or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad

post #1 of 117
Thread Starter 
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.

Condé Nast designs its paper magazines using Adobe's InDesign, so it seemed like a natural progression to output its InDesign page layout into Adobe's companion Flash Professional app to generate Flash content that could be viewed on mobile devices.

That was the company's digital strategy before Apple launched iPad, and was reiterated at the going plan right up to and even after Apple outlined that the iPhone App Store wouldn't support code-generated apps exported by Flash Professional.

A failed Flash strategy

The other problem: there really aren't any popular mobile devices that display Flash. Adobe is just now getting around to releasing its beta version of a Flash Player for smartphones, but it currently only works on Android, a platform that doesn't sell lots of paid content, and only on a small subset of the newest Android devices that are fast enough to run it.

Most tablets, like HP's Slate PC that was discontinued in the wake of iPad, are designed to use Windows 7, but while that operating system supports Flash as a web browser plugin just like desktop PCs, it hasn't found any interest among users when installed on tablet devices.

The only successful tablet is currently the iPad, which like the iPhone and iPod touch has never supported Flash because Adobe has never released a suitable Flash Player for the iPhone OS in its last three years of its existence.

Too late

At this point, Apple has hitched its wagons to HTML5 for dynamic content, and won't be supporting Flash until Adobe's platform develops into something that works really well on mobiles and customers start demanding Flash playback as a feature.

Unfortunately for Adobe, that's unlikely to ever happen because the iPhone OS now makes up such a large and conspicuous chunk of the smartphone, media player, and tablet markets that content developers are now rethinking how to publish their content in a format that can be viewed by Apple's influential users.

Web developers sensitive to Apple's affluent demographic have already begun removing Flash from their websites, from Carnival cruise lines to the Virgin America airline. But rather than anticipating this trend, Condé Nast forged ahead with Adobe on a Flash-centric publishing partnership, only to find out, too late, that Adobe's backup plan for automatically generating native iPhone apps from Flash Professional wouldn't meet with Apple's App Store approval.

In order for Condé Nast to ship an iPhone OS app for iPad, it would need to build the app using Apple's development tools, not Adobe's middleware solution.

Adobe's Plan C: Objective-C

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.

The result was that Adobe could claim relevance as an essential link in the publisher chain, and Condé Nast could sell its magazine published as an iPad app without too much extra work. The downside is that there's nothing really interesting or novel about the iPad version of Wired, apart from the fact that Adobe's workaround results in a huge "app" that weighs in at around 500MB.

Adobe's solution to publishing digital content on iPad is a lot like its strategy for delivering Creative Suite content on the web: cut up Photoshop and InDesign designer's print pages into large image files fit into an HTML table. That creates a website that looks exactly like the existing print work, but which doesn't really look (or act) like a website.

"Something wrong and something very lazy and/or desperate"

A designer who examined the Wired app reports "each Wired issue is actually a bunch of XML files that lay out a bunch of images. And by 'a bunch of images' I mean 4,109 images weighing in at 397MB."

His investigation, published on the InterfaceLab blog, notes that "each full page is a giant image there are actually two images for each page: one for landscape and one for portrait mode. Yes, Im laughing on the inside too. There is no text or HTML, just one gigantic image. The 'interactive' pieces where you can slide your finger to animate it are just a series of JPG files. When you press play on the audio file and see the progress meter animate? A series of PNG files.

"Something is wrong with this picture. Something wrong and something very lazy and/or desperate," he added.

The Adobe viewer app, hailed in the company's press release as "a new digital viewer technology that enables print publishers to bring stunning digital versions of their magazines to life," is actually not too far removed from a CD-ROM from the 90's says the author of the report.

Adobe still pleased with its work

David Burkett, Adobe's vice president and general manager for Creative Solutions, wrote in the company's press release that "Adobes work with Wired has resulted in a digital magazine format that creates an immersive experience, allowing a publications unique content, look and feel and advertising to stand out in the digital realm.

"We aim to make our digital viewer software available to all publishers soon and plan to deliver versions that work across multiple hardware platforms. Its safe to say that if you are already working in InDesign CS5, youll be well on your way to producing a beautiful digital version of your publication."

Adobe touts its app as "new digital viewer technology" which enables "readers to experience video content, slide-shows, 360 degree images and rotate content in vertical and horizontal modes," and notes that the Wired Reader "goes several steps further, taking advantage of the tablet form factor and enabling readers to explore magazine content using touch gestures, including a zoomed-out browse mode, to see the content of the issue at a glance. Readers are able to experience the design fidelity of a print magazine, with the dynamic interactivity of digital media."

What the Wired Reader does not do is present content that isn't already available on the Wired website. Or allow users to change font sizes or typefaces, the way Apple's iBooks app does for digital books (or as standard web browsers do). There's also no really interesting interactivity features, nor even the ability to download newer or archived issues of the magazine as they become available via Apple's in-app purchasing feature.

It's solely a digital version of the print artwork, which is precisely what Flash was intended to deliver for print publishers on the web: a way to generate content to sell digitally without doing much work or taking on any risk in creating something new.

Condé Nast's other publications, GQ and Vanity Fair, are similarly expected to use the same model for bringing their magazines to iPad. One former employee of Condé Nast noted that this may be the case, not just out of laziness, but also because the publisher wants to be able to count digital editions as part of its distribution numbers mixed in with physical magazine sales for advertising purposes. Making them essentially the same thing helps in that regard.

Magazines in HTML5

Not all publishers are sold on cranking out the most elementary electronic versions of their paper magazines. At Google's I/O conference, Sports Illustrated demonstrated an HTML5 version of its work that marks up sections and articles using new structure elements and adds drag and drop navigation features (for creating bookmarks of embedded media such as video clips), while also taking advantage of Web Workers and other features of HTML5 that makes the content significant faster than rendering objects in plain JavaScript or Flash.

The digital publication, "in beta," also presented embedded animated visualizations based on a live survey, integration with Google Maps, and even rich, immersive advertising similar to the iAd program Apple demonstrated for iPhone OS 4 (as shown in the video below).

Despite a variety of interesting features in the demo, it did not appear to include any special ability to increase font sizes or change font face outside of the browser itself. That makes it somewhat questionable why magazine publishers don't simply sell their periodicals as iBooks on Apple's platform, which already supports rich content in an open format that publishers can also sell in competing digital venues.


post #2 of 117
The CD-Rom analogy is a correct one. Remember how things used to be delivered on CDs? Although there's element of interactivity with the magazine, the size pretty much gives it away and there people thought it is so readers could read it offline... Never thought it is just a big image file (two incidentally, one for each orientation)

I only read Wired for it's odd content and wouldn't think I would buy another (Wired app) if I could help it. Especially since I could just read the paper version at my local newsagent/bookstore (read WH Smith).
post #3 of 117
Great big images? Surely if they're going to take such a brute force approach, great big PDFs would be almost as easy but save a lot of data.
post #4 of 117
Who the hell reads that god awful sensationalist tech tabloid anyway?

It got relegated to my 'full of shit' news pile years ago.
post #5 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Who the hell reads that god awful sensationalist tech tabloid anyway?

It got relegated to my 'full of shit' news pile years ago.

conde nasty
post #6 of 117
Forget html5, who cares (just because Jobs say so?!?)

Still NO 64 bit support for creative suite (only PS) still no 64 bit flash plugin and so on... x64 is more important than some html standard that won't even be around long (if it catches on at all).
post #7 of 117
Trust me, the Vanity Fair issue is even more hideous than the Wired issue. These guys are COMPLETELY out of their frickin minds. Some people will purchase the first issues just to see what they're like, but they won't be back again at the current price-points.
post #8 of 117
Seems like Apple needs to release some pro-level html5 authoring tools.
post #9 of 117
Thanks for highlighting the difference in the technical approach taken by Adobe / WIRED vs Sports Illustrated.

This is an interesting comment by The Wonder Factory, the folks who did the HTML5 prototype for SI:
Quote:
Every article uses the new HTML5 elements for structure: section, article, aside, et al. We're also using drag and drop (both built-in and custom), geolocation, web workers, video, app cache, and a lot of neat tricks to speed everything up. The app performs significantly faster in HTML5 because we don't have to rely on Javascript to animate objects or Flash to embed beautiful typography.

Also, by using HTML5, content is searchable, re-purposable, and can integrate live data in addition to static content.
post #10 of 117
Sounds like adobe wasn't prepared and this was the best they could do in a week. I can't image this content wouldn't be vector based in the future. I would have assumed they used pdf to get it out the door quick... but whatever.
post #11 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

Seems like Apple needs to release some pro-level html5 authoring tools.

Agreed!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #12 of 117
At least they finally got an article right. Adobe never released a version of Flash for mobile devices, so mobile Flash wasn't even an option. It's nice to see someone finally placing the blame where it belongs instead of simply blaming Apple.

Of course, you have to wonder about Conde Nast:
"Condé Nast designs its paper magazines using Adobe's InDesign, so it seemed like a natural progression to output its InDesign page layout into Adobe's companion Flash Professional app to generate Flash content that could be viewed on mobile devices. "

it has been 3 years since Apple released the iPhone. It has been widely known for most of that time that NO mobile devices support Flash and even Adobe's promises suggest that only a tiny portion would ever support Flash.

Why did it take Conde Nast so long to realize that Flash wasn't an option? They apparently woke up last week and said "oops, no Flash" rather than taking the time to plan properly.
"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 #13 of 117
The 'experts' at Wired didn't anticipate that iPad wouldn't use flash?!? Really?? Three years of flash-free iPhone and still no clue? I don't buy it. Is it possible that CNaste thought they could 'muscle' it onto the iPad? That they thought iPad would be more dependent on their content than they would depend on iPad? Ironic, funny, sad... I'm not sure what the proper reaction should be.
Adobe is done. I hope Wired improves. Whether you like the magazine or not, it was one of the more anticipated periodicals promised for iPad. Years down the road, we may be looking back at this as 'the' example of what went right and what went wrong.
post #14 of 117
I was excited to finally see a Conde Nast magazine available for the iPad so I purchased it. Thought something must be wrong with my wifi connection when I noticed there was little download progress. A while later..... The Wired icon appeared on my screen. This is it? I thought. Really felt and looked like big digital image files. I was shock to learn that my wifi connection was working perfectly but the Wired issue was half a gig big. Something is wrong with this, where is the advantage over buying a print copy? Once again Adobe and it's 90's technology is cock blocking the future. Thanks Adobe, (sarcasm)
post #15 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

Seems like Apple needs to release some pro-level html5 authoring tools.

Please someone if not Apple
post #16 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Who the hell reads that god awful sensationalist tech tabloid anyway?

It got relegated to my 'full of shit' news pile years ago.

Me too one of the most bs tech rags. And worst than most o them because like you said it's sensationalist and vapid while professing it's self importance. Always a bad combination...

Btw for a rag that is supposed to be about foresight (.com foresight for example. ) they've been caught with their pants down once more. And we mean about really rudimentary things here...
post #17 of 117
What I have discovered with many sites and publication that are wrapped in an app, is that they dont support many multitouch gestures, specifically pinch and/or tap zoom, or if they do its an unreadable enlargement of an image. I hope that this quick and dirty solution does not become the trend as it will destroy the experience of using an ipad.
post #18 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

Sounds like adobe wasn't prepared and this was the best they could do in a week. I can't image this content wouldn't be vector based in the future. I would have assumed they used pdf to get it out the door quick... but whatever.

I would have assumed PDF would have been a more suitable platform, as well. Heck its even Adobe technology. Maybe Adobe needs to work with Apple to expand the functionality of the PDF reader on the iPad and make it a more viable platform for publishers, if they seriously want to hold on to part of the pie.
post #19 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by osinl View Post

What I have discovered with many sites and publication that are wrapped in an app, is that they dont support many multitouch gestures, specifically pinch and/or tap zoom, or if they do its an unreadable enlargement of an image. I hope that this quick and dirty solution does not become the trend as it will destroy the experience of using an ipad.

This Flash in sheep's clothing approach has got to be a one-off attempt.

Condé Nast would be crazy to release another issue, or another Magazine using this tool-- yielding this result.

I suspect that the Wired app's popularity was caused by people looking to see the future of Print for the iPad era.

They, didn't deliver!

I would like to see the next iPad magazine* offered as a Lite (free version) with full function/navigation, a few articles pages, a few ads... and the option to in-app purchase the full version. And, especially a "customer feedback" channel to encourage the Consumer to tell the Publisher, what he expects, likes and dislikes about the magazine!

*regardless of publisher, Title, or tools used.

IMO, it will take more than a pretty cover, a famous reputation, and even good articles to consistently sell magazines in the iPad era!


There's an opportunity here! No one expects you (the publisher) to get it 100% right out of the gate.

But, this, Wired app, is going in the wrong direction!


It is all about the experience, stupid!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #20 of 117
Downloaded and paid 4.99 for a large 500MB image file. I can safely say I'm a sucker.
With the AT&T data cap @ 2GB...a 500MB + file size for a e-mag will add up quickly if you are heavy mag/book reader. I understand deadlines are important, but I hope this is not going to be a trend. Otherwise, e-mags don't have much of a future for me.
post #21 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lxg View Post

Downloaded and paid 4.99 for a large 500MB image file. I can safely say I'm a sucker.
With the AT&T data cap @ 2GB...a 500MB + file size for a e-mag will add up quickly if you are heavy mag/book reader. I understand deadlines are important, but I hope this is not going to be a trend. Otherwise, e-mags don't have much of a future for me.

I don't like that argument given the fact that you aren't even allowed to download apps of that size over 3G... A magazine shouldn't be that large, but you will be downloading it over WiFi, not 3G.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #22 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMeMine View Post

The 'experts' at Wired didn't anticipate that iPad wouldn't use flash?!? Really?? Three years of flash-free iPhone and still no clue? I don't buy it. Is it possible that CNaste thought they could 'muscle' it onto the iPad? That they thought iPad would be more dependent on their content than they would depend on iPad? Ironic, funny, sad... I'm not sure what the proper reaction should be. ...

It would seem that someone at Adobe seriously misled the 'experts' at Wired, who do seem pretty clueless in their own right.
post #23 of 117
I don't get this.. is this just all about Adobe not having to admit Apple was right?

I mean what's wrong with adobe just saying, "hey Flash is a fantastic product, but it looks like apple is right in saying it just isn't the right fit for mobile devices." It's not like they would be admitting they built a crap product.. Flash is a great product, it was simply NEVER meant for a mobile platform because the mobile platform was non-existant when flash was created!!

From what I read in his letter that's what steve jobs was trying to say too. Flash was a great product for what it was created for, but it didn't transition well to iPhone OS because it wasn't built for a mobile platform. They gave them 3 years to come up with something new, but they didn't so apple is now moving on.

Adobe seems to be trying as hard as they possibly can to turn this into an attack on Flash to avoid doing something that, as a companies who creates new technology, they CAN do well, which is create good products!! It just seems like such a missed oportunity on their part. I gaurentee if they create something new that oporates well on mobile OS, apple would allow it on their products.
post #24 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

... 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. ...

Sounds like you (and Wired and Adobe) are still stuck in the old paradigm. That explains why it's incomprehensible to you.
post #25 of 117
I can't help but wonder given the deep analysis and inside information presented here what sources that AppleInsider used to glean all of this?

The sad problem with AppleInsider and Daniel Eran Dilger is that you have lost ALL objectivity. Apple has told you Adobe is bad, so Adobe is bad. Apple told you Flash was bad, it's the worst thing ever. When Apple decides that HTML5 no longer suits its business purpose, will you slam that as well then?

Please remember that Mr. Dilger is NOT a journalist. He's a blogger with deep-Apple connections and a bunch of ill-informed opinions that he spouts down as truth. If you consider, he's not too unlike Rush Limbaugh. Makes for great entertainment but not for truthful reporting.

Please, Mr. Dilger. Can you at least fact-check your "journalism" or minimally list your sources?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.

Condé Nast designs its paper magazines using Adobe's InDesign, so it seemed like a natural progression to output its InDesign page layout into Adobe's companion Flash Professional app to generate Flash content that could be viewed on mobile devices.

That was the company's digital strategy before Apple launched iPad, and was reiterated at the going plan right up to and even after Apple outlined that the iPhone App Store wouldn't support code-generated apps exported by Flash Professional.

A failed Flash strategy

The other problem: there really aren't any popular mobile devices that display Flash. Adobe is just now getting around to releasing its beta version of a Flash Player for smartphones, but it currently only works on Android, a platform that doesn't sell lots of paid content, and only on a small subset of the newest Android devices that are fast enough to run it.

Most tablets, like HP's Slate PC that was discontinued in the wake of iPad, are designed to use Windows 7, but while that operating system supports Flash as a web browser plugin just like desktop PCs, it hasn't found any interest among users when installed on tablet devices.

The only successful tablet is currently the iPad, which like the iPhone and iPod touch has never supported Flash because Adobe has never released a suitable Flash Player for the iPhone OS in its last three years of its existence.

Too late

At this point, Apple has hitched its wagons to HTML5 for dynamic content, and won't be supporting Flash until Adobe's platform develops into something that works really well on mobiles and customers start demanding Flash playback as a feature.

Unfortunately for Adobe, that's unlikely to ever happen because the iPhone OS now makes up such a large and conspicuous chunk of the smartphone, media player, and tablet markets that content developers are now rethinking how to publish their content in a format that can be viewed by Apple's influential users.

Web developers sensitive to Apple's affluent demographic have already begun removing Flash from their websites, from Carnival cruise lines to the Virgin America airline. But rather than anticipating this trend, Condé Nast forged ahead with Adobe on a Flash-centric publishing partnership, only to find out, too late, that Adobe's backup plan for automatically generating native iPhone apps from Flash Professional wouldn't meet with Apple's App Store approval.

In order for Condé Nast to ship an iPhone OS app for iPad, it would need to build the app using Apple's development tools, not Adobe's middleware solution.

Adobe's Plan C: Objective-C

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.

The result was that Adobe could claim relevance as an essential link in the publisher chain, and Condé Nast could sell its magazine published as an iPad app without too much extra work. The downside is that there's nothing really interesting or novel about the iPad version of Wired, apart from the fact that Adobe's workaround results in a huge "app" that weighs in at around 500MB.

Adobe's solution to publishing digital content on iPad is a lot like its strategy for delivering Creative Suite content on the web: cut up Photoshop and InDesign designer's print pages into large image files fit into an HTML table. That creates a website that looks exactly like the existing print work, but which doesn't really look (or act) like a website.

"Something wrong and something very lazy and/or desperate"

A designer who examined the Wired app reports "each Wired issue is actually a bunch of XML files that lay out a bunch of images. And by 'a bunch of images' I mean 4,109 images weighing in at 397MB."

His investigation, published on the InterfaceLab blog, notes that "each full page is a giant image there are actually two images for each page: one for landscape and one for portrait mode. Yes, Im laughing on the inside too. There is no text or HTML, just one gigantic image. The 'interactive' pieces where you can slide your finger to animate it are just a series of JPG files. When you press play on the audio file and see the progress meter animate? A series of PNG files.

"Something is wrong with this picture. Something wrong and something very lazy and/or desperate," he added.

The Adobe viewer app, hailed in the company's press release as "a new digital viewer technology that enables print publishers to bring stunning digital versions of their magazines to life," is actually not too far removed from a CD-ROM from the 90's says the author of the report.

Adobe still pleased with its work

David Burkett, Adobe's vice president and general manager for Creative Solutions, wrote in the company's press release that "Adobes work with Wired has resulted in a digital magazine format that creates an immersive experience, allowing a publications unique content, look and feel and advertising to stand out in the digital realm.

"We aim to make our digital viewer software available to all publishers soon and plan to deliver versions that work across multiple hardware platforms. Its safe to say that if you are already working in InDesign CS5, youll be well on your way to producing a beautiful digital version of your publication."

Adobe touts its app as "new digital viewer technology" which enables "readers to experience video content, slide-shows, 360 degree images and rotate content in vertical and horizontal modes," and notes that the Wired Reader "goes several steps further, taking advantage of the tablet form factor and enabling readers to explore magazine content using touch gestures, including a zoomed-out browse mode, to see the content of the issue at a glance. Readers are able to experience the design fidelity of a print magazine, with the dynamic interactivity of digital media."

What the Wired Reader does not do is present content that isn't already available on the Wired website. Or allow users to change font sizes or typefaces, the way Apple's iBooks app does for digital books (or as standard web browsers do). There's also no really interesting interactivity features, nor even the ability to download newer or archived issues of the magazine as they become available via Apple's in-app purchasing feature.

It's solely a digital version of the print artwork, which is precisely what Flash was intended to deliver for print publishers on the web: a way to generate content to sell digitally without doing much work or taking on any risk in creating something new.

Condé Nast's other publications, GQ and Vanity Fair, are similarly expected to use the same model for bringing their magazines to iPad. One former employee of Condé Nast noted that this may be the case, not just out of laziness, but also because the publisher wants to be able to count digital editions as part of its distribution numbers mixed in with physical magazine sales for advertising purposes. Making them essentially the same thing helps in that regard.

Magazines in HTML5

Not all publishers are sold on cranking out the most elementary electronic versions of their paper magazines. At Google's I/O conference, Sports Illustrated demonstrated an HTML5 version of its work that marks up sections and articles using new structure elements and adds drag and drop navigation features (for creating bookmarks of embedded media such as video clips), while also taking advantage of Web Workers and other features of HTML5 that makes the content significant faster than rendering objects in plain JavaScript or Flash.

The digital publication, "in beta," also presented embedded animated visualizations based on a live survey, integration with Google Maps, and even rich, immersive advertising similar to the iAd program Apple demonstrated for iPhone OS 4 (as shown in the video below).

Despite a variety of interesting features in the demo, it did not appear to include any special ability to increase font sizes or change font face outside of the browser itself. That makes it somewhat questionable why magazine publishers don't simply sell their periodicals as iBooks on Apple's platform, which already supports rich content in an open format that publishers can also sell in competing digital venues.


post #26 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Sounds like you (and Wired and Adobe) are still stuck in the old paradigm. That explains why it's incomprehensible to you.

Which old paradigm is that? Designing and publishing content for consumers?
post #27 of 117
I just wish all the criticism about not being able to change font size was applied by the author to its own blog RDM. It is a pain to use that site on the iPhone.
post #28 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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.


Yeah Wired has such subtle design with its orange on black text and interwoven fonts ad absurdum. But seriously, the problem design wonks have with the web is their own problem. Your customers aren't interested in your design skills, they're looking for content. If that weren't the case, you'd be selling your fancy designs, and the web would be failing to find readers.

What people like you need to grasp is that people go to content sources for information, not to marvel at your design skills. So stop firing your writing staff and fire some of the queens sitting in front of Photoshop and InDesign and just deliver high quality content, like society enjoyed before the brief period of the 90s when real content was overshadowed by egregious design.

Also, get informed about HTML. Sure, it's not intended to be a pixel perfect representation of print content, but that's why its useful, accessible (ever heard of disabilities or old eyes?) flexible and does not need some massive processor to render as you so idiotically suggested.
post #29 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

Forget html5, who cares (just because Jobs say so?!?)

Still NO 64 bit support for creative suite (only PS) still no 64 bit flash plugin and so on... x64 is more important than some html standard that won't even be around long (if it catches on at all).

sadly, you are mistaken about html5. i agree with you about adobe and 64-bit. should have happened with cs4, probably won't happen until cs8 or 9.

my beef with flash is that adobe's own product, flash plug-in, doesn't even workconsistently using their own product to produce content.
post #30 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Meaney View Post

I can't help but wonder given the deep analysis and inside information presented here what sources that AppleInsider used to glean all of this?

The sad problem with AppleInsider and Daniel Eran Dilger is that you have lost ALL objectivity. Apple has told you Adobe is bad, so Adobe is bad. Apple told you Flash was bad, it's the worst thing ever. When Apple decides that HTML5 no longer suits its business purpose, will you slam that as well then?

Please remember that Mr. Dilger is NOT a journalist. He's a blogger with deep-Apple connections and a bunch of ill-informed opinions that he spouts down as truth. If you consider, he's not too unlike Rush Limbaugh. Makes for great entertainment but not for truthful reporting.

Please, Mr. Dilger. Can you at least fact-check your "journalism" or minimally list your sources?

Hi Owen, welcome to the world wide web. Here, sources are presented with text signifying an attribution AND a hyperlink. That's the blue text you can click with your mouse.

Also, welcome to Apple Insider. One would expect the writers here would have "deep-Apple connections." You might also want to inform yourself about bias, as Apple the company hates Apple Insider the publication. Because they publish inside information. Ask Apple, don't just spout uninformed assumptions that you hope support your ad hominem attack.

I think this article presented both sides pretty fairly, even if its clear that Adobe's approach, in the minds of multiple tech experts, including those cited, was a slap dash of stupidity after having failed to push its Flash-Uberalles master plan.

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.
post #31 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

I just wish all the criticism about not being able to change font size was applied by the author to its own blog RDM. It is a pain to use that site on the iPhone.

How much do you pay for issues of RDM?
post #32 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

Exactly. We had a choice of a highly refined scripting engine that could have done the layout quicker/easier (with more compression). It was called Flash/Air, but Apple rejected it. So it sounds like Adobe responded with the next choice which was a native ObjectiveC application.

So you're spewing all this hate at the author for being "biased" even though you're representing Wired/Adobe without noting that you are in an extremely biased position? What a hypocrite!

Quote:
The choice was:
a) spend a fortune in a new layout engine that could handle magazines demands, but it would waste months and be unusably slow and not save what, 20% more space?
b) put up with a sub-par experience, which means magazines would just opt out completely. (They still feel their brand is 1/2 their visual representation).
c) Use image driven engine because it is faster interaction.

Seems like option C was the correct one. Which is probably why Zinio and other magazine engines made the same choice (but the article omitted that key piece of information).

How popular is Zinio? It's not, that's why it's not relevant. The fact that you can crank out a product that sucks does not mean that you have something the public wants

Quote:
I don't doubt that Adobe can and should improve the compression and encoding. But I'm glad I can read a magazine today (bloat and all), versus just drinking cool-aid on how great it will be in 5 years when HTML5 and the iPad4 hardware is really ready to do this (and reading nothing but Steve Jobs blogs in the interim).

There are plenty of iPad news sites and publications and iBooks that are already out that don't require your fantastical 4 years of development. They work great, offer real interaction, customization, great features, and aren't fellating Adobe and mourning Flash.

Also, did you get the memo that Flash Player isn't available for iPhone OS? It's not that Apple "rejected" it, its that Adobe didn't deliver it. Unless you're running a desktop OS, the only mobile OS with Flash Player is Android and its brand new beta version, which works like crap. Good luck viewing your half a gig magazine on an Android device running that.

You're welcome to express your opinions and dissent, but how about some transparency and less hypocrisy, and tone down the "you blindly love Apple" accusations when its clear you're in bed with the flaccid Adobe and making excuses for having pursued a failed strategy.
post #33 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

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?

Isn't this what the writer meant when he said they should just utilize the iBookstore till they come up with something better? Aren't iBook files only a couple mb's in size?
post #34 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStud View Post

I just wish all the criticism about not being able to change font size was applied by the author to its own blog RDM. It is a pain to use that site on the iPhone.

Appleinsider has an App.. just use that.
post #35 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer View Post

Appleinsider has an App.. just use that.

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..
post #36 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

Sure, if you ignore layout quality, font details, rip out 95% of images and almost all the interactivity, take out the sound samples, movie clips and other things, layout a magazine in a way that makes no sense to their native format (make it like a book), then they certainly could save a lot of space. But they have to give up things like design and branding that they aren't ready to do yet. You sell it to the magazines and let me know how that works for you.

But we're back to the same fundamentals: Adobe delivered what the customers/publishers wanted (and the limitations of the technology demanded). You want the publishers to deliver something else entirely (basically their website in an App), and you're blaming Adobe because the publishers disagree with you. But the other Magazine publishers solutions that don't use Adobe technology work in the same basic way that Adobe's does. Seems like your problem isn't with Adobe, but with the decisions that all of magazine publishing is making.

I suspect Wired brings in each month in advertising what Apple Insider and Dilger's blog make in about 10 years, and there might be reasons for that. 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!!!

P.S. Who designed the fundamental format used in iBooks? (Wasn't that Adobe?)

Not sure, man. Your reply kinda sounded like you though I was squaring off with you. Understandable I guess considering how most blogs go. I was genuinely asking a question and you answered it.

Thanks.
post #37 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen Meaney View Post

Which old paradigm is that? Designing and publishing content for consumers?

In a phrase, the pixel perfect paradigm.
post #38 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

(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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #39 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Denim View Post

Exactly. ...

In a paradigm shift, you either move to the new paradigm, or get left behind.
post #40 of 117
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??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad