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 - Page 2

post #41 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

So the only apps that have sold on the App store are from behemoth software development companies? I wasn't aware of that

What is your definition of a 'professional publication'? Content? Units Sold? Advertising Revenue?

My whole point is maybe we should be talking about 'amateur work'. How many people have gone from rags to riches and launched their career on YouTube? Beiber, John Lajoie, Ray William Johnson...
It's what keeps people publishing to YouTube, it's what drives people to YouTube to explore content. People want to explore.

The article talks about low numbers for publications for the iPad... we are talking about why the numbers are low. If you don't understand that Melgross... then I don't know what to tell you?

You sound like a music executive that hasn't realized that media has become social.

Apple didn't invent the Mac only for massive publishing companies, so why the iPad?

If the iPad is intended as a 'Media Consumption Device' - why limit or restrict the media?
Apple once embraced the publishing industry. Now, it appears they want to control it and I don't see that as a viable business plan.
post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

Because we live in a day and age where Media is becoming social.
Huge networks are losing out to smaller cable programming and YouTube.
Musicians are going independent and distributing their own music and doing their own production.

'Alt content' is what people want. If they want a big publication that has been kicking around forever, they already know where to go.

Big publishing is going the way of big music and big networks.
post #43 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.

I tend to agree. There needs to be some sort of new thinking in the magazine publishing arena rather than just relying on video and movement. IMHO a lot of the look and feel is too similar to a Flash project albeit not made in Flash.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #44 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.

Google Fast Flip too. Along with the personizable news.google.com

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?

Flickr: Lets people upload any non-copyrighted image they can find and share it.
Facebook: Lets people repost any story from any other website and share it. (which I'm doing daily)
World Wide Web: Lets people repost as much of the net on a free blog and share it.
MySpace: Lets people repost any story from any other website and share it.
eMail: Lets people paste any content that CMD-C works on and share it.
the Mac: Lets people do all of the above.

We're all publishers these days. Get that picture?


Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

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.

I tried Zinio and found I eventually never used it. The page flicking effect was clever at first, but didn't hold me.

Digital publications don't need to keep emulating the analog media they derive from, they need to deliver a new experience.

The new collaboration between the NY Times and Chrome is an interesting new way to peruse the times (on various browsers). But since it's free and has no ads, I'm not quite sure what the monetizing model is - AND - it lacks a search function. Anyway.......

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.


*not the op here*

Stop being a DICK, Melgross
post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

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.

It hasn't hurt the software (app) development community. It's created a whole new race to the top. Same with music on iTunes. So why not the publishing industry?

However, I do understand your point.
That's why those with marketing savvy, a great product, and lots of ambition will rise to the top. It pushes innovation and design.
post #47 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.

+++ QFT

I would add:

4-- give [at least] as much to attention the customer experience and usability as you do to typeface selection -- things like: zoom/reflow, copy/paste, annotate, bookmark, etc.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

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

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #48 of 70
I bought a few for fun, but they are really too expensive. I'd really like to see trade (and hobby) magazines in this format. I would be much more likely to pay for those. I've never really been a big magazine reader outside of trade magazines, but the iPad is more likely to change that then anything if the price is reasonable. It seems like the iPad should be huge for trade magazines that are purely advertising supported. Where are those?
post #49 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerman2000 View Post

*not the op here*

Stop being a DICK, Melgross

Melgross -- You go right ahead! Being a Dick is not a bad thing
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

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

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

So the only apps that have sold on the App store are from behemoth software development companies? I wasn't aware of that

What is your definition of a 'professional publication'? Content? Units Sold? Advertising Revenue?

My whole point is maybe we should be talking about 'amateur work'. How many people have gone from rags to riches and launched their career on YouTube? Beiber, John Lajoie, Ray William Johnson...
It's what keeps people publishing to YouTube, it's what drives people to YouTube to explore content. People want to explore.

The article talks about low numbers for publications for the iPad... we are talking about why the numbers are low. If you don't understand that Melgross... then I don't know what to tell you?

You sound like a music executive that hasn't realized that media has become social.

Apple didn't invent the Mac only for massive publishing companies, so why the iPad?

If the iPad is intended as a 'Media Consumption Device' - why limit or restrict the media?
Apple once embraced the publishing industry. Now, it appears they want to control it and I don't see that as a viable business plan.

I actually agree with melgross. Your example of YouTube is flawed. Anyone can easily make a video and post it for free on YouTube and can be viewed on how many devices? PCs, Macs, phones, etc... Creating a online publication is no small task plus there's always the Apple approval process then the 70/30 sharing of revenue.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I actually agree with melgross. Your example of YouTube is flawed. Anyone can easily make a video and post it for free on YouTube and can be viewed on how many devices? PCs, Macs, phones, etc... Creating a online publication is no small task plus there's always the Apple approval process then the 70/30 sharing of revenue.

I have no idea what you are in agreement with melgross???
Your post makes no sense actually.

Here is what I would like to see.

1. iWork application for publishing iPad Publications. (mix of Pages and Keynote functionality/animations)

2. A section on the bookstore for iPad Publications / magazines

3. A ranking/management system similar to the App store.

4. The whole notion of revenue sharing is reversed. Apple should pay the publisher to put in ad's from it's iAd platform - should the volume of subscriptions warrant it and the iad advertiser wants his ad in certain publications. ie. Budweiser wants an ad on a certain app and publication. Apple is still making money off hardware sales, software and advertising.

5. An American company operating in America to honor the American Constitution.

The more people publishing - the more people viewing - the more the iPad ecosystem grows = market share to leverage the iAd platform and other advertising revenue's... since that seems to be Apple's next foray.
post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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 think this is the problem with magazine content on the iPad. Giant downloads with lots of bells and whistles that are overpriced relative to what people expect to pay for magazine content. So you download this huge app, read a couple of articles and look at a few pictures and it just doest seem worth it. Forget print, forget typography and exact page layout, make it work more like a web page where people can tweak the display to their preferences. And make sure it's snappier than your web site.

Apple isn't the problem with subscriptions, either, the publishers are. They need to accept that if they want apple to handle them for them through the App Store, they can't expect peoples personal data. If they want that then they should follow the WSJ's example and handle them themselves.

As far as rain's comments go, melgross is right that magazine publishing isn't amateur hour, so comparisons with web publishing for the masses are entirely beside the point.
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque View Post

Apple could create a digital newsstand for publishers - magazine and newspapers. Part of the iBookstore. I think I'll patent this 'idea'.

Already done. Microsoft's founder patented the interface to show viewers new and interesting material. You'll just get lumped into the lawsuit.
post #54 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.

So you're just into the paper? If I enjoy a magazine, I don't want to just read it once then give it away. I want to have it for a while and be able to pull it out whenever I want to re-read it. That's where digital mags shine. I have a big load of Zinio magazines (some paid, some free samples) saved on my hard drive. They're always organized and they don't pile up on shelves. Each of them remembers what page I was reading last, without needing easy to lose bookmarks. Plus on my huge desktop LCD, they display at far larger than paper size for an even more immersive experience. You wouldn't believe how gorgeous a two-page photo spread in National Geographic can be until you see it at 3x magazine size and without curved pages and a fold in the middle. A "small" subset, about 30 issues, is on my iPad so I can read them wherever I am. I'd really rather not carry 30 paper magazines with me everywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerman2000 View Post

Stop being a DICK, Melgross

Except that he's not. He has a point. Forget whether it's electronic or not. Would you be willing to pay anything for a paper magazine with poorly researched content, bad photos, amateurish layout, etc.? I've actually seen such magazines over the decades. Very few of them lasted long, only those that focused on relatively narrow niches at the right time, and those had to improve within their first few issues to survive.

It really is price. Bonnier Corporation learned that the hard way. They yanked Popular Science from Zinio so they could plug their own Popular Science+ app at $5 at issue. There was an uproar and they had to bring it back to Zinio "by popular demand." They've since dropped PS+ to $3 per month, but I'd still rather read the Zinio edition for $12 a year - 1/3 the price.

I really do hope the magazine apps fail so the publishers learn their lessons. Don't be so damn greedy. If you can print and mail paper for $1 an issue, don't gouge the readers at $5 with a few fancy but useless online features. And anyone who says a magazine website is just as good is dead wrong. There are some magazines I like reading, but I can't stand their overly busy, badly organized websites.
post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I have no idea what you are in agreement with melgross???
Your post makes no sense actually.

Here is what I would like to see.

1. iWork application for publishing iPad Publications. (mix of Pages and Keynote functionality/animations)

2. A section on the bookstore for iPad Publications / magazines

3. A ranking/management system similar to the App store.

4. The whole notion of revenue sharing is reversed. Apple should pay the publisher to put in ad's from it's iAd platform - should the volume of subscriptions warrant it and the iad advertiser wants his ad in certain publications. ie. Budweiser wants an ad on a certain app and publication. Apple is still making money off hardware sales, software and advertising.

5. An American company operating in America to honor the American Constitution.

The more people publishing - the more people viewing - the more the iPad ecosystem grows = market share to leverage the iAd platform and other advertising revenue's... since that seems to be Apple's next foray.

My post made plenty sense. What do you consider an "American" company or product?
Anything NOT made in the US is not an "American" product just because an American company sells it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #56 of 70
Simple answer, You read a magazine - you throw it out. You don't give up valuable hard drive space for a 2009 issue of Wired. Bad idea to begin with.
post #57 of 70
wore off pretty fast on that one
post #58 of 70
Makes sense....

Zinio is a much better deal since you can read them on the iPad or your computer......

The new Zinio iPad app is excellent....
post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

The magazines are too expensive and the publishers are too greedy..

that was my feeling as well. Plus the digital versions were often bloated image packs from the print version. With a device that can give you media, there should be more than just text and photos on a 'page'. Let me heard samples from the CD you are reviewing, let me at least see the trailer of the movie. When you interview omeon, let me watch and listen to the person speaking and not just read your words of what was said. And so on

Also it seems like the UI on several mags just sucked. I saw a couple where you had to tap a button to flip the page instead of swiping (which seems like th most natural way to do it).

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #60 of 70
Magazines need to create content specifically for the iPad, and not just use InDesign to port it over. Wired's magazine was not that great, the files were HUGE, and the interactive features felt slugish. They need to create and stream more exclusive video content, have selectable text (not just a picture of text), and make an ecosystem of their brand. Until they do that, sales will continue to decline.
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
blog.stevenswigart.com
Reply
post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm6032 View Post

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?

To answer ^^^: absolutely nothing. And I agree 100%!

As you said, HTML-App is the way to go, especially with Google Chrome just around the corner, Android, and even MS going HTML5 standards-based with the upcoming IE9.

If I was a publisher, I would be scared... very scared.

OR... I would sit down and do a serious evaluation of what makes "my content" better or more relevant than my competition's. The Flipbook approach is just so awesome, as well as twitter, RSS, Facebook, Blogs, whatever. There is already too much to read and keep up with every day.

If I had big bucks, I would start a syndication agency for authors and content creators. Get rid of the staff except the techs that would "feed" original articles in a standards compliant form. Build in ads to the article's feed, and call it a day.

I just can't see old-style magazines or newspapers surviving. Also, one of the great things about the web, and AI should know, is the interaction between the articles and the readers within the forums. My measly "5-spot" says it's the true meat-n-potatoes re: income. Why else the click-bait headlines?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #62 of 70
You can't flick through them easily. And you can't have a pile on your coffee table for people to leaf through without worrying they will break your iPad. Digital Magazine will come when digital paper is as thin as the current stuff and about as valuable.
post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLiver View Post

Simple answer, You read a magazine - you throw it out. You don't give up valuable hard drive space for a 2009 issue of Wired. Bad idea to begin with.

Every issue of Popular Science in my Zinio collection is smaller than 20MB. That's more than 50 issues to a gigabyte. With over 8TB of storage on my Hackintosh, I can spare a few gigabytes to keep issues for years. Your mileage may vary if all you have is a Macbook with 200GB. Even my 32GB iPad has plenty of space for a good selection of recent issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

You can't flick through them easily.

I can flick (or did you really mean "flip") through Zinio issues easily. There's a hideable thumbnail gallery across the bottom of the screen on the iPad that lets me jump to any page in seconds.
post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solipcyst View Post

You young whippersnappers may not remember, but in the bad old days before the 'Web, there were such magazines available in every major city. They were called 'zines. They were home made, with local or literary content. They used an old-fashioned process called "Xerography" to print, and an old fashioned device called a stapler to publish.

There is a Museum of these publications at Harvard University.

The 'Web killed 'zines. It also killed Magazines, but few yet realize that is the case.

Here's a little tip. If you want to be condescending, make sure you know who you're talking to. Some of us "young whippersnappers" knew about such publications long before the "zines" movement in the 1980s. They were called fanzines decades before that and were usually printed with another "old fashioned device" you may not have heard of called a mimeograph. And I absolutely refused to pay for them because of their amateurishness. Early senility, "grampa"?
post #65 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.

I beg to differ, the only reason I didn't subscribe to every magazine I read was based on the prices. Cost is lower - Price should be lower. Subscription is same price as buying every individual issue, so I would never bother subscribing.

It's easy for them to keep their current format when they can say the new one doesn't sell. Which is just plain stupid since it's a new market that might tap into more customers that they've just never had before. This is the exact case for me... Bought occasional issues but would never subscribe, then this came along and I would have been a subscriber if the price made any sense.
post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solipcyst View Post

A swipe is a big motion. A press is a small motion. I hate the ereaders that require a swipe. A simple tap anywhere near the right side of the page is vastly superior.

That is the biggest problem using the iPad for content creation: it has no trackpad, and requires large arm motions instead of a tiny finger motion.

A tap would have a different purpose in an interactive publication. A large arm motion? Really?...
post #67 of 70
The whole concept of an electronic but non-web-based version of a magazine seems absurd.

Isn't this exactly what www technology is designed to do? It seems unlikely that dedicated/proprietary apps stand a chance against the development prowess of an entire planet of web tech developers.

I've heard all the reasons why magazines could theoretically benefit from technologies not available on the web. However, if those reasons were truly compelling, wouldn't they be incorporated into web browsers? After all, this is exactly what the web was, is, and will be designed for. So far, i've yet to see a dedicated app that I would prefer over clean/well-authored xslt/css.

Oh... and the prices are ludicrous. $5 per electronic issue? These publishing executives are clueless! They're running their own business into the ground!
post #68 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

So you're just into the paper? If I enjoy a magazine, I don't want to just read it once then give it away. I want to have it for a while and be able to pull it out whenever I want to re-read it. That's where digital mags shine. I have a big load of Zinio magazines (some paid, some free samples) saved on my hard drive. They're always organized and they don't pile up on shelves. Each of them remembers what page I was reading last, without needing easy to lose bookmarks. Plus on my huge desktop LCD, they display at far larger than paper size for an even more immersive experience. You wouldn't believe how gorgeous a two-page photo spread in National Geographic can be until you see it at 3x magazine size and without curved pages and a fold in the middle. A "small" subset, about 30 issues, is on my iPad so I can read them wherever I am. I'd really rather not carry 30 paper magazines with me everywhere.

Printed publications are just different. You like your digital versions and I like my printed ones. For example I get a lot of art and architecture publications that are simply not available in digital form anyway. They make lovely presentations for our office waiting/lounge area. Picking up a magazine is a more casual and relaxing activity than purposefully turning on a device and navigating to an app or url and launching it. Plus reading a printed page is easier on the eyes and can be done more easily from an arm chair, rather than sitting at a computer monitor/keyboard.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Picking up a magazine is a more casual and relaxing activity than purposefully turning on a device and navigating to an app or url and launching it.

That's exactly it IMHO, the iPad just isn't casual enough. What it may be good for though is searching through a back catalog of magazines for a particular article, but then you're being purposeful (i.e. not casual) from the start.
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by FolioGraphic View Post

A tap would have a different purpose in an interactive publication. A large arm motion? Really?...

In his zeal to troll, Solipcyst really doesn't seem to have noticed the irony of his complaint. When I'm reading with Zinio on the iPad, I turn pages with a small flick of my right thumb, in a motion that takes perhaps an inch. But he wants to complain about "large arm motions"? How about the motion it takes to flip a page in a physical book or magazine? If that isn't a large arm motion, I don't know what is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Printed publications are just different. You like your digital versions and I like my printed ones. For example I get a lot of art and architecture publications that are simply not available in digital form anyway. They make lovely presentations for our office waiting/lounge area. Picking up a magazine is a more casual and relaxing activity than purposefully turning on a device and navigating to an app or url and launching it. Plus reading a printed page is easier on the eyes and can be done more easily from an arm chair, rather than sitting at a computer monitor/keyboard.

You seem to swing back and forth, choosing your points haphazardly. You love paper. You love the way it looks and feels. But it's disposable to you. You just like it for a short time before giving it away. You complain that many of your magazines aren't available in digital form. That is not an insurmountable fault of the format, just the whims of the publishers. Navigating to an app is hardly difficult on an iPad. I can have any issue at my fingers 30 seconds after picking up an iPad. Sorting through a stack of magazines for the issue I want to read is hardly relaxing to me. And then there's the old trope of paper supposedly being easier on the eyes. Not to mention for some odd reason, you decide to suddenly pick on how hard it is to sit at a monitor rather than on a couch, ignoring that this has no bearing on your almost Luddite complaints about the iPad.

Personally, I'm happy that I'm saving trees rather than lusting after some dubious advantages of paper. Especially when one considers the massive waste that comes from print overruns, spoiled issues that have printing problems, unsold issues returned from retailers, etc., not to mention the costs of shipping those issues back and forth.
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