Unlike the iPhone which is a huge success, I see the Tablet as a more modest niche device. Tailoring content exclusively for that format might be risky. I do believe that whatever the publishers have in mind, it clearly needs to run on a wide variety of devices or the digital equivalent of magazine publishing will not get off the ground.
Apple may different plans. They?ve seen much success in music, videos and apps that are tailored to their devices. This doesn?t mean they couldn?t go with someone else, unless contractually obligated not to, but open standards that are then protected seem to the best way. They are already putting their content on their websites with this code with lots of ads and without much revenue so they really have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by letting Apple tell them the best way to push their content. I?d bet on HTML, CSS, and JS like in iTunes LP.
If it is open it?s not like other devices can?t use WebKit or other standards based browsers.
Unlike the iPhone which is a huge success, I see the Tablet as a more modest niche device. Tailoring content exclusively for that format might be risky. I do believe that whatever the publishers have in mind, it clearly needs to run on a wide variety of devices or the digital equivalent of magazine publishing will not get off the ground.
I understand what you're saying, but the iPod/iTMS/iTunes experience didn't seem to hurt the widespread adoption of digital music downloads. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the tight integration of device/store/media manager was exactly what made the system successful, with the one stop shopping of the iTMS in particular being key.
Of course, the counter argument is that that very phenomena has made every other content provider super leery of letting Apple ever have that level of leverage again. But, from a consumer standpoint, if a given device and its ecosystem gives me access to the content I want, in a format that is enjoyable, for a reasonable price, and in a convenient manner, then what's not to like?
Gear-heads, geeks and tech pundits make a fetish of "variety", but I don't think there's a very big market that wishes they could use their iPod with software other than iTunes, or want to use iTunes with players other than the iPod.
Why? Because it's easier to have the entire experience just be a seamless whole. I can imagine an Apple media player/tablet/pad thing with a lot of vertical integration driving the take-off of digital publishing in a way that a lot of "choice" hasn't, because I think the average consumer wants something that just works, and works nicely. It's hard to have those things unless someone who cares about all the parts is working hard to get them to mesh, and that's what Apple does best.
I know a lot of people regard that as "controlling" and dread the subsequent "lock-in", but a mish-mash of disparate sites, formats, devices, rights allocations, copy protection and pricing is a turn-off. Just look at how online TV services have sort of languished-- there are so many different ways to get at stuff, with such a bewildering system of availability, that there isn't any one way to get most of it at one go. You have to be a pretty savvy, tech-aware consumer to meld your Boxee with your Hulu with your Roku with your Netflix with your cable with your DVR with your WMC with your Java applet enabled TV that you just bought. That's what "choice" looks like in the open market.
Apple may different plans. They?ve seen much success in music, videos and apps that are tailored to their devices. This doesn?t mean they couldn?t go with someone else, unless contractually obligated not to, but open standards that are then protected seem to the best way. They are already putting their content on their websites with this code with lots of ads and without much revenue so they really have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by letting Apple tell them the best way to push their content. I?d bet on HTML, CSS, and JS like in iTunes LP.
If it is open it?s not like other devices can?t use WebKit or other standards based browsers.
I'm all for open standards as long as they work, which hasn't always been the case up until now. It has taken many years to get HTML4 CSS3 working reliably but now you throw in HTML5 CSS4 and everything goes haywire for a few years until all the browsers get the details worked out. For LP format to evolve into a viable publishing standard it is going to take an unprecedented success of the Tablet, a lot of free content, free authoring tools on Mac and Windows and multiple device compatibility. Otherwise I'm afraid it will flop. Plus they will have to give it a better name and publicize the heck out it as well.
I understand what you're saying, but the iPod/iTMS/iTunes experience didn't seem to hurt the widespread adoption of digital music downloads. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the tight integration of device/store/media manager was exactly what made the system successful, with the one stop shopping of the iTMS in particular being key.
I'm not sure that the iTunes store was what made the iPod successful. As they say 90% of the content on those devices comes from users ripping their own music and/or bootleg acquisitions. I personally only purchased a few songs and videos. most of my collection came from other sources. The fact that I could find or create my own content was the biggest appeal for me.
I'm not sure that the iTunes store was what made the iPod successful. As they say 90% of the content on those devices comes from users ripping their own music and/or bootleg acquisitions. I personally only purchased a few songs and videos. most of my collection came from other sources. The fact that I could find or create my own content was the biggest appeal for me.
Not sure about the actual figures on that, but I'm also not sure how anyone would "rip" electronic publishing for individual use. The CD/iPod phenomena was sort of a historical accident, and it doesn't look like it's going to be replicated.
At any rate, I would imagine that an Apple media player/pad/tablet would be capable of displaying all kinds of content, not just an Apple designed subscription/publishing format, so the analogy to the iPod might be a little strained (yeah, I know, I was the one making that analogy, I make no claims to consistency, just thinking out loud).
But I do think that, even though a lot of non-iTMS content may have ended up on iPods, the whole edifice of the ecosystem helped sell people on the idea of giving themselves over to digital music end-to-end. Sure, you could rip your CDs to your heart's content, or download or share pirated copies, but the sense that someone was minding the store and everything worked together was a big adoption driver, IMO.
That's what I'm thinking about for an electronic publishing format, and that ties in with the reported efforts of Apple to line up content providers. Imagine a tablet with a unified interface for subscribing to and viewing a wide variety of rich print content, with a consistent way of parsing the data so that you could be sure that you were always getting just what the publisher intended.
Sure, you might want to import other file types for viewing within that structure, but just knowing that a lot of your favorite magazines and newspapers were available in an easy to read and navigate format with a lot of visual polish, and that they were available from a central repository with unified interface and pricing scheme, well..... there's just a certain psychological aspect to that that might just make the difference to genuinely wide-spread adoption.
Or not. Maybe people really don't give a shit about such niceties, anymore, and the web itself is doing a perfectly fine job getting people that kind of content. However, I know that a lot of formerly free content is getting more and more encumbered by advertising, or being shifted over to "premium" paid sections, so some of the appeal of such content to date probably has had more to do with being readily accessible and free than being particularly well designed.
If publishers start getting serious about "monetizing" their stuff, whoever can make that as painless as possible will have a real advantage.
Sure, you might want to import other file types for viewing within that structure, but just knowing that a lot of your favorite magazines and newspapers were available in an easy to read and navigate format with a lot of visual polish, and that they were available from a central repository with unified interface and pricing scheme, well..... there's just a certain psychological aspect to that that might just make the difference to genuinely wide-spread adoption.
No disagreement really. Being in the publishing business, I would like to be able to create my own content in whatever format they decide on, and not have to ask nice for Apple to approve it. The big publishers can usually get their way but small indie publishers like small indie bands, are at the mercy of whoever holds the digital purse strings. I want a format that can be produced in-house and sell it to my clients for their needs. Digital books, magazines, tutorials, maintenance guides, program agendas, study notes. All kinds of things that are not entertainment oriented and of little interest to widespread pirating but very valuable to have available for purchase independent from a central repository.
No disagreement really. Being in the publishing business, I would like to be able to create my own content in whatever format they decide on, and not have to ask nice for Apple to approve it. The big publishers can usually get their way but small indie publishers like small indie bands, are at the mercy of whoever holds the digital purse strings. I want a format that can be produced in-house and sell it to my clients for their needs. Digital books, magazines, tutorials, maintenance guides, program agendas, study notes. All kinds of things that are not entertainment oriented and of little interest to widespread pirating but very valuable to have available for purchase independent from a central repository.
Yeah, one thing to be wary of would certainly be Apple being a gate keeper for content. They've never done that with music, and the App Store is sort of a different thing (since apps have a bearing on the functionality of the device in a way simple content doesn't), so I'm hoping that won't be an issue (assuming any of this comes to any kind of fruition).
If I had to guess, I'd say that Apple's best play would be to settle on a format that uses open standards, then flog the hell out of it with a nicely integrated display device, encouraging one and all to produce content that worked especially well on the Apple branded hardware while offering a central purchase/subscription/download service ala the iTMS (and, inevitably, such a beast would probably be part of same, the endless bloat of the iTMS as a single portal for every damn thing in the universe being a whole other discussion).
Any effort by Apple beyond that to control content would doom the whole thing to failure, IMO.
Its crucial to their survival that they create a major new "paradigm" where users expect to pay for (expensive to produce and deliver) digital content. But they are fools if they think that some kind of central "consortium" will produce a winning GUI "store" of their own that approaches the caliber of the iTunes Store. For comparison with a similar mega-corporate conglomerate undertaking, see "CableLabs", "CableCARD", and "tru2way".
It's safe to say this isn't for devices "like Apple's tablet", but rather this is specially for Apple's tablet. Apple are telling these companies cause they need their content, and when you tell them all it's impossible to keep a secret, which is why we're hearing all this. We're not hearing "all these rumors". We're really hearing leaked truth.
The cover up is to say it's for devices like this rumored tablet, but really it's specifically for Apple's tablet I say. They are (accidentally) creating buzz, and I'd say Apple is a lot happier about this buzz than most here would imagine probably.
Also I think Spam is spot on with his HTML5 call, would be way more light-weight and interactive. And potentially far more visually powerful too. The magazines could be locally stored and the videos could be streamed, making the editions very light-weight and super quick to download. That's said the magazine thing in and of itself excites me like paint drying excites me. It only excites the industry cause they see "$$$" symbols. Example: why buy Stuff magazine when you can go to their site for free? If they can make a compelling magazine and offer a paid ad-free version and/or a free compelling ad-supported version that you can download in seconds and is ultimately more useful then going to the site then that could be potentially useful. It's worth pointing out using Stuff as the example, that the magazine has extra content you can't find on their site, with more in depth articles and such.
The difference here though would be you'd get the magazine like before, only you'd get it in seconds right on your device, and you'd have the added benefit of being able to interact with it and be able to stream video within it. That and the subscription for the magazine would be handled through your iTunes account, making it almost too easy, if you know what I mean.
This will be one of I'd say the 10 features they push hard when Mr. Ego takes to the stage in 2010.
We know it's going to be multi-touch, that's just a given. So after that the two most important aspects of this device are simple for me: OLED screen and physical characteristics of the device. Tapered, pretty thin, likely aluminum rear, 10" display, and the kick stand.
This device needs a built-in hardware stand like the iPod shuffle needs headphones.
Which would be quite the full circle for the Mac! Desktop publishing is in it's DNA if I recall.
I never understood this argument. The truth is that it was the Apple Laserwriter and not the Mac platform that drove desktop publishing. The Apple Laserwriter was one of the first commercially available Postscript laser printers for sale. The only advantage the Mac had over a windows machine was the ColorSync utility which was built into the Mac OS rather than an add on for Windows.
I never understood this argument. The truth is that it was the Apple Laserwriter and not the Mac platform that drove desktop publishing. The Apple Laserwriter was one of the first commercially available Postscript laser printers for sale. The only advantage the Mac had over a windows machine was the ColorSync utility which was built into the Mac OS rather than an add on for Windows.
Well, that and the release of the (for a time) Mac only Aldus PageMaker and the fact that Macs shipped with bit-mapped WYSISYG display systems.
While the PC world would follow on in short order, the combination of software, hardware and display system really did create the desktop publishing market, and it involved a bit more than just plugging in a printer.
In a way it's like saying that it's not really true that Apple revolutionized electronic music purchasing, because it was just a matter of having an MP3 player to use with their computers. The real story is always in the integration and ease of use.
To all you people suggesting HTML 5 is going to be the digital publishing delivery format are just in a delusion. If that happens, I'll totally eat my hat so to speak. It's going to take HTML5,001 before they will come even close to duplicating the subtle nuiances of the art. Unless you are in the printing/ publishing/ web delveolpment business you can only repeat the publicity buzz words. Go spend 20 years in DTP and web delvelopment then read the entire HTML5 spec and get back to me.
I can't remember if it was this thread or another where we were speculating that the iTunes LP format might be a trojan horse for a broader initiative of aggregating multimedia content in a good looking, standards based wrapper, but I see where Apple is opening up the LP format to developers.
"Automatic" submission is slated for early 2010, which of course coincides with the rumored release of the rumored tablet device.
Whether the LP format is broadened to include magazine like content or not, I can really see where Apple would want to get this format off the ground as a driver for hardware sales. Since the LP format does a full screen thing, it's sort of a variant on the iPhone's ability to "become" whatever app is running. For instance, when I'm listening to music, the tablet becomes the equivalent of the old idea of an LP sleeve, one of the more elaborate ones with gate folds and extra inserts and what not. Something to browse and think about while you're listening.
If the format where to be used for other media, I kind of like the psychological aspect of having the thing in my hands "become" a magazine or newspaper, without any distractions. I would imagine the publishers might like that as well.
Of course, the question is whether or not enough people want that kind of experience anymore-- single attention, single thing, without constantly hopping away to links and sidebars and email and IM.
To all you people suggesting HTML 5 is going to be the digital publishing delivery format are just in a delusion. If that happens, I'll totally eat my hat so to speak. It's going to take HTML5,001 before they will come even close to duplicating the subtle nuiances of the art. Unless you are in the printing/ publishing/ web delveolpment business you can only repeat the publicity buzz words. Go spend 20 years in DTP and web delvelopment then read the entire HTML5 spec and get back to me.
Except that haven't most print publishers already made their peace with web standards? I realize that their designers probably despair that they can't put across the nuanced, carefully controlled typography and graphics layout that print affords them, but is it really a matter of holding out for being able to replicate print perfectly, or a matter of getting something that works pretty well, that has appeal for the consumer, and that can provide income streams analogous to traditional subscriptions?
Something has to give in the publishing industry. They can't keep giving away content for free, with only ad revenue, and they can't stand pat with print. They have to convince people that online content is worth paying for, just as they once paid for subscriptions, but to do that they need something that rises above the leveling effects of the web and browsers.
That's why I think a tablet device running a publishing specific format might work for them-- it gives them back the sense of "specialness" that come with opening a new issue of a magazine.
Does that impression come from finely controlled typography and color reproduction, or from the "objectness" of a given publication? If a tablet running a full screen publishing format can give one the sense of objectness, does the finer nuances of layout matter that much?
As someone in the industry, I'm sure the question makes you want to tear your hair out, but consider it. Maybe full screen online content that looks better than what you get with a browser but not quite as good as what you get with a printed page is "good enough", considering the dire circumstance of the publishing industry.
To all you people suggesting HTML 5 is going to be the digital publishing delivery format are just in a delusion. If that happens, I'll totally eat my hat so to speak. It's going to take HTML5,001 before they will come even close to duplicating the subtle nuiances of the art. Unless you are in the printing/ publishing/ web delveolpment business you can only repeat the publicity buzz words. Go spend 20 years in DTP and web delvelopment then read the entire HTML5 spec and get back to me.
Look this over and tell me what you think Apple is pushing toward with this well known open-standards webcode for content creation of interactive media.
PS: Note that the TuneKit appendix lists the following text which seems to correclate with the presumed announcement of the Tablet. It almost sounds like after they get the bugs out newspapers and periodical content providers will have an easy time of simply completing their work and having it distributed automatically with a familiar, Podcast-like method.
Automatic, electronic submission of your iTunes LP or Extra is scheduled for the first quarter of 2010. Until then, the submission process is manual and limited.
Having worked with CSS/Javascript through all of its issues for many years now, I would never refer to it as easy, or having consistent rendering across different platforms. Web based fonts installed at load time are far from seamless and there is no standard license from the various foundries. PDF is a very mature format, not to mention ubiquitous. Embedding of Flash is something that can live in a separate area in the document and stream. No one should assume that the entire print publication would be delivered in Flash. I am hopeful that the new Tablet, should it exist, will support Flash and PDF. The current version of PDF rendering on iPhone is somewhat crippled.
Now, if PDFs were given the ability to stream information instead of the current all-or-nothing file format it is... that would be interesting and file size would become less of an issue.
Comments
Unlike the iPhone which is a huge success, I see the Tablet as a more modest niche device. Tailoring content exclusively for that format might be risky. I do believe that whatever the publishers have in mind, it clearly needs to run on a wide variety of devices or the digital equivalent of magazine publishing will not get off the ground.
Apple may different plans. They?ve seen much success in music, videos and apps that are tailored to their devices. This doesn?t mean they couldn?t go with someone else, unless contractually obligated not to, but open standards that are then protected seem to the best way. They are already putting their content on their websites with this code with lots of ads and without much revenue so they really have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by letting Apple tell them the best way to push their content. I?d bet on HTML, CSS, and JS like in iTunes LP.
If it is open it?s not like other devices can?t use WebKit or other standards based browsers.
Unlike the iPhone which is a huge success, I see the Tablet as a more modest niche device. Tailoring content exclusively for that format might be risky. I do believe that whatever the publishers have in mind, it clearly needs to run on a wide variety of devices or the digital equivalent of magazine publishing will not get off the ground.
I understand what you're saying, but the iPod/iTMS/iTunes experience didn't seem to hurt the widespread adoption of digital music downloads. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the tight integration of device/store/media manager was exactly what made the system successful, with the one stop shopping of the iTMS in particular being key.
Of course, the counter argument is that that very phenomena has made every other content provider super leery of letting Apple ever have that level of leverage again. But, from a consumer standpoint, if a given device and its ecosystem gives me access to the content I want, in a format that is enjoyable, for a reasonable price, and in a convenient manner, then what's not to like?
Gear-heads, geeks and tech pundits make a fetish of "variety", but I don't think there's a very big market that wishes they could use their iPod with software other than iTunes, or want to use iTunes with players other than the iPod.
Why? Because it's easier to have the entire experience just be a seamless whole. I can imagine an Apple media player/tablet/pad thing with a lot of vertical integration driving the take-off of digital publishing in a way that a lot of "choice" hasn't, because I think the average consumer wants something that just works, and works nicely. It's hard to have those things unless someone who cares about all the parts is working hard to get them to mesh, and that's what Apple does best.
I know a lot of people regard that as "controlling" and dread the subsequent "lock-in", but a mish-mash of disparate sites, formats, devices, rights allocations, copy protection and pricing is a turn-off. Just look at how online TV services have sort of languished-- there are so many different ways to get at stuff, with such a bewildering system of availability, that there isn't any one way to get most of it at one go. You have to be a pretty savvy, tech-aware consumer to meld your Boxee with your Hulu with your Roku with your Netflix with your cable with your DVR with your WMC with your Java applet enabled TV that you just bought. That's what "choice" looks like in the open market.
Apple may different plans. They?ve seen much success in music, videos and apps that are tailored to their devices. This doesn?t mean they couldn?t go with someone else, unless contractually obligated not to, but open standards that are then protected seem to the best way. They are already putting their content on their websites with this code with lots of ads and without much revenue so they really have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by letting Apple tell them the best way to push their content. I?d bet on HTML, CSS, and JS like in iTunes LP.
If it is open it?s not like other devices can?t use WebKit or other standards based browsers.
I'm all for open standards as long as they work, which hasn't always been the case up until now. It has taken many years to get HTML4 CSS3 working reliably but now you throw in HTML5 CSS4 and everything goes haywire for a few years until all the browsers get the details worked out. For LP format to evolve into a viable publishing standard it is going to take an unprecedented success of the Tablet, a lot of free content, free authoring tools on Mac and Windows and multiple device compatibility. Otherwise I'm afraid it will flop. Plus they will have to give it a better name and publicize the heck out it as well.
I understand what you're saying, but the iPod/iTMS/iTunes experience didn't seem to hurt the widespread adoption of digital music downloads. In fact, it's pretty easy to argue that the tight integration of device/store/media manager was exactly what made the system successful, with the one stop shopping of the iTMS in particular being key.
I'm not sure that the iTunes store was what made the iPod successful. As they say 90% of the content on those devices comes from users ripping their own music and/or bootleg acquisitions. I personally only purchased a few songs and videos. most of my collection came from other sources. The fact that I could find or create my own content was the biggest appeal for me.
I'm not sure that the iTunes store was what made the iPod successful. As they say 90% of the content on those devices comes from users ripping their own music and/or bootleg acquisitions. I personally only purchased a few songs and videos. most of my collection came from other sources. The fact that I could find or create my own content was the biggest appeal for me.
Not sure about the actual figures on that, but I'm also not sure how anyone would "rip" electronic publishing for individual use. The CD/iPod phenomena was sort of a historical accident, and it doesn't look like it's going to be replicated.
At any rate, I would imagine that an Apple media player/pad/tablet would be capable of displaying all kinds of content, not just an Apple designed subscription/publishing format, so the analogy to the iPod might be a little strained (yeah, I know, I was the one making that analogy, I make no claims to consistency, just thinking out loud).
But I do think that, even though a lot of non-iTMS content may have ended up on iPods, the whole edifice of the ecosystem helped sell people on the idea of giving themselves over to digital music end-to-end. Sure, you could rip your CDs to your heart's content, or download or share pirated copies, but the sense that someone was minding the store and everything worked together was a big adoption driver, IMO.
That's what I'm thinking about for an electronic publishing format, and that ties in with the reported efforts of Apple to line up content providers. Imagine a tablet with a unified interface for subscribing to and viewing a wide variety of rich print content, with a consistent way of parsing the data so that you could be sure that you were always getting just what the publisher intended.
Sure, you might want to import other file types for viewing within that structure, but just knowing that a lot of your favorite magazines and newspapers were available in an easy to read and navigate format with a lot of visual polish, and that they were available from a central repository with unified interface and pricing scheme, well..... there's just a certain psychological aspect to that that might just make the difference to genuinely wide-spread adoption.
Or not. Maybe people really don't give a shit about such niceties, anymore, and the web itself is doing a perfectly fine job getting people that kind of content. However, I know that a lot of formerly free content is getting more and more encumbered by advertising, or being shifted over to "premium" paid sections, so some of the appeal of such content to date probably has had more to do with being readily accessible and free than being particularly well designed.
If publishers start getting serious about "monetizing" their stuff, whoever can make that as painless as possible will have a real advantage.
Sure, you might want to import other file types for viewing within that structure, but just knowing that a lot of your favorite magazines and newspapers were available in an easy to read and navigate format with a lot of visual polish, and that they were available from a central repository with unified interface and pricing scheme, well..... there's just a certain psychological aspect to that that might just make the difference to genuinely wide-spread adoption.
No disagreement really. Being in the publishing business, I would like to be able to create my own content in whatever format they decide on, and not have to ask nice for Apple to approve it. The big publishers can usually get their way but small indie publishers like small indie bands, are at the mercy of whoever holds the digital purse strings. I want a format that can be produced in-house and sell it to my clients for their needs. Digital books, magazines, tutorials, maintenance guides, program agendas, study notes. All kinds of things that are not entertainment oriented and of little interest to widespread pirating but very valuable to have available for purchase independent from a central repository.
No disagreement really. Being in the publishing business, I would like to be able to create my own content in whatever format they decide on, and not have to ask nice for Apple to approve it. The big publishers can usually get their way but small indie publishers like small indie bands, are at the mercy of whoever holds the digital purse strings. I want a format that can be produced in-house and sell it to my clients for their needs. Digital books, magazines, tutorials, maintenance guides, program agendas, study notes. All kinds of things that are not entertainment oriented and of little interest to widespread pirating but very valuable to have available for purchase independent from a central repository.
Yeah, one thing to be wary of would certainly be Apple being a gate keeper for content. They've never done that with music, and the App Store is sort of a different thing (since apps have a bearing on the functionality of the device in a way simple content doesn't), so I'm hoping that won't be an issue (assuming any of this comes to any kind of fruition).
If I had to guess, I'd say that Apple's best play would be to settle on a format that uses open standards, then flog the hell out of it with a nicely integrated display device, encouraging one and all to produce content that worked especially well on the Apple branded hardware while offering a central purchase/subscription/download service ala the iTMS (and, inevitably, such a beast would probably be part of same, the endless bloat of the iTMS as a single portal for every damn thing in the universe being a whole other discussion).
Any effort by Apple beyond that to control content would doom the whole thing to failure, IMO.
The cover up is to say it's for devices like this rumored tablet, but really it's specifically for Apple's tablet I say. They are (accidentally) creating buzz, and I'd say Apple is a lot happier about this buzz than most here would imagine probably.
Also I think Spam is spot on with his HTML5 call, would be way more light-weight and interactive. And potentially far more visually powerful too. The magazines could be locally stored and the videos could be streamed, making the editions very light-weight and super quick to download. That's said the magazine thing in and of itself excites me like paint drying excites me. It only excites the industry cause they see "$$$" symbols. Example: why buy Stuff magazine when you can go to their site for free? If they can make a compelling magazine and offer a paid ad-free version and/or a free compelling ad-supported version that you can download in seconds and is ultimately more useful then going to the site then that could be potentially useful. It's worth pointing out using Stuff as the example, that the magazine has extra content you can't find on their site, with more in depth articles and such.
The difference here though would be you'd get the magazine like before, only you'd get it in seconds right on your device, and you'd have the added benefit of being able to interact with it and be able to stream video within it. That and the subscription for the magazine would be handled through your iTunes account, making it almost too easy, if you know what I mean.
This will be one of I'd say the 10 features they push hard when Mr. Ego takes to the stage in 2010.
We know it's going to be multi-touch, that's just a given. So after that the two most important aspects of this device are simple for me: OLED screen and physical characteristics of the device. Tapered, pretty thin, likely aluminum rear, 10" display, and the kick stand.
This device needs a built-in hardware stand like the iPod shuffle needs headphones.
Which would be quite the full circle for the Mac! Desktop publishing is in it's DNA if I recall.
I never understood this argument. The truth is that it was the Apple Laserwriter and not the Mac platform that drove desktop publishing. The Apple Laserwriter was one of the first commercially available Postscript laser printers for sale. The only advantage the Mac had over a windows machine was the ColorSync utility which was built into the Mac OS rather than an add on for Windows.
I never understood this argument. The truth is that it was the Apple Laserwriter and not the Mac platform that drove desktop publishing. The Apple Laserwriter was one of the first commercially available Postscript laser printers for sale. The only advantage the Mac had over a windows machine was the ColorSync utility which was built into the Mac OS rather than an add on for Windows.
Well, that and the release of the (for a time) Mac only Aldus PageMaker and the fact that Macs shipped with bit-mapped WYSISYG display systems.
While the PC world would follow on in short order, the combination of software, hardware and display system really did create the desktop publishing market, and it involved a bit more than just plugging in a printer.
In a way it's like saying that it's not really true that Apple revolutionized electronic music purchasing, because it was just a matter of having an MP3 player to use with their computers. The real story is always in the integration and ease of use.
"Automatic" submission is slated for early 2010, which of course coincides with the rumored release of the rumored tablet device.
Whether the LP format is broadened to include magazine like content or not, I can really see where Apple would want to get this format off the ground as a driver for hardware sales. Since the LP format does a full screen thing, it's sort of a variant on the iPhone's ability to "become" whatever app is running. For instance, when I'm listening to music, the tablet becomes the equivalent of the old idea of an LP sleeve, one of the more elaborate ones with gate folds and extra inserts and what not. Something to browse and think about while you're listening.
If the format where to be used for other media, I kind of like the psychological aspect of having the thing in my hands "become" a magazine or newspaper, without any distractions. I would imagine the publishers might like that as well.
Of course, the question is whether or not enough people want that kind of experience anymore-- single attention, single thing, without constantly hopping away to links and sidebars and email and IM.
this is probably a smart move for them, but nothing they offer is worth paying for. They are all left wing propaganda arms of the democratic party.
wow. judging technology (new distribution medium) based on the CONTENT.. thats nice. so you stopped going to movies because you saw a bad one once?
To all you people suggesting HTML 5 is going to be the digital publishing delivery format are just in a delusion. If that happens, I'll totally eat my hat so to speak. It's going to take HTML5,001 before they will come even close to duplicating the subtle nuiances of the art. Unless you are in the printing/ publishing/ web delveolpment business you can only repeat the publicity buzz words. Go spend 20 years in DTP and web delvelopment then read the entire HTML5 spec and get back to me.
Except that haven't most print publishers already made their peace with web standards? I realize that their designers probably despair that they can't put across the nuanced, carefully controlled typography and graphics layout that print affords them, but is it really a matter of holding out for being able to replicate print perfectly, or a matter of getting something that works pretty well, that has appeal for the consumer, and that can provide income streams analogous to traditional subscriptions?
Something has to give in the publishing industry. They can't keep giving away content for free, with only ad revenue, and they can't stand pat with print. They have to convince people that online content is worth paying for, just as they once paid for subscriptions, but to do that they need something that rises above the leveling effects of the web and browsers.
That's why I think a tablet device running a publishing specific format might work for them-- it gives them back the sense of "specialness" that come with opening a new issue of a magazine.
Does that impression come from finely controlled typography and color reproduction, or from the "objectness" of a given publication? If a tablet running a full screen publishing format can give one the sense of objectness, does the finer nuances of layout matter that much?
As someone in the industry, I'm sure the question makes you want to tear your hair out, but consider it. Maybe full screen online content that looks better than what you get with a browser but not quite as good as what you get with a printed page is "good enough", considering the dire circumstance of the publishing industry.
To all you people suggesting HTML 5 is going to be the digital publishing delivery format are just in a delusion. If that happens, I'll totally eat my hat so to speak. It's going to take HTML5,001 before they will come even close to duplicating the subtle nuiances of the art. Unless you are in the printing/ publishing/ web delveolpment business you can only repeat the publicity buzz words. Go spend 20 years in DTP and web delvelopment then read the entire HTML5 spec and get back to me.
Look this over and tell me what you think Apple is pushing toward with this well known open-standards webcode for content creation of interactive media. PS: Note that the TuneKit appendix lists the following text which seems to correclate with the presumed announcement of the Tablet. It almost sounds like after they get the bugs out newspapers and periodical content providers will have an easy time of simply completing their work and having it distributed automatically with a familiar, Podcast-like method.
Having worked with CSS/Javascript through all of its issues for many years now, I would never refer to it as easy, or having consistent rendering across different platforms. Web based fonts installed at load time are far from seamless and there is no standard license from the various foundries. PDF is a very mature format, not to mention ubiquitous. Embedding of Flash is something that can live in a separate area in the document and stream. No one should assume that the entire print publication would be delivered in Flash. I am hopeful that the new Tablet, should it exist, will support Flash and PDF. The current version of PDF rendering on iPhone is somewhat crippled.
Now, if PDFs were given the ability to stream information instead of the current all-or-nothing file format it is... that would be interesting and file size would become less of an issue.