or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe

post #1 of 180
Thread Starter 
Wired this week released the iPad edition of its technology oriented magazine, with the App Store software completely rewritten by Adobe, jettisoning the version written in Flash for one authored completely in the Apple-approved Objective-C language.

Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired, said the magazine utilizes new digital publishing technology developed by Adobe, which allows the publication to work on the print and digital editions at the same time, using the same authoring and design tools. The result, he said, is a new version of Wired that he has always dreamed of.

"It has all of the visual impact of paper, enhanced by interactive elements like video and animated graphics," he said. "We can offer you a history of Mars landings that lets you explore the red planet yourself. We can take you inside Trent Reznor's recording studio and let you listen to snippets of his work in progress. And we can show you exactly how Pixar rafted each frame of its new movie, Toy Story 3."

Released Wednesday, the iPad edition of Wired (iTunes link) costs $4.99 for the June issue. It includes reviews of the best new LED TVs, a guide to gardening for geeks, and interactive content like a behind-the-scenes tour of a warehouse of frozen medical tissue samples. The 527MB application is intended for users ages 17 ad up.

Wired also released a video (encoded in Adobe Flash, and unplayable on the iPad) showing off some of the features of the new digital magazine:



The Wall Street Journal explained how the magazine and Adobe had to rebuild their application from the ground up after it was revealed that Apple would not allow the use of intermediary tools to port software from another format, such as Flash, to the iPhone OS. As such, Adobe joined the thousands of existing iPhone and iPad developers by recreating the magazine's application in Objective-C.

"Wired, which has been working on an e-reader edition since last summer, has pursued a different path than its Conde Nast brethren by partnering with Adobe Systems," author Russell Adams wrote. "That decision later landed Wired on the wrong side of Apple, which has banned Adobes Flash technology from its devices. Wired and Adobe had to rebuild the magazines app in Apple-approved code."

Executives with Conde Nast, publisher of Wired, said that the rebuilt, Apple-approved application has all of the features of the previous one. Future issues will add new features such as social connectivity, search functions, and the ability to open a browser within the application.

Conde Nast expects to offer a subscription model in the fall. Currently, it will charge $4.99 per issue, and new issues can be bought as part of a library within a single application.

Conde Nast also released digital versions of its other magazines, including GQ, but they have not received the highly interactive treatment featured in the iPad edition of Wired. Officials with the company previously said they would not create similar iPad apps for their other magazines until the issues between Adobe and Apple are resolved.

Apple recently changed the iPhone developer agreement to ban third-party tools that would allow software to be ported from other formats, like Adobe Flash, to native iPhone OS software. Jobs said such tools would result in substandard applications on the Apple-controlled App Store.

The iPad edition of Wired was first discussed last November, months before Apple's touchscreen device was even acknowledged by the company.
post #2 of 180
They lost me at Five Bucks.
post #3 of 180
Sounds like WiReD is desperate for any path towards adequate circulation.
post #4 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Sounds like WiReD is desperate for any path towards adequate circulation.

Sounds like Flash brings absolutely nothing of value to the iPhone OS platform that isn't already there.
post #5 of 180
You can go to wired.com and get a year of the printed magazine for $10 PLUS A FREE WIRED BASEBALL CAP!!!

So.... 4.99 per issue?

Seems pricey for less of the same thing...
post #6 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sounds like Flash brings absolutely nothing of value to the iPhone OS platform that isn't already there.

....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...
post #7 of 180
Quote:
Conde Nast expects to offer a subscription model in the fall. Currently, it will charge $4.99 per issue, and new issues can be bought as part of a library within a single application.

At least this seems to be a step in the right direction, as opposed to some periodicals that (as far as I've heard) require a separate app for each issue. Even still, I can't believe Apple didn't release a single 'magazine' app that everyone can publish to. Why does everyone have to reinvent the same wheel?
post #8 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

They lost me at Five Bucks.

They lost me at 500+MB! I can't afford to lose that much space to one 'app'. Web pages and streaming video are still better.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...

Read this:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/flash_saga

It goes a long way towards explaining why Apple doesn't want to let Adobe leverage the iPhone/Pad platform away from Apple.
post #10 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...

Big difference. What adobe planned to do was throw some flash reader runtime on every application bundle (probably a big memory and and battery eater). Because this runtime on the bundle would handle all the flash code run on other platforms, this would give adobe no incentive to update with apples latest api's, so they could be lazy and not innovate. In other words hold everyone to their standards (easy cross platform but low innovation) and not apples. I am a big flash fan, but I see apples point here. Until mobile devices become much more powerful it is a good move to get tight control of their api's.


By doing the program in objective c and compiling to iphone ipa standards they are choosing the most efficient way possible. Memory management, performance and power consumption can easily be achieved.
post #11 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...

Flash offering no functionality that isn't already available without it does not equate to Objective-C providing no functionality that isn't offered by Flash, and quite the opposite is in fact true. To a knowledgeable mind, it's obvious that the reason they rewrote the app "feature-for-feature the same" is that that's always the quickest, simplest way to do any rewrite. But now they aren't hemmed in by the limitations of Flash.
post #12 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Read this:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/flash_saga

It goes a long way towards explaining why Apple doesn't want to let Adobe leverage the iPhone/Pad platform away from Apple.

I thought Steve already addressed Apple's reluctance....

good read none-the-less.
post #13 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

They lost me at 500+MB! I can't afford to lose that much space to one 'app'. Web pages and streaming video are still better.

Ouch is that 500+ per issue???
post #14 of 180
Regarding all these massive flash - non-flash discussions, I wonder where AI stands? It seems on the flash side, as they still using it a lot. What does this mean?
post #15 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

Big difference. What adobe planned to do was throw some flash reader runtime on every application bundle

Not in the case of ported apps. When discussing Flash on the iPhone/Pad platform there are always two issues:

1) Running Flash media natively (which is what Android 2.2 is still struggling to accomplish at this date.)

2) Compiling Flash-based applications to act as native iPad apps, effectively bypassing many of Apple's APIs.

Number 1 above is about performance and battery life, number 2 is about Apple's reluctance to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms. People tend to conflate the two.
post #16 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Wired this week released the iPad edition of its technology oriented magazine, with the App Store software converted by Adobe from its native format of Flash to the Apple-approved Objective-C language. ...

If anyone's interested this is available in the Canadian store as well and also this morning, the iPad apps are now live in the Canadian (and probably other international) stores.

Despite all those false reports from last week, the iPad apps and search categories are appearing in the store this morning for the first time.
post #17 of 180
The problem is Adobe is being extremely short-sighted. As this experience shows, they can tailor their authoring tools (which are the best in the industry) to create Objective-C output, or even HTML5 (they released a plugin for this for some of their tools).

However, instead of doing what they are best at (creating great authoring tools) they seem insistent on establishing Flash as a platform.

I don't think that is the best way forward for them. It is certainly not the best way forward for the internet, or Apple.
post #18 of 180
The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?

The other more significant issue, if true: So, with all its grandstanding, Adobe can (if it wants to) and will create a software technology that will conform with Apple-imposed policies?

CGC
post #19 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

They lost me at 500+MB! I can't afford to lose that much space to one 'app'. Web pages and streaming video are still better.

Disk space is cheap.
post #20 of 180
File size is huge! and is it 4.99 for only 1 issue or for each month?
post #21 of 180
Wow ! Blow Jobs away...
Not only Flash, it's about creativity.
The developers could not make these.
post #22 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Disk space is cheap.

Not on the iPad.
post #23 of 180
Seems like a pretty cool version of what a "digital" magazine can be.

It'd be interesting to see the Flash version of this side by side with the Objective-C version and compare framerates, touch responsiveness, battery drain, hardware heat, etc. Unfortunately that's probably impossible outside of Adobe's labs.
post #24 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?...

Wired is indeed a sh*tty magazine that' long past it's prime, but what I find extremely offensive is the way it's displayed in the app store.

It just says you are buying Wired magazine for $4.99.

There is no mention of a subscription, or of how much the issues will cost at all. It seems to be borderline advertising fraud to me to sell someone something without telling them upfront about the costs. A lot of folks are going to think they have Wired magazine "for life," for $4.99. Do they? Probably not.

If this is an ad-supported app, then why not free from the get-go? If you are paying $4.99, then is every issue going to be $4.99?

It's purposely deceptive to market the thing the way they are. Why would I buy anything from a company that isn't up front about what they are going to charge? (even if it wasn't a sh*tty magazine).
post #25 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

Ouch is that 500+ per issue???

I guess we'll know next month. However, like with videos and podcasts and the like, you only need keep the most recent issue on your iPad (assuming iTunes and the app allows us to selectively sync only the issues we want). Truth is, if it makes for a richer user experience, then I'm ok with the 500+ MB size of the app. When you think about it, how many e-magazines will you really be subscribing to anyway (especially at these prices)?
post #26 of 180
I like it a lot. I guess I never really saw the potential of the ipad magazines until now. It really looks like something you'd see in a futuristic movie from the 80's. "People in the future will have electronic interactive magazines."
post #27 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

They lost me at Five Bucks.

If they do like GQ and make it $5.00 for the app and latest issue but backs and forwards are a little less, I think folks will go for it.

What I love is that there is all this ire about Apple being the new Nazis etc over this 'no Flash, no Java in any form' stuff. AND yet, no one has taken a stand and said "F you Apple. We stand by Flash. If your folks can't see our stuff, that's on you. But we aren't going to bend over and take it from you."

Adobe freaking helped Wired do the conversion. And you can bet that a revised convertor will come out of this that will take your Flash stuff and put it in top to bottom Objective C. It probably won't be very pretty and might be rather bloated, at least for now, but it will be native.

Because in the end, money is more important. Even to Adobe
post #28 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post


Number 1 above is about performance and battery life, number 2 is about Apple's reluctance to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms. People tend to conflate the two.



I call bullshit.

The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.

I call bullshit.
post #29 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

The other more significant issue, if true: So, with all its grandstanding, Adobe can (if it wants to) and will create a software technology that will conform with Apple-imposed policies?

CGC

That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
post #30 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katonah View Post

You can go to wired.com and get a year of the printed magazine for $10 PLUS A FREE WIRED BASEBALL CAP!!!

So.... 4.99 per issue?

Seems pricey for less of the same thing...

Agreed - unfortunately, many other magazines do the same thing. If they would offer subscriptions for something like the price of print, I'd be getting a couple of magazines. But I'm not paying 2-5 times as much for the digital version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...

It's not true to say that it makes no difference, Obj-C is far more capable than Flash, even though Adobe didn't take advantage of any features beyond what was already there. Good example of why Jobs doesn't want ported apps.

However, the real issue is that it's not about features. It's about reliability and efficiency. Adobe's use of unsupported APIs creates security and performance issues that are undesirable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Not in the case of ported apps. When discussing Flash on the iPhone/Pad platform there are always two issues:

1) Running Flash media natively (which is what Android 2.2 is still struggling to accomplish at this date.)

2) Compiling Flash-based applications to act as native iPad apps, effectively bypassing many of Apple's APIs.

Number 1 above is about performance and battery life, number 2 is about Apple's reluctance to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms. People tend to conflate the two.

#2 also creates security problems and performance issues. A ported app will ALWAYS be slower and less efficient of CPU cycles than a native app. Adobe's attempt to label it a native app is very misleading. While it uses native APIs, the entire app design is based around Flash - which means that it will never be optimized for the iDevices. It's like taking a piece of German literature and simply replacing each word with the exact English equivalent. While you might be able to read the document, it will never be as good as something written natively in English or translated by an expert who really understands the English language.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #31 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

They lost me at Five Bucks.

Get used to the idea. While the whole publishing industry business model is in chaos right now because of disruptive technology like the iPad and others there's absolutely no doubt that we all will being paying for online content in one way or another. Subscriptions or annoying, intrusive advertising, pick your poison.
post #32 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?


CGC


Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.

I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.

So I didn't buy any magazines.
post #33 of 180
So....

I guess Anderson hasn't successfully made his "everything should be free" argument to Conde Nast yet. Keep trying Chris!!!

Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business
By Chris Anderson


Quote:
Just as Moore's law dictates that a unit of processing power halves in price every 18 months, the price of bandwidth and storage is dropping even faster. Which is to say, the trend lines that determine the cost of doing business online all point the same way: to zero.

Gee, Chris wrote that over two years ago. Hasn't his cost of doing business online reached zero yet?

gc
post #34 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I call bullshit.

The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.

I call bullshit.

I call panic.

Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?

I call panic.
post #35 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.

Compromise often leads to mediocrity.
post #36 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

Not on the iPad.

Granted.

My kid's netbook has a 160 Gig drive. When he fills that up, he'll transfer some data to one of the 1T external drives we have. After that, we'll likely throw a cheap big drive into the netbook.


I agree that in this day and age, the storage on the iPad is inadequate.
post #37 of 180
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwFbwHaP5tE

More info / insight into this... Pretty interesting stuff.
post #38 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

When you think about it, how many e-magazines will you really be subscribing to anyway (especially at these prices)?


Enough for Apple to single-handedly save the industry?
post #39 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...

Because the Objective-C generated app from Flash is not going to take advantage of all of Objective-C and Cocoa - it's just going to use enough to get the app to work. How to you exploit CoreAnimation from Flash? How do you handle low memory warnings from Flash? Autorelease pools? etc. I could go on.
post #40 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I call panic.

Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?

I call panic.

If he's a flash designer why would you rub it in his face that he could have financial troubles ahead? Kind of a dick move.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe