(b) layout driven interface like PDF, with many embedded fonts. You can get some space savings for the latter, with huge performance and interaction penalties. (And 20 times the development and production time, which means magazines and Adobe would have to charge more to break-even, and it would mean less content).
Yes they should have used pdf and no it would not cost more because it would have been dead simple to export it that way.
After they spent so much time and money on the Flash version they couldn't be talked out of the animated aspects for the kludge version. If they were smart, they would have put together a little free teaser app and then sell the full pdf version inside their app by building in an e-commerce feature within the app. That way it is reusable for next month at almost no cost.
Screw the interactivity and animation in the actual magazine part, That isn't their niche anyway. The template app can have enough flashy pizazz, eye candy whatever to give it an oh wow factor and let the actual magazine content stand on its own merits.
I am still a little perplexed about adobe not creating a new mobile software that will work well on mobile platforms. Especially in the 3 years apple has given them to do it since iPhone's release. I mean I have heard alot of people talk about the time cost and resources Adobe would now have to put into it.. But I mean aren't they a Software Company?? Isn't that what they do??
Anyone who has such a hard time articulating why someone else is wrong (you failed to point out anything you thought was error or unfair comment in the article, apparently because you couldn't back up your opinions) but throws out so much hateful personal attacks is clearly a nut without much credibility.
Also, when you comment on a post, don't paste the entire article in. It makes you look like an idiot.
Dear Glockpop,
At no time did I make a personal attack on Mr. Dilger. All I asked for was attribution of his claims. For instance...
"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store."
Who did Mr. Dilger speak with at Conde Naste that told him they didn't anticipate the iPad wouldn't support Flash? The Wired team? Conde Nast CEO? Was he present during the discussions?
"Rather than design original content for iPad or simply create a custom, standards-based website in HTML, Adobe sold Condé Nast on distributing its existing InDesign pages as large graphic files presented using a standard iPhone OS viewer app built according to Apple's rules"
Again, to whom does Mr. Dilger attribute this information? Was he there while Adobe while Adobe 'sold' Conde Nast on approach? Did he interview people at Wired or Adobe?
Without attribution the only rational conclusion is that this is Mr. Dilger's opinion and not reporting.
And finally, Glockpop, I never personally attacked anyone Mr. Dilger in my post. I just asked for attribution for his information. Unlike you, who managed to call me a 'nut' and an 'idiot' as well as the other people you degrade who don't agree with you.
Yes they should have used pdf and no it would not cost more because it would have been dead simple to export it that way.
Sure. But Apple's subset of PDF doesn't support the full spec, like scripting, Flash embedded in it, 3D, security, and other parts. There are some things like dual layout (horizontal and vertical) that would mean you really need to export 2 x PDF's. Other parts of the interaction would have to be defined or added (to the spec and/or reader/viewer). You still have more complexity and cost: what about font-licensing issues which are far more complex with Magazines that would have hundreds of Font variants in them.
So Adobe would have had to what? First create a proper PDF renderer that could handle the functionality that they need. Magazines would have had to invest far more costs to production (which would have increased costs). And would Apple accept Acrobat or an AcrobatMagazineReader for the iPhone/iPad or is that another dead technology like Flash? How well would an ARM perform on that? So this is a new, much more complex solution: that Apple may or may not accept, and reserves the right to change their mind at any time.
Companies are experimenting and learning. If the customers like the improved interactivity and are willing to pay the size penalty, then the publishers were right. If the customers start buying "magazines" with lower quality and interactivity but smaller size, then that will win. Right now, the magazines think that the interaction and quality is more important than the size. Time will tell.
But saying, "it would have been dead simple to export it that way" just demonstrates how little you understand about the real problems/costs involved. If you throw in a ton of bias, conjecture, and non-supported claims or referenced materials, perhaps you could write an entire article that meets the quality requirements of the author?
All my dumbass knows is wired's interactive magazine really opened my eyes at the possibility of the future of magazines and how we interact with them. I have a gut feeling about these kinds of things, and it tends to be correct: Interactive magazines WILL be around heavily someday as they streamline the production process.
So Wired and Adobe figured out a work-around to get their product on the iPad. similar to Zinio, i guess. its UI is limited but effective for now, and it proves two things: you don't need Adobe's Flash and you can use Adobe's In-Design. so much for "unfair business practices."
we'll see if Sports Illustrated ever turns its iPad demo into a real product. the cost of putting together the content of course is a real consideration. the Wired approach was probably relatively cheap?
the biggest problem with Wired is actually the ridiculous $5 price. the first issue sold well due to its novelty, but repeat buyers will be few at that cost. as Jobs said last night, the content owners need to price "more aggressively" to build volume sales, the dummies. well, it's their funeral.
question: how does the Marvel Comics app work? same way? it's not really interactive either.
At no time did I make a personal attack on Mr. Dilger. All I asked for was attribution of his claims. For instance...
"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store."
Who did Mr. Dilger speak with at Conde Naste that told him they didn't anticipate the iPad wouldn't support Flash? The Wired team? Conde Nast CEO? Was he present during the discussions?
"Rather than design original content for iPad or simply create a custom, standards-based website in HTML, Adobe sold Condé Nast on distributing its existing InDesign pages as large graphic files presented using a standard iPhone OS viewer app built according to Apple's rules"
Again, to whom does Mr. Dilger attribute this information? Was he there while Adobe while Adobe 'sold' Conde Nast on approach? Did he interview people at Wired or Adobe?
Without attribution the only rational conclusion is that this is Mr. Dilger's opinion and not reporting.
And finally, Glockpop, I never personally attacked anyone Mr. Dilger in my post. I just asked for attribution for his information. Unlike you, who managed to call me a 'nut' and an 'idiot' as well as the other people you degrade who don't agree with you.
Respectfully yours.
Come on now.. your first post wasn't THAT civil :P I mean you did compare him to Rush Limbaugh.. it doesn't get much more insulting that that douche lol
haha wow, just after I posted this I went into the app store and realized that AI's free app isn't there anymore.. so sorry for missleading you with this post.
But visiting there site in safari, I do see the have an "iPhone" version of their site which operates the same as there app did..
Appleinsider has an App? Didn't find it in my AppStore (Germany). What is its name?
While I'm a techie and a developer, I have to say the resulting end product is very slick and gorgeous - and the end-user experience is what counts! It's not a "big image file", and straight PDF also wouldn't do the job to this level. I think it is a better end-user experience than any other format I've seen so far, including the PopSci+ app.
Navigation features (most not supported by basic pdf/book reader)
1. horizontal swipe to next article
2. vertical swipe to additional text
3. graphic scrub bar on the bottom showing complete page thumbnails
6. "tab" style content reveals for item reviews without scrolling
7. simple flashcard-style game interactivity
8. sound clips
And apparently relatively simple to publish from existing content. However, I hope they can do something with the size of the content. I'm sure half of that is due to the waaaay too many full page ads! There is always room for improvement, and perhaps the next issue will have time to develop exporting text/fonts overlays vs. all-images.
The font size cannot be enlarged because that would break the layout, unless it were enlarged along with the entire page.
The iBookstore? Aren't those books limited to the ePub format? ePub seems best suited for novels and other works with lots of text and few pictures. Presentation is not the key in ePub. So, it seems that apps are the way to go if we want a lot of interactivity.
Wow, I never realized how clueless and baised Daniel Eran Dilger was, until reading this article.
So please explain how you would deliver pixel perfect representations of a magazine without using images? Magazines brands are based on many extremely subtle parts of design: the exact font, spacing and weighting of the line-layout. The huge photographs spread throughout the page, and so on.
Let's pretend that it would be smaller to embed the many fonts that are in each magazine, with the magazine. (Ignore that HTML5 doesn't have that capability). Figure 20-40 fonts per magazine, and you have to deal with dozens of publishers and try to get highly expensive licenses for inclusion?
How much space do you think that takes. And probably 50% of every page is ads or photos, or something interactive, that would have to be images anyways.
And can you imagine trying to re-render each page on a baby ARM processor? I'm sure you think 30 seconds to render each page would be an improvement in interactivity, but not sure the customers would think so.
Seems like anyone with an engineering background or IQ in the triple digits would quickly realize that your choices are (a) image driven representation like Zinio, Adobe and the other magazines use (b) layout driven interface like PDF, with many embedded fonts. You can get some space savings for the latter, with huge performance and interaction penalties. (And 20 times the development and production time, which means magazines and Adobe would have to charge more to break-even, and it would mean less content).
So sounds like for now, they made the better choice. I get my content sooner, cheaper and with better interactivity. Maybe that's why the other magazine engines work that way as well?
Every thing you say (above) is true!
The problem, though, is that the Print industry is dying. The world has moved on, Print has not!
You are looking at the subject from the perspective of a Print publisher, rather from the prospective of the content consumer.
What does it matter to the consumer if the beautiful and varied fonts, and pixel-perfect representation of the magazine looks good in print? On the iPad, it looks, bad, is un-navagable, and unreadable.
If the consumers aren't buying the Print magazine, they won't buy pictures of print pages, that cost more and offer a less pleasant user experience.
Just because someone has a low IQ, doesn't make them stupid... or even dumb enough to recognize a bad deal when the see one!
As a flash developer AND a iPhone developer working in the interactive advertising field, I was really disappointed by how one-sided this article turned out to be. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy and I'll be pushing refresh constantly this Monday like a giddy schoolgirl when Jobs debuts the new iPhone. But that doesn't mean I have to drink the kool-aide and agree with everything Dear Leader espouses.
A lot of the "missing features" like resizing text are a joke! It would entirely defeat the point of a digital magazine if you removed layout from the equation and let text flow endlessly across pages! Entire teams of designers put a ton of effort into page layout and flow to create an experience that is based on the idea of tangible magazine. If you don't like that concept, don't buy it! For those haters saying that style and art direction are a concept that is lost on them--guess what?! You can go get the entire article in a text-based, searchable version on these little tubes called The Interwebs. For FREE, no less! This digital magazine is for those who actually appreciate these aesthetic considerations.
And as a geeky tech aside: the lack of ability to embed fonts is a definite drawback to the HTML5 platform. Sure, there are methods to fake it... but right now, you can't embed fonts, which seriously limits any content producer's control of typography. We're limited to the 6 or so fonts provided with iPhone/iPad. And even if you DO choose to embed them, there are a TON of legal issues you run into when you distribute the fonts. ("Embedding" is considered by most typographers to be like giving the font away, so it ain't cheap).
As a content producer, it's incredibly frustrating when people just repeat Job's sound bytes about the joys of open-source HTML5. First of all, h.264, his favorite video codec is NOT open-source. So, all those videos you see on "HTML5-ready" websites cannot be made without paying licensing fees. Secondly, HTML5 isn't supported on the latest version of Internet Explorer, the most popular browser in the world. I know, I know... we must charge ahead on technology and not linger in the past. But, when you're a content producer who is trying to reach as large an audience as possible, we're essentially SOL until Microsoft gets its act together (and the general population starts upgrading). The amazing thing about Flash was that virtually everyone had it. Until that becomes true of HTML5, we're left creating a hodgepodge of different technologies so that every platform can view content.
While I'm a techie and a developer, I have to say the resulting end product is very slick and gorgeous - and the end-user experience is what counts! It's not a "big image file", and straight PDF also wouldn't do the job to this level. I think it is a better end-user experience than any other format I've seen so far, including the PopSci+ app.
Navigation features (most not supported by basic pdf/book reader)
1. horizontal swipe to next article
2. vertical swipe to additional text
3. graphic scrub bar on the bottom showing complete page thumbnails
6. "tab" style content reveals for item reviews without scrolling
7. simple flashcard-style game interactivity
8. sound clips
And apparently relatively simple to publish from existing content. However, I hope they can do something with the size of the content. I'm sure half of that is due to the waaaay too many full page ads! There is always room for improvement, and perhaps the next issue will have time to develop exporting text/fonts overlays vs. all-images.
Unfortunately, without the advertisers, the mag won't survive.
I personally feel that this was a great first edition. I would hope that the content increases and if the advertising formats continues as good, i.e., as found in the initial issue, I wouldn't balk at the higher ad-to-content ratio.
Quote:
Some publications use a ratio of 50 percent advertising to 50 percent content, while others use a 60/40 ad-to-content ratio, and still others use a 70/30 ad-to-content ratio. While each publication determines its own ratio, the closer to a 50/50 balance you maintain, the better your publication will be viewed by your readers. The reason: it will seem like they have actual content to read -- not just ads to pass by in a vain attempt to find your content.
And for those that question WIRED/Adobe's production, perhaps they can explain why the App is getting such high Customer Ratings on the iTunes Store? With 80% rating 3 stars and over, an average of 4 stars and nearly half of the purchasers gave it 5 stars.
Perhaps it would be nice if only those that actually bought the publication where allowed to comment here as well.
It's starting to become clear, and reading this article and the comments from the Adobe faction just reinforces the point, that Adobe really does need to die to allow technology to escape the constraints they are attempting to impose on it. Their entire purpose and strategy, starting with PDF, moving on to Flash, and now the abomination known as Digital Viewer, is to piggyback print technology and thinking onto every new medium. As long as they succeed in this, there will be no innovation in content delivery (and, no, a movie with a timeline is not innovation). The Wired iPad edition demonstrates this superbly. Their entire goal was to bring their print magazine to the iPad, throw in a little hocus pocus, and declare what a remarkable achievement it is. In fact, it represents absolutely zero progress: it's just print rehashed, nothing more
Hopefully, others with more vision, more ability to think creatively, less commitment to outdated paradigms, will innovate in spite of the lure of Adobe's quick and dirty, but ultimately stifling, offerings.
I've probably gone on record in the past, or if I haven't I've at least thought, that it would be stupid for Apple to buy Adobe. But, now, I'm starting to think, if it were allowed, that Apple should buy them simply to shut them down and do the world a favor.
As a flash developer AND a iPhone developer working in the interactive advertising field, I was really disappointed by how one-sided this article turned out to be. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy and I'll be pushing refresh constantly this Monday like a giddy schoolgirl when Jobs debuts the new iPhone. But that doesn't mean I have to drink the kool-aide and agree with everything Dear Leader espouses.
A lot of the "missing features" like resizing text are a joke! It would entirely defeat the point of a digital magazine if you removed layout from the equation and let text flow endlessly across pages! Entire teams of designers put a ton of effort into page layout and flow to create an experience that is based on the idea of tangible magazine. If you don't like that concept, don't buy it! For those haters saying that style and art direction are a concept that is lost on them--guess what?! You can go get the entire article in a text-based, searchable version on these little tubes called The Interwebs. For FREE, no less! This digital magazine is for those who actually appreciate these aesthetic considerations.
And as a geeky tech aside: the lack of ability to embed fonts is a definite drawback to the HTML5 platform. Sure, there are methods to fake it... but right now, you can't embed fonts, which seriously limits any content producer's control of typography. We're limited to the 6 or so fonts provided with iPhone/iPad. And even if you DO choose to embed them, there are a TON of legal issues you run into when you distribute the fonts. ("Embedding" is considered by most typographers to be like giving the font away, so it ain't cheap).
As a content producer, it's incredibly frustrating when people just repeat Job's sound bytes about the joys of open-source HTML5. First of all, h.264, his favorite video codec is NOT open-source. So, all those videos you see on "HTML5-ready" websites cannot be made without paying licensing fees. Secondly, HTML5 isn't supported on the latest version of Internet Explorer, the most popular browser in the world. I know, I know... we must charge ahead on technology and not linger in the past. But, when you're a content producer who is trying to reach as large an audience as possible, we're essentially SOL until Microsoft gets its act together (and the general population starts upgrading). The amazing thing about Flash was that virtually everyone had it. Until that becomes true of HTML5, we're left creating a hodgepodge of different technologies so that every platform can view content.
The wired app/mag is a totally un-interactive experience. Seriously if that is what they think interactivity should be, they have missed the point.
Take a look at the sports illustrated demo, Time mag ipad video or website or even the wonder factory / woodwing sites to see how interactivity should be on these types of devices. The last 2 are the guys who made the SI/time demos work via HTML5. Woodwing actually appear to sell tools specifically designed to create this kind of content.
The time app is how this type of mag should be done. HTML5 dynamic content that is highly interactive, in app purchase for new issues and a file size that's actually manageable! Here's how they made it.
But like I tell teens; if you disagree -- quick, go start you own magazines while you still know it all. Their hundreds of years of combined experience is no match for your nearly two decades on this earth. Go get em tiger, show them how it's done!!!
Brilliant! Adobe should create their own iPad so it can use Flash and let Wired/CondeNast use InDesign and Flash, while they still know it all! Their hundreds of years of combined experience is no match for Apple's few decades on this earth. Go get em tigeress, show em how it's done!!!
Comments
(b) layout driven interface like PDF, with many embedded fonts. You can get some space savings for the latter, with huge performance and interaction penalties. (And 20 times the development and production time, which means magazines and Adobe would have to charge more to break-even, and it would mean less content).
Yes they should have used pdf and no it would not cost more because it would have been dead simple to export it that way.
After they spent so much time and money on the Flash version they couldn't be talked out of the animated aspects for the kludge version. If they were smart, they would have put together a little free teaser app and then sell the full pdf version inside their app by building in an e-commerce feature within the app. That way it is reusable for next month at almost no cost.
Screw the interactivity and animation in the actual magazine part, That isn't their niche anyway. The template app can have enough flashy pizazz, eye candy whatever to give it an oh wow factor and let the actual magazine content stand on its own merits.
Exactly. ...
In a paradigm shift, you either move to the new paradigm, or get left behind.
Anyone who has such a hard time articulating why someone else is wrong (you failed to point out anything you thought was error or unfair comment in the article, apparently because you couldn't back up your opinions) but throws out so much hateful personal attacks is clearly a nut without much credibility.
Also, when you comment on a post, don't paste the entire article in. It makes you look like an idiot.
Dear Glockpop,
At no time did I make a personal attack on Mr. Dilger. All I asked for was attribution of his claims. For instance...
"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store."
Who did Mr. Dilger speak with at Conde Naste that told him they didn't anticipate the iPad wouldn't support Flash? The Wired team? Conde Nast CEO? Was he present during the discussions?
"Rather than design original content for iPad or simply create a custom, standards-based website in HTML, Adobe sold Condé Nast on distributing its existing InDesign pages as large graphic files presented using a standard iPhone OS viewer app built according to Apple's rules"
Again, to whom does Mr. Dilger attribute this information? Was he there while Adobe while Adobe 'sold' Conde Nast on approach? Did he interview people at Wired or Adobe?
Without attribution the only rational conclusion is that this is Mr. Dilger's opinion and not reporting.
And finally, Glockpop, I never personally attacked anyone Mr. Dilger in my post. I just asked for attribution for his information. Unlike you, who managed to call me a 'nut' and an 'idiot' as well as the other people you degrade who don't agree with you.
Respectfully yours.
Yes they should have used pdf and no it would not cost more because it would have been dead simple to export it that way.
Sure. But Apple's subset of PDF doesn't support the full spec, like scripting, Flash embedded in it, 3D, security, and other parts. There are some things like dual layout (horizontal and vertical) that would mean you really need to export 2 x PDF's. Other parts of the interaction would have to be defined or added (to the spec and/or reader/viewer). You still have more complexity and cost: what about font-licensing issues which are far more complex with Magazines that would have hundreds of Font variants in them.
So Adobe would have had to what? First create a proper PDF renderer that could handle the functionality that they need. Magazines would have had to invest far more costs to production (which would have increased costs). And would Apple accept Acrobat or an AcrobatMagazineReader for the iPhone/iPad or is that another dead technology like Flash? How well would an ARM perform on that? So this is a new, much more complex solution: that Apple may or may not accept, and reserves the right to change their mind at any time.
Companies are experimenting and learning. If the customers like the improved interactivity and are willing to pay the size penalty, then the publishers were right. If the customers start buying "magazines" with lower quality and interactivity but smaller size, then that will win. Right now, the magazines think that the interaction and quality is more important than the size. Time will tell.
But saying, "it would have been dead simple to export it that way" just demonstrates how little you understand about the real problems/costs involved. If you throw in a ton of bias, conjecture, and non-supported claims or referenced materials, perhaps you could write an entire article that meets the quality requirements of the author?
we'll see if Sports Illustrated ever turns its iPad demo into a real product. the cost of putting together the content of course is a real consideration. the Wired approach was probably relatively cheap?
the biggest problem with Wired is actually the ridiculous $5 price. the first issue sold well due to its novelty, but repeat buyers will be few at that cost. as Jobs said last night, the content owners need to price "more aggressively" to build volume sales, the dummies. well, it's their funeral.
question: how does the Marvel Comics app work? same way? it's not really interactive either.
Dear Glockpop,
At no time did I make a personal attack on Mr. Dilger. All I asked for was attribution of his claims. For instance...
"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store."
Who did Mr. Dilger speak with at Conde Naste that told him they didn't anticipate the iPad wouldn't support Flash? The Wired team? Conde Nast CEO? Was he present during the discussions?
"Rather than design original content for iPad or simply create a custom, standards-based website in HTML, Adobe sold Condé Nast on distributing its existing InDesign pages as large graphic files presented using a standard iPhone OS viewer app built according to Apple's rules"
Again, to whom does Mr. Dilger attribute this information? Was he there while Adobe while Adobe 'sold' Conde Nast on approach? Did he interview people at Wired or Adobe?
Without attribution the only rational conclusion is that this is Mr. Dilger's opinion and not reporting.
And finally, Glockpop, I never personally attacked anyone Mr. Dilger in my post. I just asked for attribution for his information. Unlike you, who managed to call me a 'nut' and an 'idiot' as well as the other people you degrade who don't agree with you.
Respectfully yours.
Come on now.. your first post wasn't THAT civil :P I mean you did compare him to Rush Limbaugh.. it doesn't get much more insulting that that douche lol
haha wow, just after I posted this I went into the app store and realized that AI's free app isn't there anymore.. so sorry for missleading you with this post.
But visiting there site in safari, I do see the have an "iPhone" version of their site which operates the same as there app did..
Appleinsider has an App? Didn't find it in my AppStore (Germany). What is its name?
Navigation features (most not supported by basic pdf/book reader)
1. horizontal swipe to next article
2. vertical swipe to additional text
3. graphic scrub bar on the bottom showing complete page thumbnails
4. nice interactive animations - spinning Mars lander map, heart xray.
6. "tab" style content reveals for item reviews without scrolling
7. simple flashcard-style game interactivity
8. sound clips
And apparently relatively simple to publish from existing content. However, I hope they can do something with the size of the content. I'm sure half of that is due to the waaaay too many full page ads! There is always room for improvement, and perhaps the next issue will have time to develop exporting text/fonts overlays vs. all-images.
Appleinsider has an App? Didn't find it in my AppStore (Germany). What is its name?
re-read the post you just commented on...
The font size cannot be enlarged because that would break the layout, unless it were enlarged along with the entire page.
The iBookstore? Aren't those books limited to the ePub format? ePub seems best suited for novels and other works with lots of text and few pictures. Presentation is not the key in ePub. So, it seems that apps are the way to go if we want a lot of interactivity.
Wow, I never realized how clueless and baised Daniel Eran Dilger was, until reading this article.
So please explain how you would deliver pixel perfect representations of a magazine without using images? Magazines brands are based on many extremely subtle parts of design: the exact font, spacing and weighting of the line-layout. The huge photographs spread throughout the page, and so on.
Let's pretend that it would be smaller to embed the many fonts that are in each magazine, with the magazine. (Ignore that HTML5 doesn't have that capability). Figure 20-40 fonts per magazine, and you have to deal with dozens of publishers and try to get highly expensive licenses for inclusion?
How much space do you think that takes. And probably 50% of every page is ads or photos, or something interactive, that would have to be images anyways.
And can you imagine trying to re-render each page on a baby ARM processor? I'm sure you think 30 seconds to render each page would be an improvement in interactivity, but not sure the customers would think so.
Seems like anyone with an engineering background or IQ in the triple digits would quickly realize that your choices are (a) image driven representation like Zinio, Adobe and the other magazines use (b) layout driven interface like PDF, with many embedded fonts. You can get some space savings for the latter, with huge performance and interaction penalties. (And 20 times the development and production time, which means magazines and Adobe would have to charge more to break-even, and it would mean less content).
So sounds like for now, they made the better choice. I get my content sooner, cheaper and with better interactivity. Maybe that's why the other magazine engines work that way as well?
Every thing you say (above) is true!
The problem, though, is that the Print industry is dying. The world has moved on, Print has not!
You are looking at the subject from the perspective of a Print publisher, rather from the prospective of the content consumer.
What does it matter to the consumer if the beautiful and varied fonts, and pixel-perfect representation of the magazine looks good in print? On the iPad, it looks, bad, is un-navagable, and unreadable.
If the consumers aren't buying the Print magazine, they won't buy pictures of print pages, that cost more and offer a less pleasant user experience.
Just because someone has a low IQ, doesn't make them stupid... or even dumb enough to recognize a bad deal when the see one!
.
Which old paradigm is that? Designing and publishing content for consumers?
Yes... Because what they're sellin', consumers ain't buying'
And changing a few fonts, won't get the job done!
Open your eyes, man... there's a tremendous opportunity-- if Print is agile enough to adapt to the times!
.
As a flash developer AND a iPhone developer working in the interactive advertising field, I was really disappointed by how one-sided this article turned out to be. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy and I'll be pushing refresh constantly this Monday like a giddy schoolgirl when Jobs debuts the new iPhone. But that doesn't mean I have to drink the kool-aide and agree with everything Dear Leader espouses.
A lot of the "missing features" like resizing text are a joke! It would entirely defeat the point of a digital magazine if you removed layout from the equation and let text flow endlessly across pages! Entire teams of designers put a ton of effort into page layout and flow to create an experience that is based on the idea of tangible magazine. If you don't like that concept, don't buy it! For those haters saying that style and art direction are a concept that is lost on them--guess what?! You can go get the entire article in a text-based, searchable version on these little tubes called The Interwebs. For FREE, no less! This digital magazine is for those who actually appreciate these aesthetic considerations.
And as a geeky tech aside: the lack of ability to embed fonts is a definite drawback to the HTML5 platform. Sure, there are methods to fake it... but right now, you can't embed fonts, which seriously limits any content producer's control of typography. We're limited to the 6 or so fonts provided with iPhone/iPad. And even if you DO choose to embed them, there are a TON of legal issues you run into when you distribute the fonts. ("Embedding" is considered by most typographers to be like giving the font away, so it ain't cheap).
As a content producer, it's incredibly frustrating when people just repeat Job's sound bytes about the joys of open-source HTML5. First of all, h.264, his favorite video codec is NOT open-source. So, all those videos you see on "HTML5-ready" websites cannot be made without paying licensing fees. Secondly, HTML5 isn't supported on the latest version of Internet Explorer, the most popular browser in the world. I know, I know... we must charge ahead on technology and not linger in the past. But, when you're a content producer who is trying to reach as large an audience as possible, we're essentially SOL until Microsoft gets its act together (and the general population starts upgrading). The amazing thing about Flash was that virtually everyone had it. Until that becomes true of HTML5, we're left creating a hodgepodge of different technologies so that every platform can view content.
While I'm a techie and a developer, I have to say the resulting end product is very slick and gorgeous - and the end-user experience is what counts! It's not a "big image file", and straight PDF also wouldn't do the job to this level. I think it is a better end-user experience than any other format I've seen so far, including the PopSci+ app.
Navigation features (most not supported by basic pdf/book reader)
1. horizontal swipe to next article
2. vertical swipe to additional text
3. graphic scrub bar on the bottom showing complete page thumbnails
4. nice interactive animations - spinning Mars lander map, heart xray.
6. "tab" style content reveals for item reviews without scrolling
7. simple flashcard-style game interactivity
8. sound clips
And apparently relatively simple to publish from existing content. However, I hope they can do something with the size of the content. I'm sure half of that is due to the waaaay too many full page ads! There is always room for improvement, and perhaps the next issue will have time to develop exporting text/fonts overlays vs. all-images.
Unfortunately, without the advertisers, the mag won't survive.
I personally feel that this was a great first edition. I would hope that the content increases and if the advertising formats continues as good, i.e., as found in the initial issue, I wouldn't balk at the higher ad-to-content ratio.
Some publications use a ratio of 50 percent advertising to 50 percent content, while others use a 60/40 ad-to-content ratio, and still others use a 70/30 ad-to-content ratio. While each publication determines its own ratio, the closer to a 50/50 balance you maintain, the better your publication will be viewed by your readers. The reason: it will seem like they have actual content to read -- not just ads to pass by in a vain attempt to find your content.
And for those that question WIRED/Adobe's production, perhaps they can explain why the App is getting such high Customer Ratings on the iTunes Store? With 80% rating 3 stars and over, an average of 4 stars and nearly half of the purchasers gave it 5 stars.
Perhaps it would be nice if only those that actually bought the publication where allowed to comment here as well.
Hopefully, others with more vision, more ability to think creatively, less commitment to outdated paradigms, will innovate in spite of the lure of Adobe's quick and dirty, but ultimately stifling, offerings.
I've probably gone on record in the past, or if I haven't I've at least thought, that it would be stupid for Apple to buy Adobe. But, now, I'm starting to think, if it were allowed, that Apple should buy them simply to shut them down and do the world a favor.
I have to agree with Sue Denim on all her points.
As a flash developer AND a iPhone developer working in the interactive advertising field, I was really disappointed by how one-sided this article turned out to be. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy and I'll be pushing refresh constantly this Monday like a giddy schoolgirl when Jobs debuts the new iPhone. But that doesn't mean I have to drink the kool-aide and agree with everything Dear Leader espouses.
A lot of the "missing features" like resizing text are a joke! It would entirely defeat the point of a digital magazine if you removed layout from the equation and let text flow endlessly across pages! Entire teams of designers put a ton of effort into page layout and flow to create an experience that is based on the idea of tangible magazine. If you don't like that concept, don't buy it! For those haters saying that style and art direction are a concept that is lost on them--guess what?! You can go get the entire article in a text-based, searchable version on these little tubes called The Interwebs. For FREE, no less! This digital magazine is for those who actually appreciate these aesthetic considerations.
And as a geeky tech aside: the lack of ability to embed fonts is a definite drawback to the HTML5 platform. Sure, there are methods to fake it... but right now, you can't embed fonts, which seriously limits any content producer's control of typography. We're limited to the 6 or so fonts provided with iPhone/iPad. And even if you DO choose to embed them, there are a TON of legal issues you run into when you distribute the fonts. ("Embedding" is considered by most typographers to be like giving the font away, so it ain't cheap).
As a content producer, it's incredibly frustrating when people just repeat Job's sound bytes about the joys of open-source HTML5. First of all, h.264, his favorite video codec is NOT open-source. So, all those videos you see on "HTML5-ready" websites cannot be made without paying licensing fees. Secondly, HTML5 isn't supported on the latest version of Internet Explorer, the most popular browser in the world. I know, I know... we must charge ahead on technology and not linger in the past. But, when you're a content producer who is trying to reach as large an audience as possible, we're essentially SOL until Microsoft gets its act together (and the general population starts upgrading). The amazing thing about Flash was that virtually everyone had it. Until that becomes true of HTML5, we're left creating a hodgepodge of different technologies so that every platform can view content.
Case in point.
Take a look at the sports illustrated demo, Time mag ipad video or website or even the wonder factory / woodwing sites to see how interactivity should be on these types of devices. The last 2 are the guys who made the SI/time demos work via HTML5. Woodwing actually appear to sell tools specifically designed to create this kind of content.
The time app is how this type of mag should be done. HTML5 dynamic content that is highly interactive, in app purchase for new issues and a file size that's actually manageable! Here's how they made it.
But like I tell teens; if you disagree -- quick, go start you own magazines while you still know it all. Their hundreds of years of combined experience is no match for your nearly two decades on this earth. Go get em tiger, show them how it's done!!!
Brilliant! Adobe should create their own iPad so it can use Flash and let Wired/CondeNast use InDesign and Flash, while they still know it all! Their hundreds of years of combined experience is no match for Apple's few decades on this earth. Go get em tigeress, show em how it's done!!!