Adobe, Condé Nast scrambled to get Wired app on Apple's iPad - Page 3

More accurate than what? Get over your typography fetish, most readers simply don't care, and would rather be able to change the font size or copy text than know that they are looking at the exact font chosen for them, picked from thousands, but still unreadable. This adds no value to a digital magazine. What would add value are features such as those seen in SI or Time and not available in this massive picture book called Wired. Plus, the abomination known as Adobe Digital Viewer eliminates all the accessibility features built into the OS: http://daringfawnyball.wordpress.com...6/02/wiredapp/ (via Gruber).

Yeah, this is a great example of Adobe technology at work and why Adobe sucks so much as a company that they really need to die so they stop holding back publishing on new mediums, keeping everyone stuck on old paradigms that have outlived their usefulness.

And, we'll see who knows more about what the consumer will buy... I'm betting it's not the publishers.

.

Well for starters, if you are displaying that text with HTML it takes a lot more than 4 bytes to send it, you have to include all the formatting tags etc that are sent with it

'trying' being the key word there.

In its simplest, most costly* (of memory) form, the marked-up text would look something like this:

<p style="font-family:verdana; font-size: 18pt">When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.</p>

* Usually you set up style sheets, defining all the standard styles for an entire document, and refer to them by a shorthand embedded within the text (much shorter, more powerful tags).


Go to:

http://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_font-family[/URL

and paste the above in and try it.


Play around, it might open your eyes a bit!

The inefficient method adds the tags:

<p style="font-family:verdana; font-size: 18pt">

and

</p>


to bookend a paragraph of text.

That's a lot less than the 10,000 times overhead a picture of text takes.


BTW, notice how nicely the text reflows when you enlarge the window!

.

I see where have the resident trolls have been trolling this day. I wonder which of the previously banned posters this Sue Denim is. My money is on iGenius.

Nice job on the "HELL" post Dick Applebaum, but don't forget that you have to double everything for the second layout option on a tablet. This really is the most laughable thing I've seen from a publisher.

Yeah, Thank God the iPad is not a septagon

.

PDF is a vector format not bitmap. Text inside it is ascii not pixels. They should be able to use the Print function of whatever app originally created the pages to get PDFs.

Urm... 500MB is a ridiculously massive size for something delivered to a mobile device. Secondly, any digital delivery that makes sense has to do pixel-perfect rendering of text and images without having to pre-rasterize text. Yes, maybe the PDF approach is not right because it takes time to render.

Just big blocks of images straight out of InDesign is lazy, desperate and clueless. Forgivable, IMHO, because time is money.

But moving forward a HTML-esque or intelligently coded platform is what is needed if digital magazines are to be viable. I'm looking at the prices even on Zinio and I think prices have to change as well.

The whole idea eg. with HTML is so that content is separated from layout, and the viewer program renders everything as quickly as possible.

Maybe I'm old skool but I don't give a flying f**k about interactivity in a digital magazine. If I wanted loads of interactivity I'd go to the website or view crazy Flash sites on my PC/Mac.

I just want the goshdarned PRINT version of the magazine JUST RIGHT THERE in the iPad so, I can just read through it easily like reading the print version, no need for any gimmicks and "oh it's like a magazine but so much better!!11!1".

I want in the morning to go down to the dining table, pick up my iPad, and just have a relaxing, SIMPLE read of publications AT MUCH LOWER COST than the print versions.

Why are publishers not fully grasping this yet? Maybe some get it, some don't. Again, I've looked at the prices on Zinio, and it's just not good enough to get me to do anything except flick through the print publication at the local bookstore, where I wonder who buys those publications nowadays anyways - which is probably why they're getting desperate.

I can see where you are coming from here, but when it comes to devices of different sizes and aspect ratios you have to expect some some of "intelligent design" even if it's not interactive to the user.

This Wired app is completely wrong on every level. However, I put part of the blame on Apple for releasing this "break through" device that only uses EPUB for iBooks and not an open, multimedia format for the future of magazines, comic books, and text books.

This is my biggest let down from the January event. While it has completely changed the tablet category and is a success, I think it could have been truly revolutionary if they created a viable open standard for all books from the get go.

This Wired magazine is just one example of the horrors that will come before this happens. Even the Marvel app while great in its own right* shouldn't be a app, but a purchase on iBookStore or Kindle, IMO.

+1 emphatically!

I really think that everyone that has posted here, and especially Sue Denim, should take a look at the Time and SportsIllustrated YouTube videos (links above).

THIS is what people envision digital magazines to be in the near term... NOT a JPG slide show... even with interactive parts. Time, Inc. is WAY ahead of you folks on the Condé Nasty Train!

BTW: IMHO, and technically speaking... much of what Time, Inc. has done now as an App, we will see in Web 3.0 and websites for free, within any browser, incl. IE9 within the next couple of years.

* Actually, the Time and SI issues could be released for free on their website right now, by implementing a targeted CSS style sheet and optimized sub-domain for the content. Naturally, all advertisers would have to submit "optimized" ads for it too, meaning no Flash.

* For those on the go and without a 3g connection or option, I think Apple or someone should come up with a way to intelligently pre-load content into cache. I'm not a developer, but I can't see why this can't/couldn't be done(?) Sort of like a "Site-Sucker" if ya know what I mean. Anyone with more insight?

Content, and free access to it, regardless of OS platform or device, will be king. Publishing co.'s better get used to this. I don't see the "long-term" value of a Magazine App, unless the publisher also starts to charge for their website, or takes it down. Far more interactivity, sociability and researchable content on the web for sure. And with Web 3.0 (HTML5) over the next few years, you will have the exact same experience as the dedicated Apps provide, if not more.

So heads up to anyone tying their boat to the Adobe and "print publishing" software pier. Print is dying, and what Adobe is providing now is an ugly (500mb pretty?) facade, and truthfully will be the anchor around your neck(!)

Get the web developers in, and the software houses that are doing Javascript and CMS publishing platforms for the web, and regurgitate THAT content out to print... for those that need it... if only to line the bird cage with.

I remember way back when (1994) when I told people that the Internet was going to be huge, and would overtake all publishing and information resources, including TV. People scoffed at me, and most had never even heard of the Internet.

What we're experiencing now is the logical "next step" with mobile info devices. HTML is also not going to stop at 5, just as it didn't at 1, 2, 3 or 4 before it. Web 3.0 will give in to 4.0, etc, etc.

So open your eyes people and daydream a little. This new "hard to get used to paradigm shift" is not the end, just as it was not the beginning. Technology will continue to march on... even if the corporate and "Über-Capatilistic" big-wigs don't get it and would rather die than move forward with it. Die they will... as sure as taxes.

NOTE: for those that would put that "Ü-C" label on SJ, please be aware that he has also, and at the very beginning of the iPhone, championed web-apps. Yes... free-for-anyone-browser WebApps! That developers are screaming that they can't get into "his" store, is beyond me. A "Wicked Weasel" App doesn't need to exist. However an optimized "mobile version" of their store does... and can without Apple's or SJ's approval.

Now about that Adobe Obituary: considering the missteps, the lack of vision, their preoccupation with all things Flash... and their inability to get it to function satisfactorily for mobile devices (in my terms, Web 3.0)... I give 'em 2 years tops. If I was a shareholder, I would move to replace the entire board and top management immediately.

Morbid thought: why do i think that those at Adobe are instead, privately wishing for SJ to kick it sooner rather than later so that they don't have to make the "hard" decisions?

Just my take and 2 cents (sense)

Part of the blame is Apple's... but magazines are a different, broader, content experience than books. In Apple's defense, I think Apple realized:

1) Apple didn't have the time or resources to solve this problem
2) That the solution really should come from the "experts"-- publishers of magazines, working with the technology rather than vice versa
3) That, likely, several conflicting solutions would emerge
4) The consumer would select the winner(s) with their eyes, time and dollars


Yes, a single standard for books/readers would have been better. But it would have taken time (and negotiations) to subsume the book content of Kindle, Nook, et al. The eBook category is somewhere between items 3) and 4) (above) several solutions have emerged; and the consumer will choose the winners


The Wired magazine is at item 2) above... Except the publishers ignored the technology (or were mislead by so-called technologists with a vested interest). The result, as you say, is horrible.

OTOH, the Marvel offering is a good solution (between item 3) and 4), above). I could see this, or something similar, emerging as the Comic Book Producer/Distributor/Reader/Player of choice.

[QUOTE]

Snipped a lot of good ideas here, because I want to focus on a single idea (will address the snipped material in a separate post)


The point I want to focus on (and one of the points Sol was making) is CMS. Yes, we (publishers and consumers, alike) are looking for a CMS app for Print. Several CMS apps, actually: eBooks; Magazines; Comics. Then, there will be the Textbook CMS-- a special animal that supports: content updates (not issue replacement); massive cross-reference (linking); note taking and annotation; concurrent reading of multiple open textbooks... to name a few.


Finally, I suspect that I am a lot older than most who posted to this thread.

I remember the "experience" of magazines such as: Look; Life and others. I remember the feel (and sound) as you turned the pages... the way the pages felt as you slid you fingers between slippery pictures and mildly-abrasive type. Some pages were printed on [expensive] glossy paper; others on rougher paper; Then, there was the smell... yes, the smell-- the mildly acid/vinegery smell of paper and ink (when new) and later the comfortable (somewhat musty) smell of an old friend. I remember when they started printing in color. OMG Color-- Color in a Magazine-- first the ads, then the text, and finally color pictures in the content. Many were "works of art" in their own right, But, then,Content was king!

Sigh... Time marches on [sic]. Those days and format are gone or dying.

I believe that Print in general and books, magazines and comics, in particular will survive... albeit, in a different format targeting a different audience!

Navigation, interaction, and social aspects will be key... but they need to be intuitive, natural. They should not be confusing or confrontational... they need to get out of the way and let the user immerse himself in the experience... And, yes, today, Content is [still] king!

.

Agreed 100%. Especially now that AT&T is capping downloads. If I've got a 250 MB download cap, I can't download that magazine at all while on the road (admittedly, I generally download big stuff while I'm using WiFi, but I bought 3G so I COULD download magazines and books if I wish.

Heck, IIRC, entire books are under 100 kb (less than 0.1% of the Wired magazine).


I'm the same way. I read for content, not interactive games and dancing girls. I want the CONTENT, not the glitz. If I want glitz, I'll watch TV.


It doesn't? I guess you've never heard of html.

It's not that hard to write an app with interactivity if you want to use Objective C. OTOH, if you simply want an open multimedia format, use html. Problem solved.

I'm not sure that you meant that in the way it can read -- i.e., that a digital delivery system ought to do pixel-perfect rendering -- but I think we should reject the notion that pixel-perfect rendering, at least of text and layout, is actually important in digital delivery. To the contrary, the Wired/Adobe app show that it is actually highly undesirable. Rather than contributing to the experience, it gets in the way of the experience. It holds us to the limitations of the physical, with all its disadvantages, and makes no use of what the medium can offer, in presentation, in accessibility, in allowing the reader to actively explore, in creating what would actually be a rich experience.

The web has more or less made nonsense of this notion, in spite of the attempts of many site designers to cling to it, and I don't think it is of any significant importance to readers. Yes, medieval manuscripts with their beautiful artwork and lovely handwritten text are impressive things, but it's time to leave imitations of this behind and focus on newer, more appropriate, more effective methods of presentation.

Yes and no!

I think what Sol was describing is a single app for multimedia that handles all formats.

Sure you can just use HTML and access the content on a web site (if you can connect),

But, still, consuming a web site only addresses part of the problem-- what if you want to take notes or highlight something? Or save things for later reading, etc.

HTML is great for presentation, no argument (from me) there!

But there is more that needs to be addressed, IMO.

I want to easily/automatically receive content or social updates, etc.

What I think will evolve is a single CMS app (or one for books, another for, magazines... This will handle all the non-presentation things that need to be done, that HTML doesn't address.

Likely this CMS app (on the iPad) will be written in Objective C, But, and this is key... It will use HTML (and QuickTime) for most of the Presentation (including Presentation Navigation and Presentation Interaction).

They'd be stupid not to use HTML for this part of the solution! But for ads, in-app purchasing, shopping, content management, offline use... these can be best addressed in other ways (though, the presentation part of, say, iAds will use HTML too).

The "horrible" Wired app could have been written as an Objective C player, that manipulated a single set of text and images (rather than 2 sets of images containing pictures of text). For presentation this "player" would [mostly[ use UIWebViews (Objective C's representation of a web page). The formatting would be 99 and 99/100ths percent pure HTML*. This would give all the goodness of a web browser displayed page, plus the pan/zoom copy paste features of the iPad.

* The Objective C player would get involved by providing the capability to dynamically modify the HTML if the user desired to change: fonts, sizes, color, background-color, contrast/brightness, reflow text, annotate, take notes, etc.

So, Yes, there is a need for a single iPad CMS app, written in Objective C, that uses (and manipulates) HTML for content presentation!

.

Oye! Oye! +++ QFT

...Peerless

..... Prognistications of the

........ Potential for

............. Pixel

.................. Perfect

....................... Publication

............................ Presentation

................................. Puke!


..................................... Poo Poo Pee Doo

.
.

What you are describing, likely, can best be delivered as a generalized app.. A Magazine CMS (Content Management System). The CMS app would use HTML as [at the very least] the Display Engine for the content. The CMS app would be responsible for accessing, caching and archiving the content. In addition the CMS would allow the user to repurpose the content-- copy/paste, cross-reference, reformat, reflow, annotate, redistribute, etc. In addition, the CMS app could, through iAd, deliver targeted ads to individuals... lots of possibilities here!

Done properly, the CMS will preserve the IP of the Publisher and actually broaden and enhance the reach of the content. For example, if you copy/paste (or email) the content, the CMS could automatically add attributions, watermarks and even include some of the ads.

This should be preferable to the Publishers and Advertisers than the consumer not reading the content (and ads) at all!

.

Apple upped downloads from 10 MB to 20 via 3G in February. Anything above 20 MB must be via Wi-Fi.

If what you say is true, could you or anybody else explain why the Customer Ratings in the iTunes Store for the WIRED app is so high?

Both the US and Canadian customers give the app and average 4 Stars. The US store shows that 78% of customers rate the app at 3 to 5 stars, while the Canadians is significantly higher at 83%.

Anybody?

People are temporarily dazzled becaue they've never experienced a magazine on the iPad before. Once someone else shows them what can be done, they'll quickly realize that Wired is nothing special.

okay so i've read through the first page of comments, and i'll skip over the nonsense complaining about the suckitude of Adobe's attempts to quickly bring Wired to the iPad, whining about how simple the layout is and how huge the filesize is because Apple tricked Adobe at the last second and wasn't going to allow any Flash-ported crap on its i-Devices (known to the rest of the world for the past 3 years), and lay down a simple comparison, seeing as it is lacking from the first page of bitching... I mean comments.

Popular Science. for the iPad. Print Magazine, gone digital. Given more time? probably not. Knew that Flash wasn't acceptable on the iPad? probably. I must say that using Popular Science in comparison to Wired is like night and day. AANNDD Popular Science isn't 100% refined either, but it is a great example of how you can take a print magazine and make it even better on a digital tablet. As soon as I loaded Wired (after it took FOREVER to download because of its bloated size) I noticed that I was flipping through PDFs. Yay, wow, innovation. I noticed, unlike Popular Science that there are waaayy more ads, the photographs and layout were nowhere near as nice, had no flow, not very intuitive. Clearly felt like it was rushed out, and frankly, I was not impressed.

Popular Science on the iPad sold me on the device and how innovative it can be depending on the minds creating content for it. If Wired is any example, Adobe needs to pick up their pants and stop whining about how their aging product with 90's dust all over it isn't performing 2 decades later on a platform it has never been released for.

PDF is many things. A PDF can contain movies, audio, jpeg, bitmaps, photos, etc. Those are all stored in the original format. They are not converted to vectors.

Only if the original is text.
Scan a text doc and dump it into a PDF and it is still a jpeg (or whatever you scanned it as) inside a PDF.

Yes and pictures are going to be jpeg or whatever they are in the original. Photos are not vectors and printing to PDF will not make them vectors.

This is the place to get the truth?

Dumbest answer I have heard yet. Real dumb!

Ha, ha, ha! No, you're just upset that your "telling" point turned out to be not so telling and not so much to the point.

This is a "rumor and information" site related to Apple products, and users... Hence the name "Apple Insider".

As with any publication, individual articles may or may not reflect the bias and opinions of the author.

The same holds for user comments and discussions in the forums.

A savvy reader will be guided by the philosophy: "Just because you read it in print [the web, or anywhere] doesn't make it true!".

I was taught to examine all sides of every issue, and to look for biases and special interests behind assertions... to separate fact from opinion.

It is especially important to examine both supporting and contradicting positions, while realizing that I, as a reader, bring my own set of biases and opinions to the table.

After weighing all that, hopefully, I will form an enlightened opinion, and be better able to determine the real truth... not the truth as I know it or the truth as I want it to be.


Coming to a site like AI, posting questions, and expecting any single posted answer (yours, mine or anyones) to contain the "truth" is naive. What it should provide is: fodder for consideration so that you can determine the truth.

@anonymouse has posted an opinion in response to a question you posted (below). Because he did not attempt to cite others to back up his opinion as "fact" or "truth" it should be considered opinion within the framework and context that it was presented... nothing more, nothing less.

As to the Wired ratings in the iTunes store... I can offer my opinion and thoughts based on experience, bias, and skepticism.

1) there are a lot of positive reviews as well as negative ones
2) many of the positive views are simply impressed (awed, dazzled) to see a print magazine faithfully reproduced and available on this exciting new device
3) many of the negative views are related to the high price as compared to the print or the web (free) version
4) some reviews go into more depth explaining why they gave the rating they did

The 2) reviews tend to illustrate and support the opinion offered by @ anonymouse.

I tend to read 2-4 star reviews mostly found in 4) above... to see why people felt strongly enough to post a review, and what formed their opinion.


Now, to reviews/ratings in general and a little healthy skepticism.

As I write this, the US app store shows the Wired app with 860 ratings with almost half, 416, giving a top rating (5 stars)... and an overall 4-star rating, That's pretty good.

But, let's look a little deeper, into what this could mean:

1) at least 860 people bought the app (me, included) because you can't rate if you don't buy.

2) of those 860, 416 gave a 5-star rating.

As I said earlier I tend to give less weight to the 5 and 1-star extremes. and examine the reasons for the other, more moderate ratings.

But, let's just consider the 416... 416 individuals spent $5 (a premium over the print copy) for a single issue of Wired for the iPad. They were wowed, and felt compelled to post a review.

Who are these people? what is their compulsion? To quote one:


Now, I don't know @ Baggend form Adam, but I find his review interesting:
-- its all about print
-- its all about execution (format?)
-- there is no mention of content

Might this reviewer, be an insider rather than a consumer?

Does Baggend have an agenda?

What I really find odd is: "If you're a magazine publisher, and you don't start stealing ideas..."

Is this a scare tactic?

If I were a magazine publisher, and stole these ideas, what would I do with them?

Who would I go to to execute these ideas for my magazine?

Mmmm... interesting


OK, let me assume the role of a total skeptic. In this role, I assert:

-- the 5-star ratings are a fraud!
-- they are either insiders (Print, Advertisers, Adobe, Condé Nast) or bought and paid for

416 * $5 == $2,080... a pittance if you are inclined to buy ratings to support your agenda

But, let's go even further, Say, you pay 416 people $100 each, to spend 15 minutes to write a positive review... That would be $41,600 + $2,080 ~= $43,000 to buy good ratings for the wired app. Who would spend $43,000 to do that? Condé Nast? Adobe? Wired Advertisers? * Apple? Any/all of the above?

* If it pays to advertise, doesn't it follow that: it pays to advertise ads?


Back to reality!

I am not saying this is what happened, but I suspect many of the reviews (pro and con) have a hidden agenda or bias.

And the history of the app store has shown that some of the raters were not consumers... rather people with "skin in the game".


So, Truth? Here? Possibly... but I'd carefully examine assertions, biases, and agendas before making up my mind!

.

I went to the Condé Nast site:


http://www.condenastdigital.com/index.html

They list 25 sites and 18 magazine subscriptions,

Mmmm...

Let's say they create digital issues of all their magazines ala Wired. I suspect that some will be smaller, others, larger... So lets take Wired as an average size digital magazine (1/2 GigaByte, the way they are currently doing it).

Condé Nast-- don't you realize that if I wanted to spend $90 for a single issue of every magazine you publish... it would take most of the storage of a $499 iPad.

Is that the message you want to send to the consumer? Buy my magazine. Pay a premium for it! It will take a long time to download and install. Then it will take up a good portion of your precious storage. Better read it quickly and delete it, so you can repeat the cycle!

Are you so blinded by the "Print" format that you ignore the practicality and utility for the consumer?

.

And you conclude by demonstrating your openness? Sorry, I can't accept that.

BTW, the history of this site shows that most dissenters are not consumers, rather trollers with 'nothing on the brain.'

Thanks Dick for the well thought out possible solution to my/our "idea". And yes, a CMS App is exactly what I had in mind as well.

Regardless of the fact that I spend far more time over the last 5 or 6 years reading on the web, I am still awestruck and hold great respect for a printed version of just about anything, magazine, book, packaging... whatever. OK, the fact that I've been a graphic designer now for some 35+ years, and have contributed immensely to the vast quantity of content and printed materials, and know first hand the effort, creativity and work that goes into the smallest of projects, reflects my respect for the finished results.

HOWEVER... I/we must continue to move on and communicate effectively and intelligently, using the tools and platforms that are relevant now and into the future.

If it means forsaking that gorgeous, "Little-Font-Foundry" display font for the headline, and I have to go back in time 25 years, to using one of the original 36 Postscript fonts to get out my client's message... well that's what I have to do. I did it then... and I'll do it again if it means keeping my customers technologically up-to-date and their message relevant.

It's the (my personal) job description of a designer as I've known it. To fit the message and design, within the confines of the medium you're working with. For example, finding simple, elegant solutions to problems like: designing an eye-catching, one-color logo on an egg carton; or working within the confines of 2-3 color, 70-dpi flexography. No bitchin' or moanin' is going to change the fact that I can't use 4c, fine filigree fonts, or a 300dpi photo in my designs. I can't shoe-horn my "wishes" into the tech at hand to display them.

Same with mobile devices and the apps and previously printed materials that will be viewed on them. The entire choice by the Adobe and C-N team was to shoe-horn their designs, and print-design principles, into a device and tech (bandwidth) that doesn't support those ideals. Time Inc. on the other hand, understood the medium, and adapted their app and design philosophy to fit. The result is both aesthetically pleasing (for the designers), and uses the device's capabilities to wow the audience into picking up the next issue in the App store, as well as try out other titles by Time, Inc.. Win-Win... and WIN!

Pretty easy stuff to figure out there... no rocket science necessary.

PS: @Anonymous: great response to the "ratings post(er)"! I also think that a lot of people were wowed only by the bells and whistles... and while to be honest, they should be!

PSS: Is Steve Jobs REALLY the only visionary (tech) CEO available world-wide? Amazing. Is the job of CEO too wrapped up in petty politics, of the business-as-usual, greed-is-good kind, to produce more SJ's?

Ya have to wonder some times at the lack of vision or even basic "on-the-job-knowledge" of some of these other guys running MSFT, Adobe, Condé Nast. How did they get there? All from Sales probably.... Guess they didn't get the memo that the Sales Dept. isn't what it used to be either.

The "fake" rating review is actually a problem in the App Store, and not just for Wired. Apple tries to stay on top of this, but it's really almost impossible to stamp out. But, yeah, almost certainly, there is a high number of fake reviews as Wired and Adobe attempt to game the system.

Besides this, though, and the fact that the genuine positive reviewers, of which there are surely some not insignificant number, have no baseline to compare to but the app they are reviewing, there is also the issue of confirmation bias. People who spend money on something are likely to review it more positively, and the more money they spend, unless it is utterly non-functional (and in this case, that would equate to won't load or crashes frequently), the more positively they are likely to view it. Now, $5 isn't a lot of money, but in an App Store world where people are largely used to apps that are $4.99 or less, it's psychologically on the high end, thus, there will almost certainly be a bias toward positive reviews from non-critical ("critical" in the sense of thoughtfully considering the actual nature of the effort) buyers. Confirmation bias is a well established phenomenon, so those inclined to dismiss the concept should do their homework first.

(And, yes, confirmation bias does to some extent explain why people who buy Macs view them more positively, and people who buy Windows PCs view them more positively.)

I reposted the part of mine that you quoted.... because I don''t understand your response.



At the risk of boring you with my profile, I will demonstrate my openness:

-- I am 70 years old, widower, retired
-- I worked for 16 1/2 years for IBM [technical] Market Support for mainframe computers
-- With 2 partners, I opened Computer Plus stores in Silicon Valley 1978-1989
-- In 1989, sold stores, retired & moved to Tucson, AZ. Burnout!
-- Didn't really touch a computer much until 1997 (Burnout)
-- Taught myself web design JavaScript and wrote a shopping cart for my wife's small craft business
-- Got more proficient in web design programming using Perl, ASP, a little Java and PSP, Flash, ColdFusion SQL database.
-- Did some contract web design-- typically $100/hour or $10,000 per site
-- My wife Lucy, of 37 years, died suddenly in 2001 and I just dropped out for a couple of years
-- Currently program iPhone and iPad for my own amazement and for friends
-- I am a total Apple fan since 1978, have never owned a PC (though we sold them in our stores)
-- I am long AAPL and ELON but have no other significant technology positions
-- I dislike Flash because of its problems on the Mac (my platform of choice)
-- I use FCS, Photoshop, and several other Pro Apps valued at $5,000 (approx).
-- I live with my divorced daughter and her 3 children 2 boys, 1 girl ages 9, 11, 14
-- All the kids play soccer and I spend a lot of time making home movies
-- We have 8 Macs, 5 iPhones and 2 iPads
-- I have no print or graphic design experience, but have collaborated with some excellent graphics designers on several web sites (back n the late 90's)
-- I am politically conservative, not religious, but believe there is something greater than us.
-- I am not artistic or creative but appreciate art when I see, hear or feel it.
-- I greatly appreciate those who can create-- including Print magazines
-- However, I believe that form follows function (or it should)
-- My race is run, I don't owe anybody, have no need to kiss up to anyone... I'm pretty much satisfied, except I miss my wife Lucy.

That's about it for me!


I showed you mine, now you show me yours!


From your posts, I suspect you have some interest in the success of the Wired app-- as an insider (Adobe, Condé Nast, Apple), a Print background, or a developer.


Finally, I bought the Wired app (and several others, including: PopSci; Time, Mens Health, Zinio, HowItWorks, Marvel), for several reasons (in order of priority):

-- support the iPad platform... I really believe the iPad is a breakthrough device
-- support the Publishers efforts to experiment and exploit the platform
-- maybe learn some things (presentation, navigation, intuitiveness, etc.) that I can use in my iPad development efforts
-- indirectly encourage textbook publishers to "find a way" to make their books available on the device... eliminating the kids 18 lb backpacks


I don't read magazines or comics anymore... so I was not buying them for the content, rather for how the content was accessed and presented on the iPad

I can best sum up my opinion of the Wired app with an old joke:


Good, I know nothing about... Crap, I understand. IMO, the Wired app is crap!




On this particular thread, I would consider you a troller with a vested interest... Am I wrong?

.

What a wonderful post!

The thing that makes Steve Jobs unique (and always has) is that he doesn't need Apple, its shareholders, Apple customers, or anyone. He can do what he wants, and is!

.

Which is why I said to use the print function of the original page creation app to get the PDF.

It is certainly not the case that every PDF is necessarily a container for one big bitmap, and therefore no better than a JPG, which is what your original reply to my post stated. Even by the standards of "get it done yesterday" these guys have done a poor job. The iPad has built in support for displaying PDFs.

Well thank you Mr. Applebaum! Without (hopefully!) pulling your "emotional-string" (re: your touching bio)... I do believe SJ and Apple are as close to the heart as you and Lucy. SJ will surely be leaving us before Apple this time around. I sincerely hope that his presence, spirit, and the respect that he deserves lives on in the heart of Apple, as your Lucy does in yours. I also hope that someone comes along to embody that drive, and do only half of what he has accomplished(!!!)

Head's up and health to ya "Ol' Chap"... a lot of fun stuff to explore over the next 20 or more years!

The original page creation application (InDesign or something else) for page layout that uses embedded jpegs/tifs/whatever and they will still be jpegs/tifs/whatever in the PDF. And per the original article ad your original response, everything is simply a bunch of big images (not vectors).

However, if there is a bitmap or jpeg in the pdf then that portion of the pdf is still only jpeg/bitmap.
If you have a jpeg opened in Photoshop and print to PDF, it is still simply a PDF with an embedded jpeg.

What if the PDF has flash embedded?