Condé Nast plans for iPad, but is caught in Apple-Adobe Flash fight

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited October 2015
Magazine publisher Condé Nast revealed this week it will create iPad versions of Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, but not all of the publications will receive full interactivity due to the ongoing dispute between Apple and Adobe over Flash.



The New York Times revealed this week an internal memo from Condé Nast announced the company will have the April edition of GQ available for the iPad. That will soon be followed by June issues of Vanity Fair and Wired, while The New Yorker and Glamour will follow in the summer. The publisher will reportedly test a number of different prices, types of advertising, and approaches to reproducing content for the iPad as it experiments with the new format.



According to Peter Kafka of MediaMemo, the different approaches will mean that iPad versions of most Condé Nast magazines will be similar to their existing iPhone versions. While the publisher did show off a highly interactive version of Wired that it intends to release for the iPad, other publications allegedly will not receive the same treatment.



"Conde is still creating a digital version of its tech magazine for the device," Kafka wrote. "But the influential publisher says it won?t create similar iPad apps for other titles unless Apple and Adobe figure out how to work together."



Condé Nast Chief Executive Chuck Townsend said that the interactive version of Wired was originally created with Adobe's help and uses the Adobe Flash platform. Apple's iPad does not support Flash, which will lead the publisher to have "two parallel development tracks," MediaMemo reported.



When asked if his company would embrace the Adobe format if the iPad were compatible with Flash content, Townsend also reportedly said it would be "an easy yes."



"The GQ app for the iPhone is pretty good, by the way, and I?m assuming it will work well on the iPad, too," Kafka wrote. "But it's a pretty straightforward transfer of the print version into digital form, and doesn?t feature the bells and whistles that Wired and Adobe dreamed up."



Adobe has announced plans to circumvent the inability of both the iPad and iPhone to run Flash content, with a native app porting feature built into its forthcoming Creative Suite 5. While Adobe has pushed for years to have Flash on the iPhone since it launched, Apple has not budged. The company's rejection of Flash and move towards alternatives such as HTML5 suggest the Web plugin will not likely appear on the iPad.



As he has promoted the forthcoming iPad, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has been attributed as saying Adobe Flash is a "CPU hog," and calling the prevalent Web format "old technology." Another report alleged that Jobs called Adobe "lazy," and said most Mac crashes are due to Flash.



For more on why Apple isn't likely to support Flash in the iPhone OS, read AppleInsider's three-part Flash Wars series.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 84
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Sounds like this to me:



    "Yes, we love the idea of creating a new way to charge for our near-worthless content, however we have no intention of spending more than 5 man hours to develop it as it would eat into our costs."
  • Reply 2 of 84
    ddleeddlee Posts: 4member
    Condé Nast needs to cut their losses on Flash and move on. Even without Apples help Flash is on the decline, it's only true supporters coming from the advertising industry, for it's ability to force feed ads.
  • Reply 3 of 84
    elmcitywebelmcityweb Posts: 109member
    The NYT and AP have plans for iPad versions of their publications, now magazine powerhouse Conde Nast has announced its intent to create iPad versions of its magazines. I don't think this will hurt their print sales so much. Possibly some. But overall, it may mean more readers, and more eyes on their ads - which is what they ultimately want.
  • Reply 4 of 84
    slapppyslapppy Posts: 331member
    If it will be loaded with FLASH crap, then no subscription for you.
  • Reply 5 of 84
    boogabooga Posts: 1,077member
    It doesn't sound like the readers of their publication are going to miss the Flash content much. If it catches on Conde Nast will find a way.



    By the way, Conde Nast-- if you port away from Flash you won't have "two baselines to support"... you'll have one. HTML5.
  • Reply 6 of 84
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Dear Condé Nast,



    Jobs is right.



    Flash sucks. It is a resource hog, it is old web technology, and it does cause most of the application crashes on Mac OS X.



    If you don't want to be left behind, you better start publishing Flash-free sites lest you see your readership go elsewhere for content. We can already see how your arrogance is blinding you from the realities of 21st century publishing (e.g., Gourmet, House and Garden).



    Sincerely,



    Joe Consumer
  • Reply 7 of 84
    kerrybkerryb Posts: 270member
    Okay here's the choice, go with a small tech company that produces buggy software for photographers and desktop publishing. A company which insist that your content be distributed in an aging web technology (Flash) or go with a big tech company that is leading the industry and creating devices that will get your content into the hands of subscribers but insist you use a technology (HTML 5) that from everyone (except Adobe) agrees is the future of an interactive web?

    Seems like it is not just Adobe that will be called lazy if publishers go with Flash.
  • Reply 8 of 84
    rayboraybo Posts: 32member
    Conde Nast - Shut up and code!
  • Reply 9 of 84
    chronsterchronster Posts: 1,894member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    Dear Condé Nast,



    Jobs is right.



    Flash sucks. It is a resource hog, it is old web technology, and it does cause most of the application crashes on Mac OS X.



    If you don't want to be left behind, you better start publishing Flash-free sites lest you see your readership go elsewhere for content. We can already see how your arrogance is blinding you from the realities of 21st century publishing (e.g., Gourmet, House and Garden).



    Sincerely,



    Joe Consumer



    Hey I'm also Joe Consumer and I want more flash sites. Sorry to hear that OSX has so many issues with it, but PC's don't, and currently PC's dominate the market.



    The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os. Hell, if my windows mobile phone can run flash apps without a hitch, the iphone definitely can.



    If Jobs wants to go with html5, fine, but don't make up bullshit about Flash in order to push html5 into mainstream. Just show why html5 is better and let consumers decide.
  • Reply 10 of 84
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,718member
    Condé Nast needs to have a standards-based website, and only use plug-in technology like Flash for content as an alternate view. There is a difference between offering content using Flash and offering Flash-only content.



    Anyone who develops a Flash-only website is just being lazy, and the stakeholders that pay their salaries should know just how lazy they are...
  • Reply 11 of 84
    lokheedlokheed Posts: 15member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    Hey I'm also Joe Consumer and I want more flash sites. Sorry to hear that OSX has so many issues with it, but PC's don't, and currently PC's dominate the market.



    The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os. Hell, if my windows mobile phone can run flash apps without a hitch, the iphone definitely can.



    If Jobs wants to go with html5, fine, but don't make up bullshit about Flash in order to push html5 into mainstream. Just show why html5 is better and let consumers decide.



    But Windows Mobile Phones CAN'T run Flash without a hitch. It's slow and resource hungry there too. Watch a flash stream and tell me how long your battery takes to drain. Yeah right...



    Jobs' isn't making anything up. You just said above that Flash and OS X have issues... then contradict yourself below... you are trolling and this is flame bait. And I know you are full of it because no one WANTS more Flash on the net. People want videos and interactive content, whether that's Flash or not is outside the fact.



    The bottom line is it took Apple to make all the shortcomings of Flash public knowledge. Adobe knew they had a dead horse long ago. And rather than come up with a new system, they rode their market share and enjoyed the revenue. But technology changes fast and they pretty much got caught with their pants around their ankles. It happens to everyone; just a byproduct of being a massive corporation. It'll happen to Apple one day too...
  • Reply 12 of 84
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Flash / HTML5 debate may rage on... yet some are still waiting for subscription content that would be considered purchasable and right now, those coming to the party are your typical who's who from one left coast to the other and hold no significance to the majority in "fly over" country.
  • Reply 13 of 84
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    Sounds like this to me:



    "Yes, we love the idea of creating a new way to charge for our near-worthless content, however we have no intention of spending more than 5 man hours to develop it as it would eat into our costs."



    spot on analysis
  • Reply 14 of 84
    hexorhexor Posts: 57member
    Talk about a bunch of winers.
  • Reply 15 of 84
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,202member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post




    The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os. .



    Please educate yourself before forming an opinion next time.
  • Reply 16 of 84
    dosheadoshea Posts: 3member
    If you are a New Yorker subscriber and access its current content on the Web, you know that Condé-Nast needs to get to work. The digital reader by realview, their turnkey digital media platform that they use, is a real dog.Because most of my on-line reading of magazine content occurs on html-formatted pages or .pdf files, the cramped realview format with tiny landing points for navigating the magazine drives you crazy. As wrote to realview
    The format furnished by RealView Technologies for the digital version of the New Yorker is really bad. In addition to the inordinate amount of surround space, the article text, which would be perfectly well rendered in an Adobe reader format is greyed and fuzzy without considerable magnification. Reading the digital edition is so tedious, I just have to wait for the printed version in my mailbox. One gets the feeling that this format is not intended as a service to the reader but as it is some form of protection for the client.
    Unfortunately, the realview website has a line: "Click here to register for iPad updates!" God help us!
  • Reply 17 of 84
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    Please educate yourself before forming an opinion next time.



    that works both ways





    just saying
  • Reply 18 of 84
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by doshea View Post


    If you are a New Yorker subscriber and access its current content on the Web, you know that Condé-Nast needs to get to work. The digital reader by realview, their turnkey digital media platform that they use, is a real dog.Because most of my on-line reading of magazine content occurs on html-formatted pages or .pdf files, the cramped realview format with tiny landing points for navigating the magazine drives you crazy. As wrote to realview
    The format furnished by RealView Technologies for the digital version of the New Yorker is really bad. In addition to the inordinate amount of surround space, the article text, which would be perfectly well rendered in an Adobe reader format is greyed and fuzzy without considerable magnification. Reading the digital edition is so tedious, I just have to wait for the printed version in my mailbox. One gets the feeling that this format is not intended as a service to the reader but as it is some form of protection for the client.
    Unfortunately, the realview website has a line: "Click here to register for iPad updates!" God help us!



    OMG! If that's the kind of "reader software" to expect on the iPad, I just may have to revise my projections!!!



    Same-O, same-o trash like Flash: UNREADABLE embedded text and fonts, that when zoomed in doesn't scale, but just gets fuzzier. Just what all of the people that actually want a large iPod Touch, DON'T WANT!
  • Reply 19 of 84
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    Sounds like this to me:



    "Yes, we love the idea of creating a new way to charge for our near-worthless content, however we have no intention of spending more than 5 man hours to develop it as it would eat into our costs."



    basically. Conde Nast needs to get over it. there's no Flash on the iPad. And they are not special enough for Apple to change that to make them happy. Either make something that does work with what is there or don't. As much as I was to see magazines make digital mags with all the bells and whistles, I'd be happy with a straight PDF for now for many titles and let them improve it in bits and pieces. Which of course means they will try to find a way to up the price (a plain version and a enhanced version).



    of course I wish the lower production costs of not having to print, mail etc could mean less advertising but I figure that will never happen.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by slapppy View Post


    If it will be loaded with FLASH crap, then no subscription for you.



    well, happy day for slapppy cause if it is running on the Ipad, it can't be loaded with Flash crap.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    If you don't want to be left behind, you better start publishing Flash-free sites



    they can keep the flash versions for actual computers. there's less of an issue there cause you aren't draining battery etc. although you might still crash some browsers.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash,



    if you believe that then you don't understand what the problem is.



    Because the problem isn't OSX, it's the way that Flash for Mac was written. Adobe hasn't hidden that they took the Flash for Windows and changed perhaps 5 lines to make it work on Mac and never optimized it to work right. And this was in like 2005 and they haven't bothered to do any major fixes since then. Apple has been forced to create band aid measures to keep this hastily and poorly written code from killing browsers, freezing computers etc because Adobe won't fix the software. Their reply has been "it works great on Windows and the two versions of the code are 99.9% the same, so we don't understand how Macs could be having any problems".



    Quote:

    If Jobs wants to go with html5, fine, but don't make up bullshit about Flash



    he didn't have to make up any bullshit. numerous years of independent review by software developers, tech mags etc have built up a slew of facts and those facts speak for themselves. no bull needed.



    The fact is that Adobe agrees with your "there are more PCs so make things for them and screw Macs" attitude and that's what they have done. Apple is not willing to screw their customers by having that kind of junk on the iphone etc. Which is something to be applauded. Pity that the popularity of the iphone hasn't convinced Adobe to do something about their crapware
  • Reply 20 of 84
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    The fact is, if Apple invested some time and money, they could sort out the issues osx has with flash, and even get it working fine on iphone os.



    It's the other way around. Flash has issues with OS X.



    And you think Apple should code their OS to fit applications, not vice-versa?

    And that Apple should "fix" Flash since Adobe is not doing it?
Sign In or Register to comment.