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 - Page 2

post #41 of 180
I had a first look at it and have mixed impressions so far. The interactive content is mostly great, there is a real added value compared to the print edition (if it is really $10 vs. $60 added value per year, I can't decide). The iPad edition adds a lot of video and things like rotatable graphics and it is not gimmicky, but put to good use. That is the part I like and as everything is available offline, the 500MB are acceptable. Nobody carries around several printed editions of Wired, no need to have more than one on the iPad either.

The part I severely dislike, is that Adobe obviously had the upper hand in making the app's GUI as much Flash-like as somehow possible without violating any terms. Just like their desktop apps look odd on any platform, this does not look like an iPhone OS app. Different buttons, different shadows, different scroll bars... it is really everything needed to prove that Jobs had some valid points. It feels alien and it was certainly more work to make it that odd, than to simply use the interface components provided by Apple. And Adobe's are not by any mean better, they are just different for the sake of being different and the usability actually suffers from that. There is no need for a completely different interface for one single magazine, several comic apps show that custom content and stock controls can play along nicely and are less irritating for the user.

Hopefully somebody will tell Adobe to try it a third time.
post #42 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.

That is silly logic.

Apple can rule out an entire class of crappy software by restricting development tools. They know from experience that there's nearly zero chance of a good app that's been ported while if the app is written natively, there's at least a chance that it will be good - and then they can go through them one by one.

So, they've simply ruled out the groups of apps that have zero chance of success so that they have more time to spend on apps which at least MIGHT be any good. That's no guarantee that they'll only have good apps, but they're at least trying to ensure quality - unlike anyone else out there. That's why so many thousands of apps have been rejected. Not all the bad apps, but enough to make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

The part I severely dislike, is that Adobe obviously had the upper hand in making the app's GUI as much Flash-like as somehow possible without violating any terms. Just like their desktop apps look odd on any platform, this does not look like an iPhone OS app. Different buttons, different shadows, different scroll bars... it is really everything needed to prove that Jobs had some valid points. It feels alien and it was certainly more work to make it that odd, than to simply use the interface components provided by Apple. And Adobe's are not by any mean better, they are just different for the sake of being different and the usability actually suffers from that. There is no need for a completely different interface for one single magazine, several comic apps show that custom content and stock controls can play along nicely and are less irritating for the user.

This is where Adobe's laziness comes back to bite them for two reasons:

1. By making it look exactly like a Flash app, it confirms Apple's statement that developers are lazy and will reduce everything to a lowest common denominator if you let them.

2. Since this is a non-Flash app that does everything that Flash does, it pretty convincingly destroys Adobe's argument that Flash is necessary.

Adobe doesn't have a strategy or plan. All they're doing is defending Flash at all costs, no matter how foolish it makes them look.
"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 #43 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I call bullshit.

The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre.

There are many different forms of 'mediocre', and, being a (mostly) subjective assessment there's no way to prevent it. But the natively-written mediocrity that currently fills the app store is one level better than similar mediocrity ported from a Flash origin. It at least conforms to Apple's APIs and can be improved (maybe only to slightly-less mediocre) if Apple modifies/improves the OS foundation underneath.

The mediocrity that originated as Flash apps will not benefit from such a change.


Edit: narrowly beaten by jragosta
post #44 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

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.

I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.
post #45 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Compromise often leads to mediocrity.

But no compromise at all may lead to fanaticism.

It is wisdom when one knows when to stand and when to agree to a compromise.

CGC
post #46 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim View Post

They lost me at Five Bucks.

That's the best 'first post' I've read in a long time. You're right, too much $$.
post #47 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.

You can call whatever you like but it's only showing a logical fallacy. The fact that some native app developers aren't very good at their jobs has nothing to do with Apple not wanting developers to use tools that restrict them from fully taking advantage of Cocoa. See the difference:

Using native Cocoa:
- developers can take advantage of all of Cocoa's features, including under the hood stuff like memory management, etc. Can a Flash to Cocoa converter understand and properly take advantage of OpenCL, autorelease pools, etc.?

Using Flash to Cocoa converter:
- developers are restricted to doing only what the Flash to Cocoa converter supports. If there is a unique Cocoa feature that isn't on other platforms, Adobe isn't likely to support it because they want Flash to be cross platform.

The difference is obvious. With native Cocoa, it's up to the developer to do a good job. With Flash to Cocoa conversion, developers are beholden to Adobe to do a good job. Given Adobe's track record of Flash on the Mac, I think Apple is making the right choice here.
post #48 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.

Can they do anything right? First they get lambasted for having an approval process whereby it's clearly possible to have your app rejected, then they get this sort of comment because they aren't being *more* prescriptive of what apps are available...

I call hypocrisy
post #49 of 180
Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.

I would be willing to convert this to electronic format for the same price (or less), but no way am I going to pay out the nose just to use it on my ipad. Think about it - by converting to an electronic subscription for the same price, the publishers don't have to print (killing trees) or mail it (using fuel). Electronic distribution costs have to be a small fraction of printing/mailing. At the same subscription price as a print version, they'd still be making more money than a print version.

I agree with the person that said that Apple should provide a standard magazine (and newspaper ??) app. It could be called "Magazine Rack" or something. In this app, I would like to see the ability to keep back-issues on my computer if I want to save space on the ipad. I would like to keep all my issues, but not necessarily on the ipad. It would be nice to be able to keep the table of contents on the ipad for searching with the content offloaded to the computer. Also, the ability to bookmark articles/make notes/send to a friend, etc. would be nice. Also, the mags should be readable in iTunes, so that Mac/Windows users without ipads can take advantage of the electronic subscription also.

If we could get ALL of our magazines in electronic format, it would be great. We get Pop. Science, Pop. Mechanics, Southern Living, some cooking mags, Reader's Digest, and a few others. I can see getting my wife an ipad for her to use for this purpose. To this end, when she syncs from her Mac, it would be nice to bring in Magazine content, etc. from mine.

There needs to be the concept of a "family group" which can share mags, books, music, apps, etc. For me, I would want all purchases to ultimately end up on 1 computer/server.

OK - I know it's only been a few months since ipad shipped, but for magazines/periodicals, it's time for Apple to let the ipad evolve in this area.

I have no experience with the Zineo (sp ??) stuff - I have looked at it and the subscription prices are too great. Also, a friend said that from what they saw, it was just a scanned version of the print.

We should encourage Apple to provide the periodical platform (i.e. Magazine Rack) and magazine/newspaper publishers to use it.

I'll get off my soapbox now...

Phil
post #50 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

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?

Agreed! I thought Magazines read on the iPad were as important as the iBook App. I have to believe Apple is designing that as we speak!
post #51 of 180
I suspect that it works likes this:

Old [deprecated] way:
1) Flash used to develop iPhone/iPad app
2) App includes Flash runtime, interpreted code and Flash UI

New way:
1) Flash used to develop app

========== Web Fork
2) App uses Flash Player (plugin), interpreted code and Flash UI

========== iPad Fork
2) Flash ActionScript cross-compiled to ObjC source
3) Adobe- supplied frameworks and APIs interface [ActionScript] ObjC source and iPad frameworks and APIs
4) iPad-specific code added as necessary-- iPad UI
5) above compiled into iPad app

... Or, if they really try to get cute, 2 and 3 are just an ObjC source implementation of a Flash Player/interpreter for the iPad (with a thinly-disguised Flash UI).

If Adobe does this right, they have a great opportunity-- create a set of tools that generates apps that run efficiently and intuitively on the desktop and are tailored to specific mobile platforms. Done wrong, on the mobile platforms, it'll be the same old, same old!

We shall see...

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #52 of 180
Now that this app is written, could it be used as the base for bringing other publications to the iPad without having to start from scratch? Could publications ready their content for an "Adobe iPad Publication Engine" standard?
post #53 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

I agree. Starting at 16GB is a bit ridiculous. If the iPad is a media device (and it is), it needs much more than the 16 GB. And an upgrade of 48GB shouldn't cost $200 nowadays.

Ridiculous by whose standards? A lot of people are very happy with the 16 GB system. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

As for the price, the market appears to be content with the price difference since plenty of iPads are sold at all sizes. First, you don't know what the cost is (Flash memory is in tight supply now). More importantly, the price is determined by the market, not by manufacturing costs.
"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 #54 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.

Great article link!
post #55 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Disk space is cheap.

500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
post #56 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

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.

Not if he accepts reality now and starts learning new technologies. It's kind of like being a COBOL programmer. Once Y2K was over, not the best career path. But, those who had the foresight to prepare for a different future were fine.
post #57 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

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.

My sentiments exactly! I was talking to my triathlete daughter and told I found a Triathlon magazine I would like to subscribe to and she said, don't just go to the web.

I do enjoy magazines and newspapers but am turned off by the pages upon pages of ads.
post #58 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

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?

What does AI have to do with it? They can't even keep their servers running for 10 minutes and their iPhone website is useless. Sure they use Flash ads, but those come directly from agencies. AI needs a lot of help just with proofreading... (WTF is "Pixar rafted each frame"? ) They certainly are not going to set any positive precedence with their lack of digital publishing acumen.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #59 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Ridiculous by whose standards? A lot of people are very happy with the 16 GB system. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

As for the price, the market appears to be content with the price difference since plenty of iPads are sold at all sizes. First, you don't know what the cost is (Flash memory is in tight supply now). More importantly, the price is determined by the market, not by manufacturing costs.

Don't get upset so easily. I never said it's bad. My statement was general, that during times when people find 1TB drives adequate, 16GB seems out of place, especially for a media device. Maybe people buy the 16GB, because the others with more storage are too expensive? People might actually be happier with more than 16GB, just can't afford it.
For example, if you swap your preinstalled HD in a MacBook Pro for a 128GB SSD, Apple charges you $240. In relation that's much less than $200 from 16GB to 64GB flash.
post #60 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

But no compromise at all may lead to fanaticism.

It is wisdom when one knows when to stand and when to agree to a compromise.

CGC

Yes, and this is definitely one of those times when it's wise for Apple to stand.
post #61 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by philbutler View Post

Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.

We should encourage Apple to provide the periodical platform (i.e. Magazine Rack) and magazine/newspaper publishers to use it.

I'll get off my soapbox now...

Phil

All good comments Phil, and I agree about saving trees. There is another aspect too...all the waste of energy to 'pick-up,' transport and recycle the unsold magazines every month.

I presently get a whole host of magazines and newspapers and I make sure to recycle all of them!

I did have Zino on my iMac but found it a bit annoying to have to zoom and scroll. It wasn't quite right. The iPad form looks to be a lot better.

Best
post #62 of 180
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.

Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.

Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...

• interactivity
• Games....
• media, music, VIDEO....

• the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.

if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.

The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
post #63 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.

I downloaded Wired today. With all the interactive, and video content in it, I can see why it's 500MB. Pubs/Apps like Wired will be the reason why the iPad would need more storage space.

As for Wired app itself... THIS IS WHAT A DIGITAL MAGAZINE SHOULD BE, unlike the other digital mags out there which are basically just cut and paste version of their sister paper versions.

I won't be purchasing Wired again on the iPad until they start a subscription option (discounted I would assume as in the paper subscriptions) which they said they'll start doing in the fall.
post #64 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

Don't get upset so easily. I never said it's bad.

You most certainly did. You said that 16 GB was ridiculous. For most people who speak English, that means bad. Don't go changing your story.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

My statement was general, that during times when people find 1TB drives adequate, 16GB seems out of place, especially for a media device. Maybe people buy the 16GB, because the others with more storage are too expensive? People might actually be happier with more than 16GB, just can't afford it.

So your point is that no one explained to you that hard disks and Flash memory cost different amounts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

For example, if you swap your preinstalled HD in a MacBook Pro for a 128GB SSD, Apple charges you $240. In relation that's much less than $200 from 16GB to 64GB flash.

Oh, I see that yoU DO realize that Flash costs more than hard disks. So why were you going on about 1 TB hard drives? The MBP SSD is irrelevant, anyway. First, you have no way of knowing whether Apple's cost for the memory in a MBP is higher or lower than the memory in an iPad. They're not quite the same thing. More importantly, as I tried to explain to you, selling prices are not determined by component costs - (at least successful companies don't do it that way). You figure out what the market will pay for something and THAT sets the price. And the market appears to be paying for 64GB iPads, so the price is not too high, by definition.
"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 #65 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I call panic.

Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?

I call panic.

Wrong again, bro.
post #66 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.

Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.

Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...

• interactivity
• Games....
• media, music, VIDEO....

• the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.

if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.

The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.

A bit harsh, Joseph...but good points. You're right. I did not consider the time and effort to produce a truly interactive version of a magazine as opposed to a simple PDF version...I was looking fwd to replacing my printed mag. subs. with digital versions. If only for the ability to comment on articles with other readers.

But, as an example, I have a Foreign Affairs print subscription for $12/year and yet it would be very difficult to justify changing to a digital version for roughly 5 times the price...

Best
post #67 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.

Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.

Well if we don't compare the iPad version of Wired magazine to the print version of Wired magazine, what should we compare it to? Would it be any more logical to compare it to the cost of a new car? Or the cost of a Big Mac? Or the cost of World of Warcraft, for that matter? Obviously, the comparison of the web version to the print version is the only logical starting point. You can argue that one has greater value than the other for various reasons, but to argue that they're not even comparable is just silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...

interactivity
Games....
media, music, VIDEO....

the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.

That's nice, but what you're hearing from people here is that none of that adds enough value to justify the price. When I buy a magazine, I'm not interested in video, games, media, or a foot massage. I want the magazine's content.

Furthermore, your argument doesn't apply across the board. People are complaining about Wired's price because everyone seems to be doing the same thing. The iPad version of Pop Sci or National Geographic doesn't offer anything that the print version doesn't offer - but it's several times more expensive. It's that mentality that people are rebelling against. If a magazine publisher wants to sell a more feature-rich version for more money, that's their right, but they'd better be able to convince readers that the extra content is worth 3-4 times more than the print version. So far, no one has made a convincing case for that.
"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 #68 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post

I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.

Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.

Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...

interactivity
Games....
media, music, VIDEO....

the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.

if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.

The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.

Partially agree with you. I downloaded Wired and I can say based on what I've seen, they spent a lot of time and money on it. The Wired APP IS NOT A PDF VERSION OF THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. I can understand the price b!tching on supposedly "digital" magazines that are nothing more than pdf versions (GQ, Vanity Fair, Time) but Wired's is nothing like other digital magazines out there.

WIRED on the iPad WILL BE THE DIGITAL MAGAZINE THAT OTHERS WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST.

But all that said, $5 a month is $5. That's a meal or two for a lot of people. But people at Wired and Conde Nast are saying subscriptions to their digital mags are coming this fall. Popular Science and Time will be combining their print and digital subscriptions also. In the end I think it'll all work out for everyone.
post #69 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That is silly logic.

Apple can rule out an entire class of crappy software by restricting development tools. They know from experience that there's nearly zero chance of a good app that's been ported while if the app is written natively, there's at least a chance that it will be good - and then they can go through them one by one.

So, they've simply ruled out the groups of apps that have zero chance of success


I call bullshit.

Your analysis depends on every game developed in Unity having "nearly zero chance of [being] a good app", and every one of the Unity games "hav[ing] zero chance of success".

That is demonstrably untrue, so your analysis fails.

The new rule cannot be justified by any desire of Apple's to carry only "good app[s]".
post #70 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by philbutler View Post

Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.

....

Phil

One additional thought to my previous post - Apple could give/sell article stats back to the publishers. Wouldn't it be nice to have the publishers be able to get feedback as to which articles are rated higher/read more - making it a win-win for the readers as well.
post #71 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.

Some may be crap... the buyers will decide! The important things to Apple are:
-- they provide a consistent UEX
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
-- they are not offensive to Apple's target audience

You might not like the iFart class apps, but some do-- kinda' like those prank handshake buzzers people buy at magic/trick stores.

You may not like Tic Tac Toe class apps-- but parents like them for their tots.

My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!

If you have a successful market, you, likely, cater to a variety of needs and tastes!

One man's meat...

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #72 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.



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.



#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.

+++ Well said!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #73 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Wrong again, bro.

Well, I just wanted to share in your hysteria, for a moment.
post #74 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Partially agree with you. I downloaded Wired and I can say based on what I've seen, they spent a lot of time and money on it. The Wired APP IS NOT A PDF VERSION OF THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. I can understand the price b!tching on supposedly "digital" magazines that are nothing more than pdf versions (GQ, Vanity Fair, Time) but Wired's is nothing like other digital magazines out there.

WIRED on the iPad WILL BE THE DIGITAL MAGAZINE THAT OTHERS WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST.

But all that said, $5 a month is $5. That's a meal or two for a lot of people. But people at Wired and Conde Nast are saying subscriptions to their digital mags are coming this fall. Popular Science and Time will be combining their print and digital subscriptions also. In the end I think it'll all work out for everyone.

I agree somewhat with you but five bucks is still a steep price for a digital magazine.

Also, ... does it have advertisements? If it has advertisements, then anything more than zero is a waste of your money. The trouble is, the public has already been convinced ages ago that it's okay to pay a very high price for a magazine (which typically has far less content than other printed media), even if it contains more than 50% advertising.

So as bad a deal as these digital magazines are, they will likely succeed simply because the fools have already been corralled. As long as nit-wits will pay huge amounts of money for what are essentially glossy advertisements with a trifle of "filler articles" (and here I'm mostly talking about fashion magazines), digital mags should do okay.

What would be *more* interesting though, is if someone actually used the new format to do something revolutionary, instead of just propagating the same old schlock in digital form and raping the customers as they are used to doing.
post #75 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

You can call whatever you like but it's only showing a logical fallacy. The fact that some native app developers aren't very good at their jobs has nothing to do with Apple not wanting developers to use tools that restrict them from fully taking advantage of Cocoa. See the difference:

.


You may be correct, but that was not the point I was responding to.

I responded to the contention that "Apple's reluctance [is] to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms."

I pointed out that Apple's main business (or at least, a huge chunk of its business) at the App Store is to sell mediocre software.

This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
post #76 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.

Apps created with third party tools cannot use the native iAd tools Apple wants to leverage.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #77 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

You may be correct, but that was not the point I was responding to.

I responded to the contention that "Apple's reluctance [is] to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms."

I pointed out that Apple's main business (or at least, a huge chunk of its business) at the App Store is to sell mediocre software.

This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.

Yes, but at least with Objective-C apps, quality is in the hands of the developer and Apple, not a third party with other, possibly contrary objectives.

There is no valid argument against this point.
post #78 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffe View Post

Can they do anything right? First they get lambasted for having an approval process whereby it's clearly possible to have your app rejected, then they get this sort of comment because they aren't being *more* prescriptive of what apps are available...

I call hypocrisy


Apple can sell, or choose not to sell, anything it wants, for all I care.

My comment was that they accept and sell mediocre software all day, every day, and so it is unlikely that their new prohibitions are aimed at preventing mediocre software. I find it more likely that the new prohibitions have other aims.

My comments have nothing to do with the overall quality of the App Store, or what Apple should or should not do. My comments relate to a suggested motivation, which seems quite unlikely to be a valid explanation, given the factor I identified.
post #79 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
.

Good for you Dick! That warms my heart!

I used to get the school workbooks sold in grocery stores (way before computers were popular) and a set of 'flavored' magic markers and do the exercises with my daughter as part of her bedtime regimen. During the summer, when she was going into 2nd grade, I would do the 2nd grade workbooks just in the hopes of exposing her to the subjects she would be doing in the upcoming year.

She's now in her second year of Med School on the Dean's List! And won a triathlon!

Best

Edit: A little off topic, sorry!
post #80 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Some may be crap... the buyers will decide! The important things to Apple are:
-- they provide a consistent UEX
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
-- they are not offensive to Apple's target audience

You might not like the iFart class apps, but some do-- kinda' like those prank handshake buzzers people buy at magic/trick stores.

You may not like Tic Tac Toe class apps-- but parents like them for their tots.

My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!

If you have a successful market, you, likely, cater to a variety of needs and tastes!

One man's meat...

.

I agree that as an argument for why Flash compiled apps should be allowed, that the quality of the other apps in the store is somewhat irrelevant, but the original poster has a point in that there is a lot of garbage in the app store, and it would be relatively easy for Apple to remove it. The reasons they don't do this, are more likely related to having a large number of apps to quote, than they are anything to do with customer satisfaction, fairness, or logic.

For instance:

- iBooks aside, there is no reason at all to accept apps that are actually books. A huge number of "apps" are actually crappy one-off books, guides, how-to's etc. Books are books and these just shouldn't be there. Especially now Apple and other publishers are selling books. Remove those and you are removing absolutely huge numbers of "apps" from the store.

- Many so-called "apps" are just pointers to websites or online concerns. There are wallpaper apps that just send you to a website to pick wallpapers. There are apps for websites that have no functionality but simply act as portals or advertisements for said websites. You could remove many thousands of apps if you disallowed such things, and itw would be entirely reasonable to do so.

- Many, many apps are apps that would be much better if they were web-apps. The functionality is that of a web app, the basic design is that of a web app and the fact that it's "native" adds nothing at all in terms of speed, design, utility etc. At the same time web-apps are hard to find. If Apple instead took each one of these submissions and sent a note back saying "make it a web app" we would all be better off. this again would remove thousands and thousands of apps in the store.

I'm not sure what the current number of apps is because I don't care, but if it was 100,000 it seems likely to me that about 60,000 "crap apps" could be removed in this way. The app store would be better off, the customers would be better off, the developers would be better off in the long run and you'd actually be able to find something for a change.

The only reason Apple doesn't do this IMO is they want that big big number on the stage.

Edit: the other reason is that everyone would call them "Nazis" if they started telling the developers that their apps are not good enough. So it's the developers themselves and the stupid tech blogs crying about "freedom" that are half the reason why the app store is filled with junk.
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