I thought Apple has some sort of a limit about the size of each App?
Joomla, a CMS is about 1-3MB, compressed, A template company has added scripts and sample content that bloated around 10MB, compressed that becomes 30MB uncompressed. No Flash scripting and presentation used in the videos and banners, and other slideshows. And, it can be very slow if you do not have the fastest computer and connection.
Assuming the 500MB is correct, that is . If it is monthly, a year subscription of Wired would be 6000MB=6GB
. So, if you did decide to subscribe to 10 newspapers/magazines,
you would literally fillup the high end iPad storage at 64GB at the exclusion of almost everything else.
Unless SSDs become cheaper, 16GB iPads would not be the way to "consume" magazine content in the iPad.
I have perhaps more than a thousand bookmarked sites (folders within folders), view possibly a few dozen of them everyday, and perhaps hundred or so each month Ialthough the others more infrequently).
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody Hundreds of thousands of publishers
use InDesign, and I think you are going a bit over the top with these comments.
And here you are suggesting that hundreds of thousands of publishers potentially adopting the same strategy as Wired for their magazine for the iPad?
As others pointed out already, the content for mobile computing deveices must be developed so as not to simply replicate the strategy used for those viewed throught the internet or the browser.
Sure the user can remove the old copies to avoid the storage nightmare illustrated above. However, if iTunes becomes the archival for these bloats or be kept in cloud computing, it will not be very cheap for Apple, just like You Tube is very costly for Google, in terms of bandwidth usage, And we are not talking 500MB You tube videos. This is especially true if the ads in the magazine are not even owned by Apple, like Google more than likely controls all the ads in the You Tube.
I hope Apple realizes this before they create their own nightmare if hundreds of thousands of developers do follow Wired's approach,
I am not sure how much bandwidth usage would be used by the consumer shuttling those 500MB contents to their iPads from their iTunes account, if they keep on deleting them.
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
While I think it likely (since Adobe created it), that this converter is indeed a POS, let's be realistic. Any magazine that's based on large glossy full-page spreads (and most are nowadays), and has every second page as a full page advertisement (and most do nowadays), is going to end up being a huge file
simply due to all the pictures.
If each page is a 10 meg picture file and it has 30 pages, that's 300 MB right there.
Sure this is probably a crappy app, sure Apple or almost anyone could do better than the hacks at Adobe, but digital magazines are always going to be huge files.
A decent biology or medical book would become a tank or more an aircraft carrier the size of Nimitz, if they are to use 10MB static images, let alone video images.
Do not confuse printed glossy magazine images with sreen viewed images.
Unless, we are dealing with historical images that are archived, no self-respecting webdeveloper/webmaster will use 10meg (is that the same as MB?) for internet presentation. There is such thing as screen-optimized images where a 5MB image can be reduced to 100-500KB, without the viewer of 10-24" screen seeing any grains,
Also, in terms of bandthwidth usage, a concern for both Apple and the user, imagine how much bandwidth you are using if you keep on downloading 10MB advertisements and images. Your battery would love you to death.