....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...
Someone else will have the energy to try to explain this to you. Perhaps you can go read counternotions by Kontra or Daring Fireball to get the other side's perspective.
But then again, I'll throw up a test balloon and see how it fares.
I make a car, let's say I make BMWs. Let's say I make the 335. Let's say you make the music system, along with one or two others that I offer as options. You, as a music system for cars company, look at the entire car market (not just my product) and think, man, how can I get my systems in to as many cars as possible with the least amount of investment?
My car has some fundamental differences in acoustics when compared to the Audi A5. I care that the system you design is matched perfectly. I also have special signals and triggers/buttons that allow for consumers to activate/control the music system based on a few actions that ONLY the 335 offers.
For this you need to use different materials and design (just tweaking parameters won't do the job) than you would use in the Audi A5 or that Infinity G&@%$#^#@ coupe. I demand this. Call me crazy, but I care about how the sound is in my car and that it isn't the same crap that goes in to all my competitor's cars. It is my platform, and if you don't want to sell your music system in my car, then don't. But don't sell me the same crap you were selling everyone else. You're getting paid, furthermore, my car is the most successful in its class, more people put down money for music systems in my car than any other.
Get it now?
(Where my analogy breaks down: there's really only one music system in a car, but you get the idea that a platform developer can care about what goes on the platform.
Also, the competitors to Apple aren't really in the class of the Audi A5 - fantastic car - but more along the lines of a Scion.)
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 so that they have more time to spend on apps which at least MIGHT be any good. That's no guarantee that they'll only have good apps, but they're at least trying to ensure quality - unlike anyone else out there. That's why so many thousands of apps have been rejected. Not all the bad apps, but enough to make a difference.
This is where Adobe's laziness comes back to bite them for two reasons:
1. By making it look exactly like a Flash app, it confirms Apple's statement that developers are lazy and will reduce everything to a lowest common denominator if you let them.
2. Since this is a non-Flash app that does everything that Flash does, it pretty convincingly destroys Adobe's argument that Flash is necessary.
Adobe doesn't have a strategy or plan. All they're doing is defending Flash at all costs, no matter how foolish it makes them look.
This is a terrible app-- Apple must have bent over backwards to approve this app: it does not work at all in some places; it hangs while playing video; it is non-intuitive; it is not consistent with other iPad apps UI
I suspect Apple allowed this to:
1) encourage other publications to publish on the iPad
2) allow some freedom/creativity in the design, presentation and navigation of a new form of interactive content on a new device.
This is a really, really good illustration of a bad example!
Enough for Apple to single-handedly save the industry?
Here's to hoping. I actually don't have any subscriptions to any print publications, but I'd sign up for mags like National Geographic, Car & Driver, Entertainment Weekly and maybe Premiere if they had worthwhile e-pub versions.
(Where my analogy breaks down: there's really only one music system in a car, but you get the idea that a platform developer can care about what goes on the platform.
Also, the competitors to Apple aren't really in the class of the Audi A5 - fantastic car - but more along the lines of a Scion.)
Actually where your analogy broke down was that it would more like telling your customers that a music system of this level of sophistication only plays classical music, no hip-hop. Because the thundering bass of that class of music may harm the safety features of the automobile such as the air bag or some such BS. Oh and by the way you can acquire approved music on our web page.
Apps created with third party tools cannot use the native iAd tools Apple wants to leverage.
What you are saying is that Apple wants to use its strength in the mobile app market to reduce competition in the mobile ad market. Generally, that is frowned upon.
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.
At no point can the quality of the app be up to anybody other than the developer and the retailer.
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
If the app is inadequate, Apple will (should?) not sell it.
Whether the app is made with one tool or another does NOT dictate quality or sale-worthiness.
the biggest tech frauds, and false prophets, bow down to apple. Who cares, wired is for morons anyway. Good luck touting the next .com bubble to wired. They' ve slipped from the fringe to the who gives a flying f. editions.
....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...
If the Adobe team can't make this App more appealing in Cocoa then they aren't developers. Period.
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.
Apple's basic mistake was its decision that no software could be sold for the devices except directly through Apple. That puts them squarely into the role of either being a censor or being a provider of crap.
If the App Store sold only good-to-great software, with other sources of crap apps available, IMO the App Store would be better. You could rest assured that you would get solid value buying from Apple, just like when you buy packaged software in a retail Apple Store. And if you went elsewhere, you would rely on the reputation of the other vendor. Just like any normal situation.
But Apple put themselves in an unenviable position in this situation by disallowing all software except that which is sold by Apple.
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".
You seem to want to call bullshit all the time.
But your entire premise is that you know what's good for the platform better than Apple does.
To THAT, I call bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
At no point can the quality of the app be up to anybody other than the developer and the retailer.
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
If the app is inadequate, Apple will (should?) not sell it.
Whether the app is made with one tool or another does NOT dictate quality or sale-worthiness.
That is clearly not true. Some developers use inferior tools simply because they're easy. Go back and read all the Flash discussions on this board for examples. Furthermore, your analysis ignores a huge number of factors:
1. It costs time and money for Apple to evaluate an app, plus there are some mistakes. Apple has determined that the odds of a Flash - converted app being any good are too slim to be worth investing that time that they could better spend elsewhere.
2. You left the tool developer out of the equation. Let's say someone develops a Flash app that works adequately under iPhone OS 3. Then Apple releases iPhone OS 4 and the app no longer works because of Adobe's use of unauthorized APIs. Given Adobe's history with Flash, it would likely be AT LEAST 3-5 years before they fix the problem, so the developer and customers suffer for years due to Adobe's incompetence.
3. You also ignore the value of consistency and quality. If developers release crappy apps, Apple also suffers. Even if customers buy the app because there are no alternatives, Apple suffers. It would be far better for everyone concerned (except Adobe) to have a quality app written in the first place.
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.
The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?
There was an app that displayed a picture of a duck and played a quacking noise. It was, if I recall correctly, pulled by Apple for "limited functionality". One of the people commenting somewhere about this pointed out that their infant child was utterly fascinated by this app and that it was great for distracting the child when they began to do those annoying things that children sometimes do. (I'm not sure if I have all the details correct, but the gist of it, I think is.)
So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.
Apple's basic mistake was its decision that no software could be sold for the devices except directly through Apple. That puts them squarely into the role of either being a censor or being a provider of crap.
If the App Store sold only good-to-great software, with other sources of crap apps available, IMO the App Store would be better. You could rest assured that you would get solid value buying from Apple, just like when you buy packaged software in a retail Apple Store. And if you went elsewhere, you would rely on the reputation of the other vendor. Just like any normal situation.
But Apple put themselves in an unenviable position in this situation by disallowing all software except that which is sold by Apple.
So you've managed to show that you simply don't understand the concept of the ecosystem Apple has created.
If customers are free to put crappy apps on their phones by bypassing Apple's mechanisms, they will do so - and suffer the consequences. In the end, Apple would suffer, as well as the customers who choose to play by the rules. The iPhone ecosystem would, as a whole, be vastly inferior to what is out there now. Customers could not count on quality apps. Apple would spend inordinate amounts of times fielding calls from customers who are having problems with 'unapproved' apps. And Apple would get endless bad press from people who choose to install crap software - but forget that it was their choice when telling their friends or magazine readers about their experience.
iPhone and iPad users are overwhelmingly happy with the system as it exists. There's no reason to break the system just because of lazy developers who think Flash is an application development tool and are unwilling to learn to use real tools.
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.
I paid the $5 and hoped that the experience would justify the cost... and possibly point the way for electronic publishing of magazines.
Unfortunately, the implementation is just Flash in sheep's clothing!
It delivers most of the bad Flash experience, and very little of the good!
Here's just one: I have 70-year-old eyes-- why can't I zoom text and images in the "wired" app. I can do it in the browser, in the bookstore app, why not in wired... Oh, it's just the same old, same old Flash!
You, as a music system for cars company, look at the entire car market (not just my product) and think, man, how can I get my systems in to as many cars as possible with the least amount of investment?
If one car company had dangerous market power in the car radio market, your example would work. But given that nobody has such market power, it is an example which does not work.
The contention, as I understand it, is that Apple has market power in the mobile app market, and might be using that power to disadvantage competitors in the mobile hardware market.
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.
Agreed. Many haven't taken into account the interactivity of the iPad version vs. the printed. And just let me say I'm a sucker for that stuff. However others have stated there's a lot more than just printing in the printed version. I'm sure there's a lot more man-hours spent getting a printed copy out then the digital version. I'm not in the publishing business so I'm just guessing.
I've been a subscriber to "Wired" for many years. At ten bucks a year it's a value to me. At sixty bucks for the digital? No I don't think so. I can live without the added visual/interactive content. Maybe at twice the cost of the printed version. Something tells me they'd still be money ahead.
Comments
....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...
Someone else will have the energy to try to explain this to you. Perhaps you can go read counternotions by Kontra or Daring Fireball to get the other side's perspective.
But then again, I'll throw up a test balloon and see how it fares.
I make a car, let's say I make BMWs. Let's say I make the 335. Let's say you make the music system, along with one or two others that I offer as options. You, as a music system for cars company, look at the entire car market (not just my product) and think, man, how can I get my systems in to as many cars as possible with the least amount of investment?
My car has some fundamental differences in acoustics when compared to the Audi A5. I care that the system you design is matched perfectly. I also have special signals and triggers/buttons that allow for consumers to activate/control the music system based on a few actions that ONLY the 335 offers.
For this you need to use different materials and design (just tweaking parameters won't do the job) than you would use in the Audi A5 or that Infinity G&@%$#^#@ coupe. I demand this. Call me crazy, but I care about how the sound is in my car and that it isn't the same crap that goes in to all my competitor's cars. It is my platform, and if you don't want to sell your music system in my car, then don't. But don't sell me the same crap you were selling everyone else. You're getting paid, furthermore, my car is the most successful in its class, more people put down money for music systems in my car than any other.
Get it now?
(Where my analogy breaks down: there's really only one music system in a car, but you get the idea that a platform developer can care about what goes on the platform.
Also, the competitors to Apple aren't really in the class of the Audi A5 - fantastic car - but more along the lines of a Scion.)
... and what gives any of you the right to compare a digital issue to a printed issue?
Some folks think that right is bestowed upon us by our Creator. Others cite "natural law".
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 so that they have more time to spend on apps which at least MIGHT be any good. That's no guarantee that they'll only have good apps, but they're at least trying to ensure quality - unlike anyone else out there. That's why so many thousands of apps have been rejected. Not all the bad apps, but enough to make a difference.
This is where Adobe's laziness comes back to bite them for two reasons:
1. By making it look exactly like a Flash app, it confirms Apple's statement that developers are lazy and will reduce everything to a lowest common denominator if you let them.
2. Since this is a non-Flash app that does everything that Flash does, it pretty convincingly destroys Adobe's argument that Flash is necessary.
Adobe doesn't have a strategy or plan. All they're doing is defending Flash at all costs, no matter how foolish it makes them look.
This is a terrible app-- Apple must have bent over backwards to approve this app: it does not work at all in some places; it hangs while playing video; it is non-intuitive; it is not consistent with other iPad apps UI
I suspect Apple allowed this to:
1) encourage other publications to publish on the iPad
2) allow some freedom/creativity in the design, presentation and navigation of a new form of interactive content on a new device.
This is a really, really good illustration of a bad example!
I suspect that buyers will stay away in droves
.
Enough for Apple to single-handedly save the industry?
Here's to hoping. I actually don't have any subscriptions to any print publications, but I'd sign up for mags like National Geographic, Car & Driver, Entertainment Weekly and maybe Premiere if they had worthwhile e-pub versions.
(Where my analogy breaks down: there's really only one music system in a car, but you get the idea that a platform developer can care about what goes on the platform.
Also, the competitors to Apple aren't really in the class of the Audi A5 - fantastic car - but more along the lines of a Scion.)
Actually where your analogy broke down was that it would more like telling your customers that a music system of this level of sophistication only plays classical music, no hip-hop. Because the thundering bass of that class of music may harm the safety features of the automobile such as the air bag or some such BS. Oh and by the way you can acquire approved music on our web page.
Some may be crap... the buyers will decide!
.
Exactly. If the buyer could decide, then the developers would choose whatever tools they think best, and the cream would rise to the top.
But in this situation, the buyers are not being given the ability to decide. That's fine. Apple can carry or reject anything it wants.
But to justify the move as a way to preserve the quality of apps? That seems unlikely, given existing reality.
Apps created with third party tools cannot use the native iAd tools Apple wants to leverage.
What you are saying is that Apple wants to use its strength in the mobile app market to reduce competition in the mobile ad market. Generally, that is frowned upon.
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.
At no point can the quality of the app be up to anybody other than the developer and the retailer.
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
If the app is inadequate, Apple will (should?) not sell it.
Whether the app is made with one tool or another does NOT dictate quality or sale-worthiness.
Generally, that is frowned upon.
....except ease of cross-platform development. I'm no Flash defender, but I saw the statement the exact opposite way: If the new Objective-C version is feature-for-feature the same as the Flash version, what the hell does Steve Jobs care what it's written in? A difference that makes no difference...
If the Adobe team can't make this App more appealing in Cocoa then they aren't developers. Period.
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.
Apple's basic mistake was its decision that no software could be sold for the devices except directly through Apple. That puts them squarely into the role of either being a censor or being a provider of crap.
If the App Store sold only good-to-great software, with other sources of crap apps available, IMO the App Store would be better. You could rest assured that you would get solid value buying from Apple, just like when you buy packaged software in a retail Apple Store. And if you went elsewhere, you would rely on the reputation of the other vendor. Just like any normal situation.
But Apple put themselves in an unenviable position in this situation by disallowing all software except that which is sold by Apple.
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".
You seem to want to call bullshit all the time.
But your entire premise is that you know what's good for the platform better than Apple does.
To THAT, I call bullshit.
At no point can the quality of the app be up to anybody other than the developer and the retailer.
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
If the app is inadequate, Apple will (should?) not sell it.
Whether the app is made with one tool or another does NOT dictate quality or sale-worthiness.
That is clearly not true. Some developers use inferior tools simply because they're easy. Go back and read all the Flash discussions on this board for examples. Furthermore, your analysis ignores a huge number of factors:
1. It costs time and money for Apple to evaluate an app, plus there are some mistakes. Apple has determined that the odds of a Flash - converted app being any good are too slim to be worth investing that time that they could better spend elsewhere.
2. You left the tool developer out of the equation. Let's say someone develops a Flash app that works adequately under iPhone OS 3. Then Apple releases iPhone OS 4 and the app no longer works because of Adobe's use of unauthorized APIs. Given Adobe's history with Flash, it would likely be AT LEAST 3-5 years before they fix the problem, so the developer and customers suffer for years due to Adobe's incompetence.
3. You also ignore the value of consistency and quality. If developers release crappy apps, Apple also suffers. Even if customers buy the app because there are no alternatives, Apple suffers. It would be far better for everyone concerned (except Adobe) to have a quality app written in the first place.
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.
The big difference between saying, "Objective-C apps only," vs. "Only high quality apps," is that the first is an objective (no pun intended) standard, whereas, the second is highly subjective. Who exactly would make the determination on quality, and how?
There was an app that displayed a picture of a duck and played a quacking noise. It was, if I recall correctly, pulled by Apple for "limited functionality". One of the people commenting somewhere about this pointed out that their infant child was utterly fascinated by this app and that it was great for distracting the child when they began to do those annoying things that children sometimes do. (I'm not sure if I have all the details correct, but the gist of it, I think is.)
So, here's an app that at first glance appears to be utterly useless. But, in fact, under certain circumstances, it has high utility. Unless the issue is that the app simply doesn't run, it's almost impossible to make a universal determination of quality.
Apple's basic mistake was its decision that no software could be sold for the devices except directly through Apple. That puts them squarely into the role of either being a censor or being a provider of crap.
If the App Store sold only good-to-great software, with other sources of crap apps available, IMO the App Store would be better. You could rest assured that you would get solid value buying from Apple, just like when you buy packaged software in a retail Apple Store. And if you went elsewhere, you would rely on the reputation of the other vendor. Just like any normal situation.
But Apple put themselves in an unenviable position in this situation by disallowing all software except that which is sold by Apple.
So you've managed to show that you simply don't understand the concept of the ecosystem Apple has created.
If customers are free to put crappy apps on their phones by bypassing Apple's mechanisms, they will do so - and suffer the consequences. In the end, Apple would suffer, as well as the customers who choose to play by the rules. The iPhone ecosystem would, as a whole, be vastly inferior to what is out there now. Customers could not count on quality apps. Apple would spend inordinate amounts of times fielding calls from customers who are having problems with 'unapproved' apps. And Apple would get endless bad press from people who choose to install crap software - but forget that it was their choice when telling their friends or magazine readers about their experience.
iPhone and iPad users are overwhelmingly happy with the system as it exists. There's no reason to break the system just because of lazy developers who think Flash is an application development tool and are unwilling to learn to use real tools.
If the tool is inadequate, the developer will not use it.
This we know to be utterly false. Inadequate tools are chosen for development all the time.
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.
I paid the $5 and hoped that the experience would justify the cost... and possibly point the way for electronic publishing of magazines.
Unfortunately, the implementation is just Flash in sheep's clothing!
It delivers most of the bad Flash experience, and very little of the good!
Here's just one: I have 70-year-old eyes-- why can't I zoom text and images in the "wired" app. I can do it in the browser, in the bookstore app, why not in wired... Oh, it's just the same old, same old Flash!
.
You, as a music system for cars company, look at the entire car market (not just my product) and think, man, how can I get my systems in to as many cars as possible with the least amount of investment?
If one car company had dangerous market power in the car radio market, your example would work. But given that nobody has such market power, it is an example which does not work.
The contention, as I understand it, is that Apple has market power in the mobile app market, and might be using that power to disadvantage competitors in the mobile hardware market.
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.
Agreed. Many haven't taken into account the interactivity of the iPad version vs. the printed. And just let me say I'm a sucker for that stuff. However others have stated there's a lot more than just printing in the printed version. I'm sure there's a lot more man-hours spent getting a printed copy out then the digital version. I'm not in the publishing business so I'm just guessing.
I've been a subscriber to "Wired" for many years. At ten bucks a year it's a value to me. At sixty bucks for the digital? No I don't think so. I can live without the added visual/interactive content. Maybe at twice the cost of the printed version. Something tells me they'd still be money ahead.