I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
• interactivity
• Games....
• media, music, VIDEO....
• the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.
The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
I downloaded Wired today. With all the interactive, and video content in it, I can see why it's 500MB. Pubs/Apps like Wired will be the reason why the iPad would need more storage space.
As for Wired app itself... THIS IS WHAT A DIGITAL MAGAZINE SHOULD BE, unlike the other digital mags out there which are basically just cut and paste version of their sister paper versions.
I won't be purchasing Wired again on the iPad until they start a subscription option (discounted I would assume as in the paper subscriptions) which they said they'll start doing in the fall.
You most certainly did. You said that 16 GB was ridiculous. For most people who speak English, that means bad. Don't go changing your story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
My statement was general, that during times when people find 1TB drives adequate, 16GB seems out of place, especially for a media device. Maybe people buy the 16GB, because the others with more storage are too expensive? People might actually be happier with more than 16GB, just can't afford it.
So your point is that no one explained to you that hard disks and Flash memory cost different amounts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
For example, if you swap your preinstalled HD in a MacBook Pro for a 128GB SSD, Apple charges you $240. In relation that's much less than $200 from 16GB to 64GB flash.
Oh, I see that yoU DO realize that Flash costs more than hard disks. So why were you going on about 1 TB hard drives? The MBP SSD is irrelevant, anyway. First, you have no way of knowing whether Apple's cost for the memory in a MBP is higher or lower than the memory in an iPad. They're not quite the same thing. More importantly, as I tried to explain to you, selling prices are not determined by component costs - (at least successful companies don't do it that way). You figure out what the market will pay for something and THAT sets the price. And the market appears to be paying for 64GB iPads, so the price is not too high, by definition.
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
• interactivity
• Games....
• media, music, VIDEO....
• the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.
The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
A bit harsh, Joseph...but good points. You're right. I did not consider the time and effort to produce a truly interactive version of a magazine as opposed to a simple PDF version...I was looking fwd to replacing my printed mag. subs. with digital versions. If only for the ability to comment on articles with other readers.
But, as an example, I have a Foreign Affairs print subscription for $12/year and yet it would be very difficult to justify changing to a digital version for roughly 5 times the price...
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Well if we don't compare the iPad version of Wired magazine to the print version of Wired magazine, what should we compare it to? Would it be any more logical to compare it to the cost of a new car? Or the cost of a Big Mac? Or the cost of World of Warcraft, for that matter? Obviously, the comparison of the web version to the print version is the only logical starting point. You can argue that one has greater value than the other for various reasons, but to argue that they're not even comparable is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephwinters
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
? interactivity
? Games....
? media, music, VIDEO....
? the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
That's nice, but what you're hearing from people here is that none of that adds enough value to justify the price. When I buy a magazine, I'm not interested in video, games, media, or a foot massage. I want the magazine's content.
Furthermore, your argument doesn't apply across the board. People are complaining about Wired's price because everyone seems to be doing the same thing. The iPad version of Pop Sci or National Geographic doesn't offer anything that the print version doesn't offer - but it's several times more expensive. It's that mentality that people are rebelling against. If a magazine publisher wants to sell a more feature-rich version for more money, that's their right, but they'd better be able to convince readers that the extra content is worth 3-4 times more than the print version. So far, no one has made a convincing case for that.
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
? interactivity
? Games....
? media, music, VIDEO....
? the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.
The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
Partially agree with you. I downloaded Wired and I can say based on what I've seen, they spent a lot of time and money on it. The Wired APP IS NOT A PDF VERSION OF THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. I can understand the price b!tching on supposedly "digital" magazines that are nothing more than pdf versions (GQ, Vanity Fair, Time) but Wired's is nothing like other digital magazines out there.
WIRED on the iPad WILL BE THE DIGITAL MAGAZINE THAT OTHERS WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST.
But all that said, $5 a month is $5. That's a meal or two for a lot of people. But people at Wired and Conde Nast are saying subscriptions to their digital mags are coming this fall. Popular Science and Time will be combining their print and digital subscriptions also. In the end I think it'll all work out for everyone.
Apple can rule out an entire class of crappy software by restricting development tools. They know from experience that there's nearly zero chance of a good app that's been ported while if the app is written natively, there's at least a chance that it will be good - and then they can go through them one by one.
So, they've simply ruled out the groups of apps that have zero chance of success
I call bullshit.
Your analysis depends on every game developed in Unity having "nearly zero chance of [being] a good app", and every one of the Unity games "hav[ing] zero chance of success".
That is demonstrably untrue, so your analysis fails.
The new rule cannot be justified by any desire of Apple's to carry only "good app[s]".
Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.
....
Phil
One additional thought to my previous post - Apple could give/sell article stats back to the publishers. Wouldn't it be nice to have the publishers be able to get feedback as to which articles are rated higher/read more - making it a win-win for the readers as well.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
Some may be crap... the buyers will decide! The important things to Apple are:
-- they provide a consistent UEX
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
-- they are not offensive to Apple's target audience
You might not like the iFart class apps, but some do-- kinda' like those prank handshake buzzers people buy at magic/trick stores.
You may not like Tic Tac Toe class apps-- but parents like them for their tots.
My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
If you have a successful market, you, likely, cater to a variety of needs and tastes!
Agreed - unfortunately, many other magazines do the same thing. If they would offer subscriptions for something like the price of print, I'd be getting a couple of magazines. But I'm not paying 2-5 times as much for the digital version.
It's not true to say that it makes no difference, Obj-C is far more capable than Flash, even though Adobe didn't take advantage of any features beyond what was already there. Good example of why Jobs doesn't want ported apps.
However, the real issue is that it's not about features. It's about reliability and efficiency. Adobe's use of unsupported APIs creates security and performance issues that are undesirable.
#2 also creates security problems and performance issues. A ported app will ALWAYS be slower and less efficient of CPU cycles than a native app. Adobe's attempt to label it a native app is very misleading. While it uses native APIs, the entire app design is based around Flash - which means that it will never be optimized for the iDevices. It's like taking a piece of German literature and simply replacing each word with the exact English equivalent. While you might be able to read the document, it will never be as good as something written natively in English or translated by an expert who really understands the English language.
Partially agree with you. I downloaded Wired and I can say based on what I've seen, they spent a lot of time and money on it. The Wired APP IS NOT A PDF VERSION OF THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. I can understand the price b!tching on supposedly "digital" magazines that are nothing more than pdf versions (GQ, Vanity Fair, Time) but Wired's is nothing like other digital magazines out there.
WIRED on the iPad WILL BE THE DIGITAL MAGAZINE THAT OTHERS WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST.
But all that said, $5 a month is $5. That's a meal or two for a lot of people. But people at Wired and Conde Nast are saying subscriptions to their digital mags are coming this fall. Popular Science and Time will be combining their print and digital subscriptions also. In the end I think it'll all work out for everyone.
I agree somewhat with you but five bucks is still a steep price for a digital magazine.
Also, ... does it have advertisements? If it has advertisements, then anything more than zero is a waste of your money. The trouble is, the public has already been convinced ages ago that it's okay to pay a very high price for a magazine (which typically has far less content than other printed media), even if it contains more than 50% advertising.
So as bad a deal as these digital magazines are, they will likely succeed simply because the fools have already been corralled. As long as nit-wits will pay huge amounts of money for what are essentially glossy advertisements with a trifle of "filler articles" (and here I'm mostly talking about fashion magazines), digital mags should do okay.
What would be *more* interesting though, is if someone actually used the new format to do something revolutionary, instead of just propagating the same old schlock in digital form and raping the customers as they are used to doing.
You can call whatever you like but it's only showing a logical fallacy. The fact that some native app developers aren't very good at their jobs has nothing to do with Apple not wanting developers to use tools that restrict them from fully taking advantage of Cocoa. See the difference:
.
You may be correct, but that was not the point I was responding to.
I responded to the contention that "Apple's reluctance [is] to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms."
I pointed out that Apple's main business (or at least, a huge chunk of its business) at the App Store is to sell mediocre software.
This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
Apps created with third party tools cannot use the native iAd tools Apple wants to leverage.
You may be correct, but that was not the point I was responding to.
I responded to the contention that "Apple's reluctance [is] to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms."
I pointed out that Apple's main business (or at least, a huge chunk of its business) at the App Store is to sell mediocre software.
This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
Yes, but at least with Objective-C apps, quality is in the hands of the developer and Apple, not a third party with other, possibly contrary objectives.
Can they do anything right? First they get lambasted for having an approval process whereby it's clearly possible to have your app rejected, then they get this sort of comment because they aren't being *more* prescriptive of what apps are available...
I call hypocrisy
Apple can sell, or choose not to sell, anything it wants, for all I care.
My comment was that they accept and sell mediocre software all day, every day, and so it is unlikely that their new prohibitions are aimed at preventing mediocre software. I find it more likely that the new prohibitions have other aims.
My comments have nothing to do with the overall quality of the App Store, or what Apple should or should not do. My comments relate to a suggested motivation, which seems quite unlikely to be a valid explanation, given the factor I identified.
My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
.
Good for you Dick! That warms my heart!
I used to get the school workbooks sold in grocery stores (way before computers were popular) and a set of 'flavored' magic markers and do the exercises with my daughter as part of her bedtime regimen. During the summer, when she was going into 2nd grade, I would do the 2nd grade workbooks just in the hopes of exposing her to the subjects she would be doing in the upcoming year.
She's now in her second year of Med School on the Dean's List! And won a triathlon!
Some may be crap... the buyers will decide! The important things to Apple are:
-- they provide a consistent UEX
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
-- they are not offensive to Apple's target audience
You might not like the iFart class apps, but some do-- kinda' like those prank handshake buzzers people buy at magic/trick stores.
You may not like Tic Tac Toe class apps-- but parents like them for their tots.
My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
If you have a successful market, you, likely, cater to a variety of needs and tastes!
One man's meat...
.
I agree that as an argument for why Flash compiled apps should be allowed, that the quality of the other apps in the store is somewhat irrelevant, but the original poster has a point in that there is a lot of garbage in the app store, and it would be relatively easy for Apple to remove it. The reasons they don't do this, are more likely related to having a large number of apps to quote, than they are anything to do with customer satisfaction, fairness, or logic.
For instance:
- iBooks aside, there is no reason at all to accept apps that are actually books. A huge number of "apps" are actually crappy one-off books, guides, how-to's etc. Books are books and these just shouldn't be there. Especially now Apple and other publishers are selling books. Remove those and you are removing absolutely huge numbers of "apps" from the store.
- Many so-called "apps" are just pointers to websites or online concerns. There are wallpaper apps that just send you to a website to pick wallpapers. There are apps for websites that have no functionality but simply act as portals or advertisements for said websites. You could remove many thousands of apps if you disallowed such things, and itw would be entirely reasonable to do so.
- Many, many apps are apps that would be much better if they were web-apps. The functionality is that of a web app, the basic design is that of a web app and the fact that it's "native" adds nothing at all in terms of speed, design, utility etc. At the same time web-apps are hard to find. If Apple instead took each one of these submissions and sent a note back saying "make it a web app" we would all be better off. this again would remove thousands and thousands of apps in the store.
I'm not sure what the current number of apps is because I don't care, but if it was 100,000 it seems likely to me that about 60,000 "crap apps" could be removed in this way. The app store would be better off, the customers would be better off, the developers would be better off in the long run and you'd actually be able to find something for a change.
The only reason Apple doesn't do this IMO is they want that big big number on the stage.
Edit: the other reason is that everyone would call them "Nazis" if they started telling the developers that their apps are not good enough. So it's the developers themselves and the stupid tech blogs crying about "freedom" that are half the reason why the app store is filled with junk.
500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
I stopped caring about disk space years ago. It is too cheap to meter at this point.
But it seems that the computer market is changing, and that devices with constrained storage and computational power are becoming a factor again.
I may bypass that trend, or I may embrace it. Time will tell, but all the devices I'm currently interested in have the ability to add flash cards, giving them essentially unlimited disk space. I'm not sure I'd be happy with a device that had inconvenient constraints WRT storage ability, if it was truly intended to be a media consumption device.
I try to keep an open mind, but ISTM that storage is effectively free, and to accept a device with storage that you deem inadequate seems to me to be an unacceptable choice.
Comments
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
• interactivity
• Games....
• media, music, VIDEO....
• the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.
The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
I downloaded Wired today. With all the interactive, and video content in it, I can see why it's 500MB. Pubs/Apps like Wired will be the reason why the iPad would need more storage space.
As for Wired app itself... THIS IS WHAT A DIGITAL MAGAZINE SHOULD BE, unlike the other digital mags out there which are basically just cut and paste version of their sister paper versions.
I won't be purchasing Wired again on the iPad until they start a subscription option (discounted I would assume as in the paper subscriptions) which they said they'll start doing in the fall.
Don't get upset so easily. I never said it's bad.
You most certainly did. You said that 16 GB was ridiculous. For most people who speak English, that means bad. Don't go changing your story.
My statement was general, that during times when people find 1TB drives adequate, 16GB seems out of place, especially for a media device. Maybe people buy the 16GB, because the others with more storage are too expensive? People might actually be happier with more than 16GB, just can't afford it.
So your point is that no one explained to you that hard disks and Flash memory cost different amounts?
For example, if you swap your preinstalled HD in a MacBook Pro for a 128GB SSD, Apple charges you $240. In relation that's much less than $200 from 16GB to 64GB flash.
Oh, I see that yoU DO realize that Flash costs more than hard disks. So why were you going on about 1 TB hard drives? The MBP SSD is irrelevant, anyway. First, you have no way of knowing whether Apple's cost for the memory in a MBP is higher or lower than the memory in an iPad. They're not quite the same thing. More importantly, as I tried to explain to you, selling prices are not determined by component costs - (at least successful companies don't do it that way). You figure out what the market will pay for something and THAT sets the price. And the market appears to be paying for 64GB iPads, so the price is not too high, by definition.
I call panic.
Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?
I call panic.
Wrong again, bro.
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
• interactivity
• Games....
• media, music, VIDEO....
• the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.
The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
A bit harsh, Joseph...but good points. You're right. I did not consider the time and effort to produce a truly interactive version of a magazine as opposed to a simple PDF version...I was looking fwd to replacing my printed mag. subs. with digital versions. If only for the ability to comment on articles with other readers.
But, as an example, I have a Foreign Affairs print subscription for $12/year and yet it would be very difficult to justify changing to a digital version for roughly 5 times the price...
Best
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Well if we don't compare the iPad version of Wired magazine to the print version of Wired magazine, what should we compare it to? Would it be any more logical to compare it to the cost of a new car? Or the cost of a Big Mac? Or the cost of World of Warcraft, for that matter? Obviously, the comparison of the web version to the print version is the only logical starting point. You can argue that one has greater value than the other for various reasons, but to argue that they're not even comparable is just silly.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
? interactivity
? Games....
? media, music, VIDEO....
? the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
That's nice, but what you're hearing from people here is that none of that adds enough value to justify the price. When I buy a magazine, I'm not interested in video, games, media, or a foot massage. I want the magazine's content.
Furthermore, your argument doesn't apply across the board. People are complaining about Wired's price because everyone seems to be doing the same thing. The iPad version of Pop Sci or National Geographic doesn't offer anything that the print version doesn't offer - but it's several times more expensive. It's that mentality that people are rebelling against. If a magazine publisher wants to sell a more feature-rich version for more money, that's their right, but they'd better be able to convince readers that the extra content is worth 3-4 times more than the print version. So far, no one has made a convincing case for that.
I don't post much, but I'll be god damned if I just stand silent on this one.
Why the hell are the majority of you afraid of a $5 price tag... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue? There is basically no comparison.
Read what some of the article stated for Wired digital edition, particularly the rich features that will exist within a digital edition...
? interactivity
? Games....
? media, music, VIDEO....
? the possibilities are endless. So does that mean financial budgets are endless too? NO! More possibilities mean more dollars spend producing it.
if you truly look at all that content that goes into 1 issue of a digital version, the production hours for all of that are beyond what a printed version is. The man hours are beyond what a printed version is. I know.. I work in the publication industry, so I say this with absolute confidence. The whole digital process is heaps and leaps different than just generating a PDF of said magazine and calling it a digital edition... more meat is placed into the product to offer a rich experience... and quite frankly, I have no problem paying for it.
The few that sit here and belly ache over not paying for a digital issue because its not worth it... get real. Creating an interactive experience that places more than just text and pictures at your fingertips is something we should all appreciate. Sometimes you have to sit back and wonder whats behind the curtain... you'll appreciate things better.
Partially agree with you. I downloaded Wired and I can say based on what I've seen, they spent a lot of time and money on it. The Wired APP IS NOT A PDF VERSION OF THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. I can understand the price b!tching on supposedly "digital" magazines that are nothing more than pdf versions (GQ, Vanity Fair, Time) but Wired's is nothing like other digital magazines out there.
WIRED on the iPad WILL BE THE DIGITAL MAGAZINE THAT OTHERS WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST.
But all that said, $5 a month is $5. That's a meal or two for a lot of people. But people at Wired and Conde Nast are saying subscriptions to their digital mags are coming this fall. Popular Science and Time will be combining their print and digital subscriptions also. In the end I think it'll all work out for everyone.
That is silly logic.
Apple can rule out an entire class of crappy software by restricting development tools. They know from experience that there's nearly zero chance of a good app that's been ported while if the app is written natively, there's at least a chance that it will be good - and then they can go through them one by one.
So, they've simply ruled out the groups of apps that have zero chance of success
I call bullshit.
Your analysis depends on every game developed in Unity having "nearly zero chance of [being] a good app", and every one of the Unity games "hav[ing] zero chance of success".
That is demonstrably untrue, so your analysis fails.
The new rule cannot be justified by any desire of Apple's to carry only "good app[s]".
Why does it seem that the magazine publishers want to charge $5 per issue. That would be $60/yr for a subscription that costs maybe $18/yr in print. I don't know about Wired newstand/subscription prices, but it seems like I have a 2 yr subscription to Popular Science for $24 or so (print). I am all for saving trees, but I don't want to pay 3x to do so. I am for saving my $ over trees.
....
Phil
One additional thought to my previous post - Apple could give/sell article stats back to the publishers. Wouldn't it be nice to have the publishers be able to get feedback as to which articles are rated higher/read more - making it a win-win for the readers as well.
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
Some may be crap... the buyers will decide! The important things to Apple are:
-- they provide a consistent UEX
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
-- they are not offensive to Apple's target audience
You might not like the iFart class apps, but some do-- kinda' like those prank handshake buzzers people buy at magic/trick stores.
You may not like Tic Tac Toe class apps-- but parents like them for their tots.
My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
If you have a successful market, you, likely, cater to a variety of needs and tastes!
One man's meat...
.
Agreed - unfortunately, many other magazines do the same thing. If they would offer subscriptions for something like the price of print, I'd be getting a couple of magazines. But I'm not paying 2-5 times as much for the digital version.
It's not true to say that it makes no difference, Obj-C is far more capable than Flash, even though Adobe didn't take advantage of any features beyond what was already there. Good example of why Jobs doesn't want ported apps.
However, the real issue is that it's not about features. It's about reliability and efficiency. Adobe's use of unsupported APIs creates security and performance issues that are undesirable.
#2 also creates security problems and performance issues. A ported app will ALWAYS be slower and less efficient of CPU cycles than a native app. Adobe's attempt to label it a native app is very misleading. While it uses native APIs, the entire app design is based around Flash - which means that it will never be optimized for the iDevices. It's like taking a piece of German literature and simply replacing each word with the exact English equivalent. While you might be able to read the document, it will never be as good as something written natively in English or translated by an expert who really understands the English language.
+++ Well said!
.
Wrong again, bro.
Well, I just wanted to share in your hysteria, for a moment.
Partially agree with you. I downloaded Wired and I can say based on what I've seen, they spent a lot of time and money on it. The Wired APP IS NOT A PDF VERSION OF THEIR PAPER COUNTERPARTS. I can understand the price b!tching on supposedly "digital" magazines that are nothing more than pdf versions (GQ, Vanity Fair, Time) but Wired's is nothing like other digital magazines out there.
WIRED on the iPad WILL BE THE DIGITAL MAGAZINE THAT OTHERS WILL BE MEASURED AGAINST.
But all that said, $5 a month is $5. That's a meal or two for a lot of people. But people at Wired and Conde Nast are saying subscriptions to their digital mags are coming this fall. Popular Science and Time will be combining their print and digital subscriptions also. In the end I think it'll all work out for everyone.
I agree somewhat with you but five bucks is still a steep price for a digital magazine.
Also, ... does it have advertisements? If it has advertisements, then anything more than zero is a waste of your money. The trouble is, the public has already been convinced ages ago that it's okay to pay a very high price for a magazine (which typically has far less content than other printed media), even if it contains more than 50% advertising.
So as bad a deal as these digital magazines are, they will likely succeed simply because the fools have already been corralled. As long as nit-wits will pay huge amounts of money for what are essentially glossy advertisements with a trifle of "filler articles" (and here I'm mostly talking about fashion magazines), digital mags should do okay.
What would be *more* interesting though, is if someone actually used the new format to do something revolutionary, instead of just propagating the same old schlock in digital form and raping the customers as they are used to doing.
You can call whatever you like but it's only showing a logical fallacy. The fact that some native app developers aren't very good at their jobs has nothing to do with Apple not wanting developers to use tools that restrict them from fully taking advantage of Cocoa. See the difference:
.
You may be correct, but that was not the point I was responding to.
I responded to the contention that "Apple's reluctance [is] to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms."
I pointed out that Apple's main business (or at least, a huge chunk of its business) at the App Store is to sell mediocre software.
This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
Apps created with third party tools cannot use the native iAd tools Apple wants to leverage.
You may be correct, but that was not the point I was responding to.
I responded to the contention that "Apple's reluctance [is] to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms."
I pointed out that Apple's main business (or at least, a huge chunk of its business) at the App Store is to sell mediocre software.
This indicates that accepting and selling mediocre apps is entirely consistent with what Apple is currently doing in the App Store, and is an unlikely reason to change the developer agreement.
Yes, but at least with Objective-C apps, quality is in the hands of the developer and Apple, not a third party with other, possibly contrary objectives.
There is no valid argument against this point.
Can they do anything right? First they get lambasted for having an approval process whereby it's clearly possible to have your app rejected, then they get this sort of comment because they aren't being *more* prescriptive of what apps are available...
I call hypocrisy
Apple can sell, or choose not to sell, anything it wants, for all I care.
My comment was that they accept and sell mediocre software all day, every day, and so it is unlikely that their new prohibitions are aimed at preventing mediocre software. I find it more likely that the new prohibitions have other aims.
My comments have nothing to do with the overall quality of the App Store, or what Apple should or should not do. My comments relate to a suggested motivation, which seems quite unlikely to be a valid explanation, given the factor I identified.
My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
.
Good for you Dick! That warms my heart!
I used to get the school workbooks sold in grocery stores (way before computers were popular) and a set of 'flavored' magic markers and do the exercises with my daughter as part of her bedtime regimen. During the summer, when she was going into 2nd grade, I would do the 2nd grade workbooks just in the hopes of exposing her to the subjects she would be doing in the upcoming year.
She's now in her second year of Med School on the Dean's List! And won a triathlon!
Best
Edit: A little off topic, sorry!
Some may be crap... the buyers will decide! The important things to Apple are:
-- they provide a consistent UEX
-- they do not harm the device (crash, slow performance, drain battery, etc)
-- they are not offensive to Apple's target audience
You might not like the iFart class apps, but some do-- kinda' like those prank handshake buzzers people buy at magic/trick stores.
You may not like Tic Tac Toe class apps-- but parents like them for their tots.
My 7-year-old grandson was having trouble with math and reading comprehension. I bought some educational apps targeted at: his prior grade level; his current grade level; next year's grade level. Those (so-called) crap apps helped to elevate him into the top 25% of his class!
If you have a successful market, you, likely, cater to a variety of needs and tastes!
One man's meat...
.
I agree that as an argument for why Flash compiled apps should be allowed, that the quality of the other apps in the store is somewhat irrelevant, but the original poster has a point in that there is a lot of garbage in the app store, and it would be relatively easy for Apple to remove it. The reasons they don't do this, are more likely related to having a large number of apps to quote, than they are anything to do with customer satisfaction, fairness, or logic.
For instance:
- iBooks aside, there is no reason at all to accept apps that are actually books. A huge number of "apps" are actually crappy one-off books, guides, how-to's etc. Books are books and these just shouldn't be there. Especially now Apple and other publishers are selling books. Remove those and you are removing absolutely huge numbers of "apps" from the store.
- Many so-called "apps" are just pointers to websites or online concerns. There are wallpaper apps that just send you to a website to pick wallpapers. There are apps for websites that have no functionality but simply act as portals or advertisements for said websites. You could remove many thousands of apps if you disallowed such things, and itw would be entirely reasonable to do so.
- Many, many apps are apps that would be much better if they were web-apps. The functionality is that of a web app, the basic design is that of a web app and the fact that it's "native" adds nothing at all in terms of speed, design, utility etc. At the same time web-apps are hard to find. If Apple instead took each one of these submissions and sent a note back saying "make it a web app" we would all be better off. this again would remove thousands and thousands of apps in the store.
I'm not sure what the current number of apps is because I don't care, but if it was 100,000 it seems likely to me that about 60,000 "crap apps" could be removed in this way. The app store would be better off, the customers would be better off, the developers would be better off in the long run and you'd actually be able to find something for a change.
The only reason Apple doesn't do this IMO is they want that big big number on the stage.
Edit: the other reason is that everyone would call them "Nazis" if they started telling the developers that their apps are not good enough. So it's the developers themselves and the stupid tech blogs crying about "freedom" that are half the reason why the app store is filled with junk.
500MB is 3% of storage on a 16GB iPad. Or, in other terms, if each issue is 500MB, and you added no other content, you would run out of storage in 32 months or have room for only 32 publications per month. or less than 3 months of 12 publications. Seems a bit excessive for a periodical.
I stopped caring about disk space years ago. It is too cheap to meter at this point.
But it seems that the computer market is changing, and that devices with constrained storage and computational power are becoming a factor again.
I may bypass that trend, or I may embrace it. Time will tell, but all the devices I'm currently interested in have the ability to add flash cards, giving them essentially unlimited disk space. I'm not sure I'd be happy with a device that had inconvenient constraints WRT storage ability, if it was truly intended to be a media consumption device.
I try to keep an open mind, but ISTM that storage is effectively free, and to accept a device with storage that you deem inadequate seems to me to be an unacceptable choice.
But I tend to think different.