or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › After initial success, magazine purchases on Apple iPad decline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

After initial success, magazine purchases on Apple iPad decline

post #1 of 70
Thread Starter 
Sales of some major digital magazines on Apple's iPad have seen a sharp decline since their debut earlier this year, showing that many customers are not coming back for more.

The first iPad edition of Wired debuted in May and sold more than 100,000 copies in the next month. But according to high-end fashion magazine Women's Wear Daily, sales of the magazine's more recent iPad editions were significantly lower,with sales of 22,000 and 23,000 in October and November, respectively.

For Wired, the iPad sales are much less than the print editions in October and November, which amounted to 130,000. And iPad purchases have been made without the aid of automated subscriptions for publications on the App Store.

Sales figures for other magazines also saw downward trends after their respective debuts, as sales of Vanity Fair were at 8,700 in November, down from an average of 10,500 in August, September and October. Glamour also dropped 20 percent in October and another 20 percent in November, hitting 2,775 in the last month.

The figures also showed GQ's November edition with its lowest performance since April, when the iPad debuted. And Men's Health sold about 2,000 in September in October, down from its average sales of 2,800 in the spring. All of the figures were made available to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

"Publishers are hopeful their December and January numbers will bump back up after more consumers get their hands on digital devices during the holidays," author John Koblin wrote. "Call it an early New Year's wish."

In November, Women's Wear Daily was among the first to report that News Corporation is working on a new tablet-only daily newspaper, dubbed the Daily, which will first be introduced on the iPad. Rumors have pegged a Jan. 17 launch for the publication, potentially alongside the introduction of recurring application subscriptions on the App Store.
post #2 of 70
The magazines are too expensive and the publishers are too greedy.
They want it all... but they will lose it all.

They need to offer yearly subscriptions are reasonable prices. I bet Apple's cut is much less than the cost of printing, shipping, distributing and selling the paper versions. Not to mention archiving or trashing the paper after reading them.

Time will tell.
post #3 of 70
There is something very elegant about printing on high quality stock that gets lost on the digital version. I know I really enjoy the printed version more, plus, I get to pass it on when I'm finished with it.

I love the smell of ink in the morning!

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #4 of 70
They need to reduce the price.

I subscribed to Sporting News and found that daily was a lot to read.
post #5 of 70
Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.
People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.

Apple is completely missing the boat on this.

If Apple created software (Pages?) that would allow anyone to created iPad publications - and a store that allowed independent publications to shine (like the app store), then you would see a resurgence in desktop publishing.
1) there would be lots of bad publications - but a lot of new and innovative ideas as well that would rise to the top - let people decide what they want to read.
2) there would be increased interest in iPad publications as people would want to explore (like they do apps)

Let publishing companies pick their own advertisers. Trying to control all the content on a digital device is both futile and a completely ridiculous business plan.

Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.
Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.
post #6 of 70
1-- Offer attractive subscription rates.

2-- Make your "digital magazine" something other than huge image files.

3-- Or just give up and let aggregators like Flip Book make your entire industry obsolete.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #7 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Photosmike View Post

They need to reduce the price.

I subscribed to Sporting News and found that daily was a lot to read.

Price won't make a difference.
New and innovative publications to match a new and innovative digital device would.
post #8 of 70
I think all of this will change when recurring subscriptions are supported in iOS. A lot of magazines sell subscriptions to people who would not have thought on to buy each specific issue. On iPad, the burden of remembering falls on the customer, and that hurts sales.

I agree with a previous poster that making huge image files and calling it a digital publication is missing the point and an opportunity. Make use of the iPad, don't just dump your images into it. Genuine innovation often gets its just rewards.
post #9 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.
Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.

Good thinking. I like it.

Still, the publishing industry is huge and is struggling with digital media. Apple is trying to give them a way forward, as they did for the music industry. I don't think blowing up the existing music industry would have produced good results, so I don't necessarily see where creating another conduit for alt content is necessarily the answer for publishing.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #10 of 70
Apple will also have to reduce their cut in the process.

Magazines, will be a little different than Books. And will be a lot different than Apps.
Those guys can survive with the 70% cut that they get.

But, magazines will be different. They come out weekly. It is a constant thing. And it will
take a little creativity to make them popular and attractive to keep buying.
Sure newspapers continue selling, but not like they used to. And for some people, it is just
the old feel of it that keeps it attractive.

Also, the Publishers know that Apple makes their money in selling the Hardware.

Apple should accept that as a reality also and give them a break.
post #11 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

I think all of this will change when recurring subscriptions are supported in iOS. A lot of magazines sell subscriptions to people who would not have thought on to buy each specific issue. On iPad, the burden of remembering falls on the customer, and that hurts sales.

I agree with a previous poster that making huge image files and calling it a digital publication is missing the point and an opportunity. Make use of the iPad, don't just dump your images into it. Genuine innovation often gets its just rewards.

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?
post #12 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

1-- Offer attractive subscription rates.

2-- Make your "digital magazine" something other than huge image files.

3-- Or just give up and let aggregators like Flip Book make your entire industry obsolete.

I agree with these points.

I downloaded Virgin's Project, but balked on the price of the first issue and removed the app from my iPad. They made Issue #1 free, so I looked at it. Some of it is innovative, far better than the glorified "big image" magazines that you'll find at Zinio and other iPad readers.

Enough to get me to buy Issue #2? Probably not. It would probably need to come down to $0.99 an issue. Go ahead and give me ads, I'm already used to seeing those in deadtrees magazines.

And Flipbook is indeed killing it.
post #13 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

If Apple created software (Pages?) that would allow anyone to created iPad publications - and a store that allowed independent publications to shine (like the app store), then you would see a resurgence in desktop publishing.
-[CUT]-
Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.
Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.

Um... They have done exactly what you state.

Anyone can use the iOS SDK to create an iPad publication and then post it on the App Store, just like all of the magazines mentioned.

Or are you stating that they need to make a digital store completely separate from the App Store, just for magazines? In that case, I would say to add a section to the iBookstore for magazines.

I have to agree with several other posters. This seems to be a symptom of not having yearly subscriptions. After all, most people are not going to pay newsstand prices for every issue of a real world magazine, so why would they do it for a digital one? Therefore, this trend will be interesting to examine a few months after Apple introduces subscriptions.
post #14 of 70
I use Zinio and get my subscriptions for the same price as the printed version, along with a digital duplicate of the printed magazine. Works for me. I think sometimes things that are simple are made unnecessarily complicated.
post #15 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?

Its their business model that's broken and they are afraid to fix it, or just don't get it.
post #16 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?

You forgot a few things:

YouTube: Built-in iPad app
Flickr: Available on iPad
Facebook: Available on iPad
Apple App store: Built-in iPad app
World Wide Web: Available on iPad
MySpace: Available on iPad
eMail: Built-in iPad app
the Mac: Not available on iPad yet.

iPad: the new computing paradigm.

Are you starting to see the pattern?

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #17 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?

Brilliant!
post #18 of 70
One word: SUBSCRIPTION
post #19 of 70
Like most things in America...it boils down to price, which has to be perceived as a bargain.

Very few companies/brands targeting the mass market can lift themselves above this basic premise.

Apple is one, WSJ comes to mind, Honda and Toyota also.


Basically, most companies use the Walmart business model. Make a little profit and sell a lot of crap cheaply.
post #20 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

There is something very elegant about printing on high quality stock that gets lost on the digital version. I know I really enjoy the printed version more, plus, I get to pass it on when I'm finished with it.

Hear hear!

A lot of these magazines - eg Vanity Fair - are real keepers rather than the landfill of gossip mags and yesterday's newspapers.

Digital editions just aren't keepable in the same way, they lack completely the feeling of 'treasure' that old magazines, comics etc can have.

See Comment No15 here:
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/...pper-required/

"...about 6 years ago, I purchased an archive edition of the National Geographic that used closed proprietary software to present the magazine. The pages can't be opened or viewed on a modern computer now. If you're buying an archive like this, make sure that it uses tech that will be accessible in 10 or 20 years. HTML/CSS will. PDF probably will. Some weird proprietary software probably will not."
post #21 of 70
That's what bad initial implementation gets you. Print editions can be had for much cheaper, and App Store did not allow for those discounts on subscription basis. Hopefully once subscription model is implemented and prices somewhat match the print iPad sales can rebound.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #22 of 70
That's because no one is going to pay $4.99 an issue for Men's Health when you can get a year's subscription for $25.
post #23 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?

Great observation/point. If Apple wants the iPad to become the de facto e-magazine/e-paper device, make the deal with publishers so good they won't even look at other options. Apple being a loss leader early on in this race could lock them in for a long time.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

That's because no one is going to pay $4.99 an issue for Men's Health when you can get a year's subscription for $25.

The "e" version should be on par or cheaper with it's printed cousin, unless it offers some spectacular improvements over the print version.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #25 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.
People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.

Apple is completely missing the boat on this.

If Apple created software (Pages?) that would allow anyone to created iPad publications - and a store that allowed independent publications to shine (like the app store), then you would see a resurgence in desktop publishing.
1) there would be lots of bad publications - but a lot of new and innovative ideas as well that would rise to the top - let people decide what they want to read.
2) there would be increased interest in iPad publications as people would want to explore (like they do apps)

Let publishing companies pick their own advertisers. Trying to control all the content on a digital device is both futile and a completely ridiculous business plan.

Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.
Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.

Rain - I think you have hit the nail on the head. Apple makes it very easy to Export Pages documents to epub/iBook format. It works very well if you follow a few simple rules when you create the Pages document. However, Apple makes it impossible to publish your newly created documents on iTunes. They force a small publisher, like me, to go through a middle-man publisher. After Apple's cut and the middleman's cut I end up with around 35% of the retail price. Just not worth my effort to publish on iTunes. It would be a different story if Apple would allow me to publish my books directly to iTunes so I wouldn't have to share with a middleman that collects 30% for doing nothing but pass my work on to iTunes. A 70/30 split with Apple is worth my while. Anything thing more is not.

Plus, Apple also limits the amount you can charge for iBooks. Amazon lets me publish directly to Kindle. No middleman. And, Amazon charges me less.
post #26 of 70
I must number among the few which would simply like the paper content put on the screen and delivered to the application displaying it to me.

I don't care too much for the discovery and extra multimedia content that devices like the iPad can offer. Sure, there's a time and a place for all that interactivity but with a magazine I just want to read the thing.

I'll take the ads - even the ability to click through to their respective products if it catches my eye.

It then boils down to price for me. I'll be using zinio to purchase my next magazine because a 12mo sub is going to cost me less than two single issues. Sub discounting isn't as deep in Australia as it seems to be in the USA
post #27 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.
People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.

Apple is completely missing the boat on this.

If Apple created software (Pages?) that would allow anyone to created iPad publications - and a store that allowed independent publications to shine (like the app store), then you would see a resurgence in desktop publishing.
1) there would be lots of bad publications - but a lot of new and innovative ideas as well that would rise to the top - let people decide what they want to read.
2) there would be increased interest in iPad publications as people would want to explore (like they do apps)

Let publishing companies pick their own advertisers. Trying to control all the content on a digital device is both futile and a completely ridiculous business plan.

Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.
Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.

Nonsense. I feel pretty sure it's just the opposite. I believe most people would be happy to get a mag that's not much different from the paper version, except that the links would be live, and could reference what's on their site as well. The problem we're seeing now is that the mags think they need to do very expensive and complex digital editions that they have to charge $5 a month for. That's why people aren't interested. We don't need editions that are 500 Mb in size.

This should be simple. At Least at first. Get more complex slowly. Walk before they run. Look at most web sites. They aren't that complex. AI isn't that complex. Why do they think their mags need to be? It's nuts!

I understand why Apple doesn't want to have all our data given away. They've got enough problems with that now. The only thing I see as a problem is the 30% cut. How would Apple tell developers of other apps, because that's what mags are, that they're waving that cut for them, but not for anyone else, except possibly for newspapers? That wouldn't fly. The only way that could work would be the way the WSJ does it now, but that's not what we're talking about.
post #28 of 70
Question: how many of you subscribed to Wired before the iPad edition came out? or GQ? or Vanity Fair?

Wired has a circulation of a bit over 700,000. Of that, single copy sales range between 75K and 120K per issue. The new iPad edition is bringing in 22,000 or more per issue. That represents a 17 percent (or more) gain in single copy sales. No circulation manager would be unhappy with that.

So let's say Wired continues to see its sales decrease a bit over the next few months -- but Apple will continue to sell iPads, right? (And then there are those new Android tablets to come in 2011 -- Wired will presumably release an Android version of its tablet edition at some point). By the end of 2011 the market for tablet publications will what . . . double, triple, quadruple?

Anybody complaining about the sales numbers at this point is crazy. This is just the beginning. Most of those who are buying magazine apps are just trying them out -- just like buying a magazine at Borders or at the airport, few end up being regular subscribers.

What Wired and the rest of the magazines with apps have done is get a head start on all the other publishers who were late to the web, late to smartphones, and are now late to tablets. Wired and the the magazines now have almost one year of real sales numbers it can present to advertisers -- those who are waiting to release their first apps will not have real numbers to sell until 2012 or 2013.
post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Price won't make a difference.
New and innovative publications to match a new and innovative digital device would.

Of course price makes a difference. It's the main thing that's holding things back. I've got a few subs from Zinio. Not great, but not that bad either. It's also pretty cheap. I've eliminated some paper subs because of that.
post #30 of 70
The National Geographic Magazine via Zinio on the iPad is excellent.
NG is obviously experimenting with this new digital media by slowly adding new features. It will take time for publishers to figure out the best ways to effectively design with interactive media. The one year digital subscription to NG costs half the price of the print version.
ALSO, those looking for a way to custom publish their own magazine should look at magcloud.com This is a virtual marketplace where a customer can preview, purchase and order custom magazines. The designer sets the price and magcloud handles the fulfillment. This is run by Hewlett Packard so it is a viable enterprise.
post #31 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

Apple will also have to reduce their cut in the process.

Magazines, will be a little different than Books. And will be a lot different than Apps.
Those guys can survive with the 70% cut that they get.

But, magazines will be different. They come out weekly. It is a constant thing. And it will
take a little creativity to make them popular and attractive to keep buying.
Sure newspapers continue selling, but not like they used to. And for some people, it is just
the old feel of it that keeps it attractive.

Also, the Publishers know that Apple makes their money in selling the Hardware.

Apple should accept that as a reality also and give them a break.

I don't know how Apple would tell some small developer that they were waving the cut for a billion dollar publisher but not for them. Many mags, if not most of them come out twelve times a year, not fifty two. The cut has nothing to do with how many times a year it comes out. Each issue has to stand on it's own. It's a separate product. A subscription is a separate product. The cut is more of an issue there. But still, Ads pay for almost every mag. What consumers pay is just a small part of that. It's getting the advertisers to want to pay full price for those Ads that's the problem. And that's where the fight is.
post #32 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.
People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.

rain, not reposting your entire piece, but I'm missing something with most of the posts here, but you come real close. If I understand, what you're describing is the WWW. It is still the new paradigm.

Yes, publishers do seem bent on reproducing their print products and app stores seem to be imposing various restrictions, but, isn't the WWW still a new medium? Why would a publisher want to endure the restrictions of various distribution methods when the WWW is already there? Why have an iPad app, an iPhone app, an Android app? Why not a HTML app? Complete freedom of form, complete freedom of advertising, complete freedom to fill your pages with whatever content and whatever ads and all the platforms I mentioned already have the app to read it.

Cultivate content producers that create content people want to read, or look at, or whatever. Then find advertisers willing to pay you to reach the eyes of your readers.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, actually, I am old fashioned, but all this hype and hoopla about having to do things any particular way seems just outrageous. Printed newspapers and magazines survived many decades with the differentiation being the content and the content creators. The medium simply disappeared as you immersed yourself in the content. Everyone knew how to read and everyone knew how to hold a magazine or newspaper and that's what everyone did.

I think too much is being made of the gathering of reader information. I believe that this constant bombardment of portal pages demanding your information simply gets to be too much. I, and I assume many people, just stop and go somewhere else.

I agree that I don't see a subscription model doing well for almost all content. I do see a way for creative content creators to use the WWW and HTML to deliver their content and have people pay to be seen (advertise) on their pages. I read yahoo and cnn every day for my news. I don't pay anything to them to do it.

Perhaps the real problem is the massive amount of information already available from the massive number of free sites. Perhaps if these mega publishers really wish to make a mark, they should offer something few others do: their expertise in their field and their reputations and their integrity (ok, I don't want to dive into that can of worms).

Maybe publishing should be more like an OSI stack. Just a level or three above the physical layer a different driver should be used.

What am I missing?
post #33 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

That's because no one is going to pay $4.99 an issue for Men's Health when you can get a year's subscription for $25.

Wrong!
You can get a 2-year print subscription for $24.
http://landofmags.com/usersearch.asp...O=21139&CAT1=7

So, emag at $120 or paper at $24? We report, you decide.
post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?

No, I really don't. Those have nothing to do with magazine subs or issue pricing. We're not talking about amateur work, but with professional publications. Your examples are of no importance here.
post #35 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Great observation/point. If Apple wants the iPad to become the de facto e-magazine/e-paper device, make the deal with publishers so good they won't even look at other options. Apple being a loss leader early on in this race could lock them in for a long time.

I don't see a single thing in his post that's relevant to what we're talking about, which is professional publishing.

If we want to discuss amateur publishing, that's for another thread.
post #36 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banalltv View Post

See Comment No15 here:
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/...pper-required/

"...about 6 years ago, I purchased an archive edition of the National Geographic that used closed proprietary software to present the magazine. The pages can't be opened or viewed on a modern computer now. If you're buying an archive like this, make sure that it uses tech that will be accessible in 10 or 20 years. HTML/CSS will. PDF probably will. Some weird proprietary software probably will not."

Exactly.

Is the web somehow broken?

Apps for mags just aren't a good fit. At a newstand the price of the printed mag barely covers the cost of printing and distribution, both irrelevant to electronic delivery.

The cost of producing the content is paid for by advertisers, and that still costs what it costs no matter how it's delivered.

So just put it on a web site and be done with it. Making OS-specific apps for every device that comes along seems a bad business move.

The web isn't broken. Use it.
post #37 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.
Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.
World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.
MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.
eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.
the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.

iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream

Are you starting to see the pattern?

The pattern I see is: "Let the populous at large sprout forth as if they're experts on any and every subject under the sun. You'll find a few gems, certainly, but an awful, awful lot of dross, and can waste an entire lifetime wading through it all" versus "An established media industry, where people who knew what they were talking about used to work their way up through the organisation and try to make a career out of it, but now are struggling even to be heard above the noise, let alone make a living any more."

Welcome to progress. That dull metallic thud you hear in the distance is the noise of whoever's won the race to the bottom.
post #38 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

There is something very elegant about printing on high quality stock that gets lost on the digital version. I know I really enjoy the printed version more, plus, I get to pass it on when I'm finished with it.

I love the smell of ink in the morning!

I tried a couple of magazines that were poorly done. Couldn't zoom in on text etc. I didn't purchase more.
post #39 of 70
I would be surprised if publishers get any where near 70% of the newsstand price. Distributors and retailers probably take half the price.
post #40 of 70
Apple could create a digital newsstand for publishers - magazine and newspapers. Part of the iBookstore. I think I'll patent this 'idea'.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › After initial success, magazine purchases on Apple iPad decline