Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad - Page 2

Dear Glockpop,

At no time did I make a personal attack on Mr. Dilger. All I asked for was attribution of his claims. For instance...

"Magazine publisher Condé Nast was so sold on Adobe's Flash platform that the company didn't even anticipate Apple's iPad wouldn't support Flash. As a result, it had to resort to a clumsy workaround from Adobe to make it into the iTunes App Store."

Who did Mr. Dilger speak with at Conde Naste that told him they didn't anticipate the iPad wouldn't support Flash? The Wired team? Conde Nast CEO? Was he present during the discussions?


"Rather than design original content for iPad or simply create a custom, standards-based website in HTML, Adobe sold Condé Nast on distributing its existing InDesign pages as large graphic files presented using a standard iPhone OS viewer app built according to Apple's rules"

Again, to whom does Mr. Dilger attribute this information? Was he there while Adobe while Adobe 'sold' Conde Nast on approach? Did he interview people at Wired or Adobe?

Without attribution the only rational conclusion is that this is Mr. Dilger's opinion and not reporting.

And finally, Glockpop, I never personally attacked anyone Mr. Dilger in my post. I just asked for attribution for his information. Unlike you, who managed to call me a 'nut' and an 'idiot' as well as the other people you degrade who don't agree with you.

Respectfully yours.

All my dumbass knows is wired's interactive magazine really opened my eyes at the possibility of the future of magazines and how we interact with them. I have a gut feeling about these kinds of things, and it tends to be correct: Interactive magazines WILL be around heavily someday as they streamline the production process.

So Wired and Adobe figured out a work-around to get their product on the iPad. similar to Zinio, i guess. its UI is limited but effective for now, and it proves two things: you don't need Adobe's Flash and you can use Adobe's In-Design. so much for "unfair business practices."

we'll see if Sports Illustrated ever turns its iPad demo into a real product. the cost of putting together the content of course is a real consideration. the Wired approach was probably relatively cheap?

the biggest problem with Wired is actually the ridiculous $5 price. the first issue sold well due to its novelty, but repeat buyers will be few at that cost. as Jobs said last night, the content owners need to price "more aggressively" to build volume sales, the dummies. well, it's their funeral.

question: how does the Marvel Comics app work? same way? it's not really interactive either.

Come on now.. your first post wasn't THAT civil :P I mean you did compare him to Rush Limbaugh.. it doesn't get much more insulting that that douche lol

Appleinsider has an App? Didn't find it in my AppStore (Germany). What is its name?

While I'm a techie and a developer, I have to say the resulting end product is very slick and gorgeous - and the end-user experience is what counts! It's not a "big image file", and straight PDF also wouldn't do the job to this level. I think it is a better end-user experience than any other format I've seen so far, including the PopSci+ app.

Navigation features (most not supported by basic pdf/book reader)
1. horizontal swipe to next article
2. vertical swipe to additional text
3. graphic scrub bar on the bottom showing complete page thumbnails
4. nice interactive animations - spinning Mars lander map, heart xray.
6. "tab" style content reveals for item reviews without scrolling
7. simple flashcard-style game interactivity
8. sound clips

And apparently relatively simple to publish from existing content. However, I hope they can do something with the size of the content. I'm sure half of that is due to the waaaay too many full page ads! There is always room for improvement, and perhaps the next issue will have time to develop exporting text/fonts overlays vs. all-images.

re-read the post you just commented on...

To answer the author's questions:

The font size cannot be enlarged because that would break the layout, unless it were enlarged along with the entire page.

The iBookstore? Aren't those books limited to the ePub format? ePub seems best suited for novels and other works with lots of text and few pictures. Presentation is not the key in ePub. So, it seems that apps are the way to go if we want a lot of interactivity.

Every thing you say (above) is true!

The problem, though, is that the Print industry is dying. The world has moved on, Print has not!

You are looking at the subject from the perspective of a Print publisher, rather from the prospective of the content consumer.

What does it matter to the consumer if the beautiful and varied fonts, and pixel-perfect representation of the magazine looks good in print? On the iPad, it looks, bad, is un-navagable, and unreadable.

If the consumers aren't buying the Print magazine, they won't buy pictures of print pages, that cost more and offer a less pleasant user experience.

Just because someone has a low IQ, doesn't make them stupid... or even dumb enough to recognize a bad deal when the see one!

.

Yes... Because what they're sellin', consumers ain't buying'

And changing a few fonts, won't get the job done!

Open your eyes, man... there's a tremendous opportunity-- if Print is agile enough to adapt to the times!

.

I have to agree with Sue Denim on all her points.

As a flash developer AND a iPhone developer working in the interactive advertising field, I was really disappointed by how one-sided this article turned out to be. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy and I'll be pushing refresh constantly this Monday like a giddy schoolgirl when Jobs debuts the new iPhone. But that doesn't mean I have to drink the kool-aide and agree with everything Dear Leader espouses.

A lot of the "missing features" like resizing text are a joke! It would entirely defeat the point of a digital magazine if you removed layout from the equation and let text flow endlessly across pages! Entire teams of designers put a ton of effort into page layout and flow to create an experience that is based on the idea of tangible magazine. If you don't like that concept, don't buy it! For those haters saying that style and art direction are a concept that is lost on them--guess what?! You can go get the entire article in a text-based, searchable version on these little tubes called The Interwebs. For FREE, no less! This digital magazine is for those who actually appreciate these aesthetic considerations.

And as a geeky tech aside: the lack of ability to embed fonts is a definite drawback to the HTML5 platform. Sure, there are methods to fake it... but right now, you can't embed fonts, which seriously limits any content producer's control of typography. We're limited to the 6 or so fonts provided with iPhone/iPad. And even if you DO choose to embed them, there are a TON of legal issues you run into when you distribute the fonts. ("Embedding" is considered by most typographers to be like giving the font away, so it ain't cheap).

As a content producer, it's incredibly frustrating when people just repeat Job's sound bytes about the joys of open-source HTML5. First of all, h.264, his favorite video codec is NOT open-source. So, all those videos you see on "HTML5-ready" websites cannot be made without paying licensing fees. Secondly, HTML5 isn't supported on the latest version of Internet Explorer, the most popular browser in the world. I know, I know... we must charge ahead on technology and not linger in the past. But, when you're a content producer who is trying to reach as large an audience as possible, we're essentially SOL until Microsoft gets its act together (and the general population starts upgrading). The amazing thing about Flash was that virtually everyone had it. Until that becomes true of HTML5, we're left creating a hodgepodge of different technologies so that every platform can view content.

Unfortunately, without the advertisers, the mag won't survive.

I personally feel that this was a great first edition. I would hope that the content increases and if the advertising formats continues as good, i.e., as found in the initial issue, I wouldn't balk at the higher ad-to-content ratio.

And for those that question WIRED/Adobe's production, perhaps they can explain why the App is getting such high Customer Ratings on the iTunes Store? With 80% rating 3 stars and over, an average of 4 stars and nearly half of the purchasers gave it 5 stars.

Perhaps it would be nice if only those that actually bought the publication where allowed to comment here as well.

It's starting to become clear, and reading this article and the comments from the Adobe faction just reinforces the point, that Adobe really does need to die to allow technology to escape the constraints they are attempting to impose on it. Their entire purpose and strategy, starting with PDF, moving on to Flash, and now the abomination known as Digital Viewer, is to piggyback print technology and thinking onto every new medium. As long as they succeed in this, there will be no innovation in content delivery (and, no, a movie with a timeline is not innovation). The Wired iPad edition demonstrates this superbly. Their entire goal was to bring their print magazine to the iPad, throw in a little hocus pocus, and declare what a remarkable achievement it is. In fact, it represents absolutely zero progress: it's just print rehashed, nothing more

Hopefully, others with more vision, more ability to think creatively, less commitment to outdated paradigms, will innovate in spite of the lure of Adobe's quick and dirty, but ultimately stifling, offerings.

I've probably gone on record in the past, or if I haven't I've at least thought, that it would be stupid for Apple to buy Adobe. But, now, I'm starting to think, if it were allowed, that Apple should buy them simply to shut them down and do the world a favor.

Case in point.

The wired app/mag is a totally un-interactive experience. Seriously if that is what they think interactivity should be, they have missed the point.

Take a look at the sports illustrated demo, Time mag ipad video or website or even the wonder factory / woodwing sites to see how interactivity should be on these types of devices. The last 2 are the guys who made the SI/time demos work via HTML5. Woodwing actually appear to sell tools specifically designed to create this kind of content.

The time app is how this type of mag should be done. HTML5 dynamic content that is highly interactive, in app purchase for new issues and a file size that's actually manageable! Here's how they made it.

Brilliant! Adobe should create their own iPad so it can use Flash and let Wired/CondeNast use InDesign and Flash, while they still know it all! Their hundreds of years of combined experience is no match for Apple's few decades on this earth. Go get em tigeress, show em how it's done!!!

I don't read the author's blog any more. I am a great Apple fan, but find him over-the-top pro-Apple and anti-MS/Google/Adobe... whomever suits his current whim. Further, while some of his research is excellent, he tends to overlook/minimize things that don't jibe with his opinion... and often cites himself for reference!


That said, you certainly can read any web site on your iPhone and pinch-zoom the page (enlarging the fonts).

I think what you are asking for is: to enlarge the font and reflow the text so that it stays within the width of the display-- so you only need to scroll in the up/down axis.

I too, would like that capability. But, I think [for web pages] it is the responsibility of the browser (Mobile Safari) to provide that capability, globally.

For the iPad it makes sense for the OS to provide content-neutral pinch zoom and pan... And for the app to provide content-intelligent text resize and reflow... as well as font selection, text color, background color, contrast/brightness. Some things look great in print... not so much on a backlit LCD display.

.

Yes, this stuff makes the Wired/Adobe effort look like a sorry joke.

It needs to be said louder:

THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.

It also needs to be said that we can safely ignore posts from Sue Denim - such anger and contempt shows us clearly that she/he is not hearing or seeing anything but the righteous and silly outrage that characterizes those who have lost the plot.

Print magazines aren't doing well.
They are NOT interactive in any way, don't have sound files, cant be magnified except by physical means such as magnifying glasses.
Print magazines are losing readership, in one sense, because they aren't IMMEDIATE. They are close to being finished.

MAYBE the iPad can save these fools by making their content available immediately, but I doubt it.
If you don't know that Flash doesn't work on mobile devices, then I guess you aren't clear on the next step.

(Dilger, of course, is quite right in his assertions - they were SOLD a pup by Adobe and some fools in their IT dept.)


More to the point, The iPad, the iPhone, the rest of us humans etc. don't need these archaic 'content' delivery 'experts' (Sue Denim is obviously one of them, yawn.)

All we need is the web, and we need it to be accessible from touch screen devices, because thats where the actual customer, the READER (remember him/her?) is going, in increasingly large numbers.
The verity of sources will, as usual, be suspect and the quality of writers, will, as always, be mixed.
So? Thats how it is with published content of any kind.

Newspapers and magazines lost the plot many years ago for a variety of reasons - in magazines case, they forgot who they were selling to and only pandered to advertisers.
The selling price of the object did and does not represent the main income.
Its possible that only advertisers read the most expensive and glossy magazines....

Maybe these mags wont make it to the iPad. So be it. We wont be losing much.
If you really want to allow high-handed content providers like Sue Denim to tell you how to see your world, then you are in danger of not seeing the big picture.

Her/His 'go get 'em tiger' comment is contemptuous of all young people who want to start something new.
That alone makes the Sue Denim diatribes irrelevant.

Makes me laugh when I see any space given to such a pathetic last wag of the tail of a Dinosaur who is sinking into the swamp of change and is NOT aware of it.

Goodbye Sue Denim - we are done with you now.

Hello new young Web world, messy and unfinished and with a chance of showing something better, allowing the great unwashed and even the little washed to have their say, their moment - GO GET THEM, TIGER!!

Maybe the reason Adobe "did nothing" was that from the beginning, Apple's developers agreement strictly forbid third-party code from appearing on the device. They took the smarter approach and developed a method to convert Flash Actionscript to Objective-C (the iPhone programming language) so that it would comply with the developers agreement. Only after Adobe finished it and apps started appearing in the app store did Apple decide that they didn't want that either. So, Apple changed the agreement this Spring to cut Adobe out again.

Learn the facts, cupcake.

What you say about Apple apps (32 bit and Carbon) is largley true.

The big mistake Apple made is tightly integrating these app (especially the FCS apps) with QuickTime.

QuickTime is the Gordian Knot that is key for all the apps you mentioned.

Here's a little history of FCS (with a little Adobe and Macromedia thrown in)-- See History:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#History


An interesting comment was made by Steve Jobs in Yesterday's "All Things D" interview, emphasis mine:


.

That's a very good idea. The Print publishers could get in the game (quickly and inexpensively) with an attractive front-end, and keep their content [mostly] intact (while exploiting some of the flexibility of the device).

Over time, as the Publishers and Consumers, both, gain experience, the app can be fleshed out to provide an enhanced user experience.

Best suggestion, so far!

.

For additional perspective have a look at the Alice app and the Marvel app...

These are not magazines but show some ways that the Print media can exploit the iPad and vice versa!

.

I mean Daniel E. Dilger blog not apple insider. They are different things

Nop, I don't mean that.

The iPhone version of the blog does not have resize font capability. In contrast, the iPhone version of AI has font resize option. Nothing to do with the pinch and zoom.

Go to the AI website on an iPhone and you'll see at the top of each article two buttons to increase or reduce the font size. Pinch and zoom does not work in these pages.

RDM does not have that option, neither allows pinch and zoom (the iphone version of the site).

The same I pay for apple insider and this allows font size change in the iPhone version of the site.

Could you post a screenshoy?

When I visit the AI web site with an iPhone 3GS (OS 4.0 beta 4) or an iPad (OS 3.2) I see no buttons to resize the fonts.

TIA

Dick


.

what i don't get is why anyone actually believed that they could use Flash in any form.

sure before we found out that the ipad was going to be iphone OS based and not Mac OSX. but they had 2 months of knowing that information.

The SDK says Objective C and I believe Javascript are the languages apps should be written in. No where does it say "or use whatever you want and slap a layer of translating code over it and that's fine too". So why did they believe that would be okay.


more to the point, Adobe says "Flash works great on mobile devices" but hasn't achieved that outcome. Yes it works on Android, sort of.

Now if they could get it working and at a level that blows away all the negatives, then it would be easier to say 'Apple is just being a big douche to make money on apps'


I don't like Sue and several of her 'go girl' pals. I think their opinions are highly biased against Apple etc. HOWEVER I will not, and do not support anyone else, telling Sue or any of them to shut up and go away. there's this thing called Free Speech and as an American I believe that all persons, even those not American should be granted that right. If anyone doesn't want to read their stuff, there's this fun little thing called an ignore button. learn to use it. Or simply just scroll right by.


And that's a major item. Adobe was creating this 'convertor' way before the ipad was in the picture with nothing to support the notion that it was going to be okay. And yet they still did it. and then basically tried to claim that because the agreement didn't say it was forbidden, they were granted approval to do it, etc. sorry but that's shoddy logic

Te AI iPhone site seems to be down at the moment. I'll try later.

.

Regarding the tradeoff of the Wired app displaying a picture of text rather than the text itself.

I was curious about the cost in memory of displaying a picture instead of just the text.

So, I created a Photoshop png image of some text.

If I display the following as text it takes 4 Bytes (5 if you include trailing space).

Hell

The following picture of the same word is:




It takes 49KB... 49KB or More than 10,000* times the amount of space!

* 1KB == 1024 Bytes


Oh, and the result looks like Hell on a LCD display... just zoom in!


Looks as if someone(s) needs to rethink their goals and development process!

.

Only for news, where the Internet can't be beat for timeliness.

I just came back from my local book store. It's one of three in my neighborhood, the most recent added last year even in the middle of the recession. It was packed, as always.

Books are more portable (who really reads 100 books at a time?), have a more intuitive interface, never need recharging, and you can't crack the screen by simply putting it into a shoulder bag with any hard objects in it.

Books will be around for a while.

Dude, what humans need is enough to eat. Only a small fraction of humanity even owns a computer of any kind at all. Half of the world goes hungry every day, and 99.9% of all school children learn with books.

Yeah, Steve is a visionary and all that, but in the here and now there's definitely a place for the sort of "archaic" content delivery you label as unnecessary. Indeed, it drives most of the world, no matter how many shiny new objects Steve Jobs asks us to buy.


"Sue" being commonly a female name, I'd go with "her".

I didn't see where she made such a comment about "all young people" as you claim, and would venture to guess she's younger than you think.

Sue's only crime is that she's not old enough to be drunk on years of drinking Apple's cider. She says what she thinks, and dares to say it here.

You may disagree with her, but it would serve your case more if you presented arguments of merit rather than mere ad hominem attacks.

I suspect that Adobe thought they could force their will [Flash] on Apple-- something like:

"if you don't allow Flash on the iPad, you will miss out on apps from the leading Magazine Publishers, like Condé Nast!"

Ironically, If Steve had backed down, Condé Nast wouldn't have any deliverable iPad app, and the full brunt of the blame would fall on Adobe.


Ya' might say: "Apple saved Adobe's [Flashy] ass!"

.

Why do you suppose they've recently invested so much lately in getting the world to doubt Flash?

I suspect we're only a few months from release....

If only Condé Nast were TechLiterate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF

As described in detail at Wikipedia.ort, here is a short list of what the PDF format supports:

Text
Fonts
Text encoding
Raster images
Vector images
Video
Audio
Transparency
AcroForms
XFA Forms
Encryption
Digital signing
User Rights signatures
Embedded files
Metadata
Mars XML/XMP
SVG
3D artwork
Accessibility features
Interactive GUI elements
Color management
JavaScript (ECMAScript)
Annotations
XFA
. . .

No Flash Required.

All of these features are available in the Adobe format of eBooks as well. Adobe InDesign can create both formats.

Oops Condé Nast. Try again.

Adobe: SHAME ON YOU. 500 MB iPad app. HAHAHAHAHA! Dolts.

What, you mean like the 64bit support in Apple's own Pro apps?

How?
A pdf is simply a container for that great big image.

And you can get tons of titles at your local library... for free. Or if you buy one, you can share it with your friends without having to load them your iPad. And if you lose one, you're not out $500.

Publishers are still feeling out the market. Ultimately consumers decide where their money goes and so far the Wired app isn't a total failure, regardless of what HTML5/tech geeks who have couldn't care less about graphic design have to say.

And for God's sake, people slamming Adobe... get over yourselves. For Apple to "win" doesn't mean Adobe, Google, Microsoft, HTC... Audi... BMW, etc. has to lose. But I guess that doesn't get you hits on a website if you don't raise a little hell.

And hands up if you know how much of the above is supported by the pdf implementation on iPhone? I suspect not enough to provide the experience the Wired app was trying to offer.

I keep telling people Flux 2. :P

It still has a way to go but it's further along in terms of XHTML and HTML5 support than other web development tools.

It does take a bit of getting used to in some cases though but the more people starting to use it and the more comments the developer gets the better the app will become.