the user had to remember to check the app lest they forget they have 5 months worth of mags they haven't read yet.

So Newsstand was created to solve this - first, it's a folder of magazines so it keeps your app launcher clean. Second, it automatically downloads the latest version for you - if you've subscribed, all you do is pick up your iDevice, go to Newsstand, and see the latest covers.

Basically, Apple offered users convenience - an easy way to pay for periodicals and get them to their device without having to mess with different subscription systems, payment methods, apps, etc.

Time, being a holdout, was probably losing business to people who couldn't be bothered to do all that. A customer might look up for Time's publications, see they're not available, and think they're not there so they'll go buy a print version, and complain about "media companies not getting it".Then there are those who found the app, but couldn't be bothered to go to the website and buy a subscription there, having to answer all those questions - "why can't I just buy it through iTunes?".

In other words, Time was losing ground to everyone else. And convenience matters - I don't want to pull to download a new issue - why can't my iDevice pull the new issue for me and have it ready when I want to read it? Which is what Newsstand does.

It's the same reason why the Kindle took off where other e-ink readers failed (Sony had e-readers for years before the Kindle). The Kindle made it easy to buy a book - you didn't need a computer, you go to the reader's store, select Buy, and in minutes you're reading.

Periodicals are extremely competitive. It isn't unusual to hear of periodical advertising agencies offering customers cut-rate ad rates if they'd buy an entire year, thus exhausting the ad budgets of those companies for that year. Another periodical comes buy and offers ad space, only to find out they've bought all they were going to buy, too bad, so sad.

So Apple's providing a convenience to users in having magazines they want right there ready to read, with new issues automatically obtained for them without having to lift a finger, and a convenient method for them to buy subscriptions. Sometimes as a business it's better to hold your nose and realize that's your customers. Make it easy for them and they'd be more likely to pay you for your content. Make it inconvenient and you've shot yourself in the foot as people give up after a few months.

Re:Apple's extortive prices (2)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 2 years ago | (#40330927)

Thirty percent is absurd.

Said like someone who has absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

Giving up just 30% - keeping 70% - is insanely awesome. On the physical side, work for a publisher and find out how much it costs to print, warehouse, and ship a publication, not to mention that you only get a percentage of the price (typically around 40%-ish of cover) through the distribution channel (after all, stores need to make money so they get a cut of the price...). I won't bother pointing out how your complaint doesn't hold water on the digital side either since someone else already pointed that out.

30% is a sweet deal and the only people who complain about it are people who are utterly ignorant of the costs of doing business.

"Apple's extortive prices" - don't make me laugh (1)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | about 2 years ago | (#40335315)

Thirty percent (though not sure if that's on a continuing basis, regardless) is absurd.

And yet it's the same Amazon is asking, all allusions to the opposite aside (and before Apple came to the market they gave 30%).

Re:Apple's extortive prices (1)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | about 2 years ago | (#40346859)

And if you don't believe Amazon would even dare to ask that much, let alone much more, here's how they screw over independent authors [andrewhy.de]:

"So for every $9.99 book I sell I, the author, pay 30% to Amazon for the right to sell on Amazon AND $2.58 for them to deliver the DIGITAL GOOD to your device. It is free for the reader, but the author, not amazon, pays for delivery."

Wake me up .. (4, Insightful)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about 2 years ago | (#40329345)

when Apple stop being Mormons and you can buy Playboy!

Re:Wake me up .. (4, Funny)

rolfwind (528248) | about 2 years ago | (#40329583)

Playboy. How quaint. Is that what the Amish boys fap to in their outhouses?

Re:Wake me up .. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40329705)

Well we don't have internet in our homes so we use playboy.
I mean... not "we". They. They don't have internet in their homes. Or phones. Or lights. Or cars. Not a single luxury.

Re:Wake me up .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40339865)

You don't buy Playboy for fapping. The pictures are nice, but it's really the articles, stories, letters, jokes, etc. My friend has softcore porn on premium cable and of course all the pr0n you could want on the internet. He still subscribes to Playboy. I read it over them in between shows, on commercials, when I don't like the show and the lights are bright enough, etc.

Makes sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40329425)

Time makes disposable magazines, Apple makes disposable computers.

What they call "digital distribution" sucks (3, Insightful)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40329749)

Newsstand, which was introduced in last year's iOS 5, was a great idea: Put all of our favorite news sources all in one place, and let readers buy magazines from the app just like they'd buy a magazine off a newsstand. There was hope that this new purchasing and subscription service would be journalism's savior. Finally, a way for journalism to be profitable.

Problem was, by the time Newsstand was released, it was a dud app. The app worked fine, but it was a dud because none of the magazines you actually want to read were on there.

No, no, no. What they are doing is not digital distribution of the same content found in the printed periodicals. What they are doing is forcing down the consumers throat some one's sick idea of what periodicals should be in the future as seen from a Harry Potter movie a decade ago. The paradigm sucks royally. Every single new issue is a discrete new application, not a document. While I find that detail bizarre, in theory its not a terrible idea. But the implementation is horrifying. Its so far from what it should be its absurd. Newsstand isn't failing because of a thin roster, Newsstand is failing because the implementation is a terrible idea. A subscription through Newsstand is nothing like a real subscription. Its not even like the web model, which at least has become familiar. The subscriber is forced to learn to operate a new application every single edition. This is anathema.

Even operating systems that function in an entirely different manner do not do this: Windows is actually very similar to Ubuntu or Macintosh from a users perspective because they are all using common functions at the desktop level, in effect while the colors and shadows may be different, its still all menus, windows, icons, clicking and dragging. What Apple and the publishers that are embracing the Newsstand model are doing is madness... new applications that are nothing like anything that has come before! And each new edition (app) has the potential, and in practice it is so, to be entirely different from the last, making anything learned about how the last edition functions worthless. I understand the frustration of users, and it is not what the article is claiming, and I can only imagine the strain on resources that each new edition of a periodical poses for publishers.... they now need a development team.

I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition. The subscriber model was very similar, if not identical, to the traditional model. I'm not certain, but I think Zinio has a similar model to this. Originally, viewing pdf's on a screen wasn't ideal: the software and hardware was slow to respond to the users commands. But now the software is pretty good and the hardware can handle fast screen redraws and is nimble enough to keep up with the user. pdf's used to require a "pdf warning" next to the links so as not to upset the user downloading and not expecting it, which would tie up their browser and possibly crash it because of the file size. This has been mitigated by the steady progress of technology: our browsers, readers, and graphics card and network connections can now handle the graphics rich content, and it just doesn't bother anyone anymore. Many ebook readers (those reading, not necessarily the hardware) actually prefer to read a document that is identical to the printed piece.

The mistake Apple and publishers are making is to assume that the old publishing model is broken or outdated. It isn't! It is merely being encroached upon by the web model (namely, free content), but is fundamentally sound. People, for the most part, like magazines and newspapers the way they are. The idea to move from a document based model to an application based model is obtuse. You should not need a tutorial in every new edition on how to operate it. I've never seen such a thing in a magazine: here's how you read this new edition of this magazine.

Whomever thought it was a good idea to shock subscribers and publishers in the manner they are moving forward with has a lot to learn about publishing. I predict the Newsstand app will either need to change back to the old model, or it will perish within 2 years.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#40329919)

. The subscriber is forced to learn to operate a new application every single edition.

Huh? Never have used Newstand but how hard can it be on an iPad? You have a limited number of controls / activities. Once you've clicked and swiped you're done. Am I missing something?

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40330191)

yes. You're missing my dick in your ass.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40330241)

Thanks for posting this very insightful comment! Here's all you need to know:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
–Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40330597)

He's complaining that it's not like a PDF. I might have complained as well because I had to familiarize myself with how to navigate their way. On the plus side, the Mad fold-in works just like it does on paper, which I think justifies that move.

His complaint doesn't really add up to a whole lot.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40330973)

He's complaining that it's not like a PDF. I might have complained as well because I had to familiarize myself with how to navigate their way. On the plus side, the Mad fold-in works just like it does on paper, which I think justifies that move.

His complaint doesn't really add up to a whole lot.

Not quite. The complaint is that they are advertising these subscriptions as something they are not. The content is not the same. What you are getting with the Apple Newsstand app subscriptions is a whole new multimedia experience. Some may argue that it is better, but my argument is that there was nothing wrong with a document-based model, and that an application-based model for periodicals is, in practice, flawed. Now you must face the new bugs every new application is subject to, without updates, because each new edition is its own discrete application, and functions quite diffently between different periodicals and different editions and different publishers. In the printed publishing industry, it is standard that paper is bound a certain way, for instance. Or that the front cover is on the front, the back cover on the back. There is no such standardization in Apple's Newsstand. Some periodicals, like USA Today, won't even interface with the Newsstand app (and I wonder what's behind that decision). The crux of my complaint is that it is in no way like the traditional periodical subscription, and they are fallaciously promoting it in this way (begging the question, allowing readers to assume that it is). It is not a replacement for printed periodicals. It is something altogether different. And, further, it is unlike anything else; there are no other apps like it. It is indescribable.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40331167)

The content is not the same. What you are getting with the Apple Newsstand app subscriptions is a whole new multimedia experience

What do you mean by 'not the same'? Do you mean that if you buy both the digital and the dead tree version you'll get more content, or do you just mean that they're taking advantage of the media being different?

Some may argue that it is better, but my argument is that there was nothing wrong with a document-based mode....

That's why I said what I did. In the Mad Magazine, for example, you're able to do the fold-in. You can't do that with, for example, a PDF version. If anything, the interactivity opens some interesting doors. I like magazines about Movie VFX, for example. I'd love to be able to see a full res photo of the final shot, then see it crossfade through the various stages of compositing so I can see the layers that went into making it. I could probably conjure up 100 other ideas, but really what it boils down to is they have all of the iOS SDK available to make their content more interesting.

Now you must face the new bugs every new application is subject to

Apple has a special developer's program to deal with bugs in News Stand apps.. it's called repeat business. When apps get buggy, people de-star them, and they lose business. Self-healing-apps.

...without updates...

Without updates? I've already gotten an update to one of the magazines I have.

The crux of my complaint is that it is in no way like the traditional periodical subscription, and they are fallaciously promoting it in this way (begging the question, allowing readers to assume that it is). It is not a replacement for printed periodicals. It is something altogether different. And, further, it is unlike anything else; there are no other apps like it. It is indescribable.

They're providing print-content to your iPad (push delivery, mind you) via a subscription. When you read from it you flick over the screen like you're turning a page. It's almost exactly like print delivery only they're adding bells and whistles that take advantage of the media you're on. For example, the Mad Magazine app is a little confusing because some of the formatting requires both pages to be visible at the same time, so instead of dragging to turn a page, you're panning across the page so you can see the whole thing. You expect the page turn, but then you see at the bottom you're supposed to drag there to change pages. Okay, unexpected, but when you see why it's filed under B for BFD. For reading the content, it's actually better this way.

Seriously dude, you're really reaching here for a reason to bitch about it. Luckily I can give you a real reason to complain about the way Apple did it: The content creator won't be able to make the document for iOS, then reuse it for the Android counterpart. They'd have to publish twice. The only downside to waving that pitchfork around, though, is that their content isn't the App, it's what they've already made for their publication that just needs to go through a conversion process. Still, though, at least there's some meat on that bone. What you've chosen to whine about so far is... disappointing.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40331771)

What do you mean by 'not the same'?

I mean they are so completely different that you couldn't consider one a version of the other, and it certainly doesn't fit what I would colloqually call the "digital version of the print version." To make the point only, if instead what you receieved was an audio file completely duplicated the entire content in computerized vocalizations, it would also be a digital representation of the original content, but it would not be the same, nor would I consider it "the" digital version.

In the Mad Magazine, for example, you're able to do the fold-in. You can't do that with, for example, a PDF version.

I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in. Also, as I detailed in another post, there's nothing inherent in the format that prevents you from doing this... pdf can handle that kind of manipulation. But I think your example is a rare case... I can't think of any other publication where every edition requires you to manipulate the media in a way to reveal a secret visualization.

If anything, the interactivity opens some interesting doors.

I don't have any complaint against rich content. My complaint is they are pushing these things as though they are the same, mere digital versions, that could replace the printed version of the periodical. They can't. They are too different, too far removed, from what all the periodicals actually are. The content simply is not the same. Further, they are requiring publishers to hire development teams to remanipulate the content into these things, on the one hand giving a publisher that wishes some day to migrate completely to this kind of format a way into developing rich media, if only for Apple's customers, but on the other hand it is straining publishers' resources that are already strained by the web's encroachment on printed periodicals. pdfs could replace printed periodicals, and offer all the advantages of digital informational manipulation.

Apple has a special developer's program to deal with bugs in News Stand apps.. it's called repeat business. When apps get buggy, people de-star them, and they lose business. Self-healing-apps

You are helping to make my point. Publishers are not software developers. Developers don't come cheap. This is a whole new space for them that may or may not be profitable. My guess is not: no matter how neat the experience is, if they can't replace the printed periodical, they don't serve the purpose of doing that. In the end they may be just another product, but these things will not unseat the print versions they claim to be digital versions of, like pdf can.

Without updates? I've already gotten an update to one of the magazines I have.

I haven't seen anything I have demoed (about a dozen titles) receive any updates, and half of them were bug nests, but if you have, then it's my mistake. But again this is requiring spending resources to fix these things. Its not the same as a line or two of retraction in a subsequent issue, but pushing out new software. I can't imagine publishers relish supporting old editions in this manner.

It's almost exactly like print delivery

I must disagree in the strongest manner. It is nothing like print delivery. The content is different. What you are calling bells and whistles serves no purpose but to be a play thing for the reader. This is a silly device that stands between the reader and the content. If you enjoy this, then good for you, but I, and many others on the web that have complained, find it distracting and pointless.

Seriously dude, you're really reaching here for a reason to bitch about it.

Seriously dude, my points are all valid and nothing you have responded with has altered the original argument. You happen to like the rich media, but that is not my complaint. My complaint is these things are being marketed as the "digital versions" of the printed media, when, in fact, they are something far more specialized and altogether different. These are individual applications. Its an interesting idea to go with application-based delivery, I just happen to think that most of the titles that I demoed were far too flawed, compounded with too many functional changes between editions, requiring publishers to hire new employees with specialized skills sets (meaning, resource expensive) to create a new application every edition and update them, and requiring users to get used to something that is totally new, for this model to be very profitable or embraced by subscribers within any reasonable time frame. If its not profitable within two years, and I don't think it will be, it will fail completely, and the document-based model will return. These things can never fully replace the printed versions, no matter how neat you think they are... they are just too different.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40331991)

I mean they are so completely different that you couldn't consider one a version of the other, and it certainly doesn't fit what I would colloqually call the "digital version of the print version." To make the point only, if instead what you receieved was an audio file completely duplicated the entire content in computerized vocalizations, it would also be a digital representation of the original content, but it would not be the same, nor would I consider it "the" digital version.

I'm confused, are you saying you bought a magazine from the News Stand and it turned out to be an audio book?

I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in.

Ummmm... okay. You seriously think that's a viable alternative?

Further, they are requiring publishers to hire development teams to remanipulate the content into these things...

You have to do that anyway.

...but on the other hand it is straining publishers' resources...

No, it's not. They have to mess around with the content to get it to fit properly on the tablet no matter what they do. Should they decide just to use the vanilla tools and plunk what they've got into Apple's format, or spend a few extra $$$ to make it more interesting, that's their choice. You could make the same argument about a new newspaper that came along and used a different aspect ratio for the pages. (If you find yourself with some spare time, read about the troubles Bill Waterson had with getting Calvin and Hobbes published.)

You are helping to make my point. Publishers are not software developers. Developers don't come cheap.

So have you read about how to make the 'app' for publishing on the News Stand?

But again this is requiring spending resources to fix these things. Its not the same as a line or two of retraction in a subsequent issue, but pushing out new software.

Heh. Find error, type update of text, republish, user gets fixed issue. BFD.

What you are calling bells and whistles serves no purpose but to be a play thing for the reader.

Really? Cos I got to enjoy a Mad fold-in without having to go buy the magazine or find a way to print from my iPad. What's amazing is you're telling me this in 2012 atter (presumably) consuming all sorts of web-based media over the last decade or two.

Seriously dude, my points are all valid and nothing you have responded with has altered the original argument.

You sure about that? I've described how their approach makes it possible to make the content more like having the dead-tree approach does. That's a pretty big dent in your argument. You've claimed that the content has changed but provided no examples of how. You said the books don't get updated, gotcha there, too. I think what you really mean is I haven't been able to exhaust your continued brainstorming for problems with it.

These things can never fully replace the printed versions, no matter how neat you think they are... they are just too different.

Well gee golly gosh, you've proven my point. PDFs cannot, by their nature, replace print either. At least the application has the flexibility to take a stab at it.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40332217)

I'm confused, are you saying you bought a magazine from the News Stand and it turned out to be an audio book?

Obviously you are. No, of course not... I was making a point. You almost got it, though. If I had done this, it would also be a digital version of a magazine, but it would be essentially so distant from the original printed version that you couldn't refer to it as the authoritative digital version, which is what Apple is trying to do with the content in their Newsstand app. Its metaphor, you see? If this existed, and it might, neither Apple nor publishers could pass it off as a replacement for the printed version.

I disagree... with a pdf version, if enabled, you could print out the fold-in.

Ummmm... okay. You seriously think that's a viable alternative?

mmmkay... my response stops right here. Its clear there is little point in responding further to your posts: you just outed yourself as a troll.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40332515)

If I had done this, it would also be a digital version of a magazine, but it would be essentially so distant from the original printed version that you couldn't refer to it as the authoritative digital version... Its metaphor, you see?

Yes, I get the metaphor. But since you've mentioned having a dozen or so of these magazines I was hoping you'd provide an actual example of the content being different instead of just going "oooh they're soooOOoooOooo different!"

mmmkay... my response stops right here. Its clear there is little point in responding further to your posts: you just outed yourself as a troll.

Well gee golly gosh, good thing for you I had that early in the post instead of putting it at the end. You might have had to think hard to generate some of those rationalizations before brushing me off!

I'm going to ask you again: Do you really think that in the context of digital content that asking somebody to print it out to get the full benefit of it is a worthy alternative to having the app perform the same task without the need to use a printer? Somebody who isn't a troll would be just as justified in asking for a clarification on the point YOU brought up.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40332583)

I hope you didn't take too long composing your post, because no will read it. fuck you troll.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40332641)

You already did, catmistake. You've read a dozen of these publications, so let's hear about how they were nothing like their paper counter-parts. I especially want to hear about the one that was more fun to print.

Or is my trolling causng you amnesia?

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40330953)

I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition.

That would suck. Why would I want the digital version to look like the plain one? I want to be able to choose the font. I want to be able to search the text and copy and paste it and such. When they write an article about a particular piece of legislation, I want a hyperlink to the actual Bill. Trying to maintain the paper-based format is exactly what's wrong with this sort of thing.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40331215)

I'm not sure they are still around, but once there was an Austin based startup called "NewsStand, Inc.," whose model was exactly what publishers and subscribers would suspect, but they were ahead of their time. What you saw in their reader was exactly what you saw in the printed edition.

That would suck. Why would I want the digital version to look like the plain one?

Familiarity. When you go to read an eBook, wouldn't you be surprised that instead of a digital version of the book, along with all the advantages of being digital, that someone decided to make it look and function in a way that was completely alien? What if eBook publishers decided that if you wanted digital, that must mean that you also want multimedia, and each page contained not only the text, but a short film? The point is, a digital version of an analog media doesn't mean that it needs to be so drastically different that it must be so unrecognizable as to no longer even be the same nature as what it is emulating. If it did, then one thing is not a version of the other. They stand apart.

I want to be able to choose the font. I want to be able to search the text and copy and paste it and such.

I'm not sure where you are seeing this functionality, but you aren't seeing it in Apple's Newsstand. But anything that is digital-ized, one would expect that you'd be able to copy out text and paste it elsewhere, not for piracy reasons, but for convenience in quoting an article, or to be able to search it for keywords. I haven't seen this ability in any of the editions I have demoed in Apple's Newsstand app. But in the reader for NewsStand, Inc., I believe this was possible. As far as being able to choose the font. if you have enough understanding of how to manipulate pdf, even this is possible, but then it really wouldn't be the same as a subscription to, say, the New York Times. They pay graphic designers and production artists, i.e. qualified professionals, to do that for you, and the nyt has a particular look and feel to it that separates it from, say, the LA Times, or National Geographic. I don't think the editors of these publications would appreciate your desire to change their publications in the way you are describing.

When they write an article about a particular piece of legislation, I want a hyperlink to the actual Bill.

Have you ever heard of pdf? This document format is perfectly cabable of handling hyperlinks.

Trying to maintain the paper-based format is exactly what's wrong with this sort of thing.

Cautiously, I'd have to agree... how many stories have their been of people getting killed by a falling stack of their collection of newspapers? More than a few. I don't think that can happen in digital versions, but als I don't think that's a legitimate fear for what's wrong with printed content. Loving trees is a better argument against printed pieces. And the archiving methods of Apple's Newsstand app are also not what you'd expect: you don't have control of the content, Apple, or the publisher, keeps track of what you have subscribed to, and automatically archives your old editions for you. Should you move to another platform, you can't take any of that content with you. With a document-based model, there's no reason you couldn't personally maintain your own archives.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40331399)

The fundamental idea behind your argument is based on a fallacy.

Every single new issue is a discrete new application, not a document.

That's simply not true. Each TITLE is an app. That app downloads new content once per day or once per month depending on whether it's a newspaper or a magazine. It DOES NOT download a new app each time. Thus the UI does not change each time, only the content.

Why use an app as the mechanism rather than a PDF? Simple... before Apple even looked at doing periodicals, publishes had taken it into their own hands and published apps via the ordinary App Store. So Apple just gave them a special folder to put them in, a special area on the app store, and a few APIs to manage subscriptions and downloading of issues.

Ideally I'd say that the iBooks Author system would be the basis of an ideal system. EPub based, not PDF. But that would involve re-writing history, and Apple forcing a system on publishers who'd already chosen another way.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40331513)

That's simply not true. Each TITLE is an app. That app downloads new content once per day or once per month depending on whether it's a newspaper or a magazine. It DOES NOT download a new app each time. Thus the UI does not change each time, only the content.

You are incorrect. Each new edition is a new discrete app. The framing app, the Apple Newsstand outer layer, operates more like a folder, and the frames for the individual publications are alse like a folder. But the new editions are indeed discrete applications themselves.

Ideally I'd say that the iBooks Author system would be the basis of an ideal system. EPub based, not PDF. But that would involve re-writing history, and Apple forcing a system on publishers who'd already chosen another way.

I like ePubs are nice for some books, but for periodicals, IMO, pdf is ideal. This is the model most publishers have already embraced prior to Apple's Newsstand being released. The reason is pretty obvious: no extra work for publishers. They are already generating pdf's in order to print their publication. Downsampling this for internet delivery and user consuption is academic, and could easily be integrated into their digital pre-press automation with no extra work involved... pump out the pdf at the correct dpi for zooming on an end-users display, and send it off to their resident web master. PDFs are not without their drawbacks, but as I detailed in another post, most of these issues have been mitigated by better software, better hardware, and faster internet connections. The remaining draw backs from the users perspective, and I think your own complaint with the format, is that you can't easily re-manipulate the content within the document. This, also, is ideal for publisers... as they don't want you doing that. But if you are interested and investigative enough, the content within pdf can be manipulated as easily as you can manipulate content within a Microsoft Word *.doc. It just takes a bit of learning what pdfs are, how they are structured, and most importantly, having an application that allows you to do that. There are a number out there, and a growing number of OSS offerings... but my favorites are made by enfocus. [enfocus.com]

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#40337521)

Each new edition is a new discrete app. The framing app, the Apple Newsstand outer layer, operates more like a folder, and the frames for the individual publications are alse like a folder. But the new editions are indeed discrete applications themselves.

As I said, you are mistaken. I'm a paid-up registered developer and I have access to the documentation. Obviously I can't link you to that, but this article gives a broad outline.

http://www.macstories.net/stories/ios-5-newsstand-overview/ [macstories.net]

As I said, each title is an app. That app gets notified when there is a new issue. And that app downloads the content for that issue. Your concept of one app per issue is just plain wrong. That's not how Newstand works.

Now if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. In particular whatever the thing is that's given you the wrong impression about how they work. Feel free to ask me about that.

pdf is ideal. This is the model most publishers have already embraced prior to Apple's Newsstand being released. The reason is pretty obvious: no extra work for publishers. They are already generating pdf's in order to print their publication.

And the flaw in that argument is that of course it publishers prefer PDF then they can make the content a PDF and have their app use a PDF view. They already have complete flexibility to do it however they want, because the content is displayed by their own app. Maybe some publishers ARE using PDF for that. But it doesn't look like any of the important ones are. They want more versatility in UI than PDF can give. They don't prefer PDF at all.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40333291)

One reason why they are doing this: because this way, their content is much more difficult to pirate.

Automatic extraction or conversion to e.g. PDF cannot be implemented.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40333605)

Who'd even want to steal it? "Time" is written for 11-year-olds [wikipedia.org] - and probably not the ones at the head of their class.

Haven't bought an issue since 1995, when they ran this rubbish [google.com]. If I can't trust them when they write on a subject with which I'm familiar (let's not go there...), how can I trust them to tell me the truth about anything else?

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40334107)

One reason why they are doing this: because this way, their content is much more difficult to pirate.

Automatic extraction or conversion to e.g. PDF cannot be implemented.

PDF also has standard security features to prevent viewing, printing, copying or extracting any content, depending on which features are implemented. It is not trivial for the layman to bypass these features.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 years ago | (#40334153)

True, but I was thinking more about organized piracy. It is easy to write a tool that automatically flips pages, and copy them to another format. It is much more difficult when page-flipping is a non-standard process.

Re:What they call "digital distribution" sucks (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40341651)

How hard is it to suck content out of an application? There are many utilities that do this. You don't need to run the app to get at it, don't need a "page flipping" tool. Unless the information is enchrypted, this is trivial to do, once data is moved to another platform, which is also trivial to do. Not to be disagreeable, but I seriously doubt they had piracy in mind when they decided on the interface.

remember AOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40330503)

remember AOL ? time inc made a deal with them also..... howd that work out?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...