The reason to go horizontal only is that the designer was making a choice between three options: simply reproduce the magazine as a replica edition (portrait), redesign the magazine for the iPad as portrait, or redesign the magazine for the iPad as landscape. The fourth option -- produce files for both portrait and landscape -- would take more manpower. Remember, SI is a weekly publication, the designer has very little time to turn the print edition into something iPad owners would want on their tablets.
In this case the designer decided to go horizontal only because it works best for the majority of photos.
As for the designers comments concerning subscription prices, I don't think he is in any position to judge the issue. For one thing, SI survives on ad revenue, not its subscription revenue. For another, if Time Inc. wanted to raise the price there is nothing stopping them -- Apple does not set the price of publications, publishers do. They simply take their percentage -- and at 30% that is small compared to the prices publishers pay to print and distribute their paper copies. Remember, the cost to print and distribute a magazine generally exceeds the revenue brought in from readers -- that is why magazines contain ads (that's why magazines discount their annual subscriptions -- the pages sold to advertisers are worth more if the circulation is high, and the product sold to advertisers is YOU, the reader).
More strange than deciding to support only landscape is the fact that they say that supporting portrait increased the file size by 30%. It's a layout with photos and print - I get hints for the different modes, but what in the world are they doing? Or is this that Flash magazine tool crud where text is pngs and you have landscape and portrait 'text'? Ugh.
If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)
Naw. I usually reserve those for when people try to put words in my mouth. I object to that.
And besides, the post I responded to was a nasty accusation disguised as sarcasm. I responded as if the idiotic viewpoint were sincere. I too used sarcasm.
Your routinely trollish tone is a matter of record here. Your self-serving defense of same fools no one.
... Print designers are more fussy (quite rightly) about content being properly typeset and repurposed depending on how it's being displayed - simply squashing and scaling as you could do with html would horrify most print designers. ...
Yeah, they seriously need to get over this, especially their font fetishes. This SI landscape only nonsense is exactly what happens when you try to apply the conventions of the old onto new media. The web/html have been around for approximately 20 years now, you'd think people would begin to learn how to use them.
(Another of the evils of Flash/PDF: It's been used as a crutch by print designers and has retarded development of design native to the medium.)
Likely because that was never claimed by anybody. It is OK to forgive yourself. You can make mistakes without publicly announcing them.
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method. The sheer volume of iPads that will hit the market in a very short period of time means Apple holds all the cards. I don't think you understand the significance of a product that is only a few months old requiring production to ramp up to an excess of 2 million units a month.
Publishers, Adobe and others might publicly put up a fuss but Apple gets to call the shots on this one.
Apple does not set the price of publications, publishers do. They simply take their percentage -- and at 30% that is small compared to the prices publishers pay to print and distribute their paper copies. Remember, the cost to print and distribute a magazine generally exceeds the revenue brought in from readers -- that is why magazines contain ads (that's why magazines discount their annual subscriptions -- the pages sold to advertisers are worth more if the circulation is high, and the product sold to advertisers is YOU, the reader).
yes, but if a year [56 issues] is $40 [at 82% off cover price], HOW MUCH of that cost is in printing and delivery?
how much are people willing to spend on an iPad subscription? $40? doubtful.
$20? possibly, but apple will be taking 30%.
how much less will their advertisers pay in comparison to the print version?
i don't know the numbers any more than anyone else here does, yet everyone is posting that SI is being cheap.
Their waffling just keeps the door open for lower cost, and equal quality product offerings to take the lead.
Quote:
The purported program would offer an opt-in function which would allow subscribers to share their personal information with publications -- information considered imperative for advertising.
I think this is the real sticking point. They can't prove their numbers to advertisers without demographic data... however, they could simply offer incentives for Facebook logins instead, which would connect them with rafts of personal information.
I don't understand what is unfair about requiring everyone to pay the 70/30 revenue split. If SI don't want to pay Apple then they should initiate the subscription sign up through their website and not use Apple In App Purchase feature. Others are doing it.
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method.
Obviously, you are right. But you are missing the point about Newtron and his ilk. He displays an oppositional personality. Anything you say, no matter how sensible and rational, he will counter. Snarky personal insults are part of the fun for him. It's not about sharing ideas, it's about winning by having the last word.
Obviously, you are right. But you are missing the point about Newtron and his ilk. He displays an oppositional personality. Anything you say, no matter how sensible and rational, he will counter. Snarky personal insults are part of the fun for him. It's not about sharing ideas, it's about winning by having the last word.
Agreed... but, since that's the case, ignore him and others like him.
Way to publicly admit that you cut features and delivered less value than you thought was appropriate for the price. I'd like a refund please. If you're admitting that you purposely remove what people are paying for, then I'm no longer supporting you, and I want my money back.
I don't care what your issues are with Apple, you're lucky enough to be in front me, because you're ON the platform. How about we take you off the platform and see how relevant you remain over the next year?
Have you even read the SDK and App Store guidelines, SI? It says quite clearly that those who bitch and moan to the press, don't suddenly have an easier time negotiating with Apple.
Fools.
You're the fool if you believe SI will not rolling along just fine without Apple. People are not stealing magazines in large amounts the way music was being stolen so any comparisons to the music industry is dumb. There are WAY more sports fans than iPad owners so I know SI will cater to them more readily than to Apple. BTW who said print media needs saving? SJ? So that means it must be true? Please. Apple needs the publications more than they need Apple. There are other tablets on the horizon and if they give they give publications a better deal guess who they're gonna go with and customers/subscribers will follow suit.
This is just a stupid negotiation attempt on SI part. They think that if Apple believe this will be a poor user experience and the only way SI could support multiply modes of view is to increase subscription prices then Apple will fall over.
SI is barking up the wrong tree and all that will happen is people point out the fact that other magazines are not having any issue.
You've put your finger on it, particularly in your initial comment. These companies are deliberately playing out their politics in public, in the hope that customer complaints will sway the negotiations in their direction. It's kind of pathetic. We've seen the same tactics used in the fight between networks and the cable companies over how much the networks charge. The networks run big advertising campaigns to try to persuade subscribers to essentially demand that the cable providers raise their rates. The sad thing is, it seems to work. Not in this case, I hope.
yes, but if a year [56 issues] is $40 [at 82% off cover price], HOW MUCH of that cost is in printing and delivery?
how much are people willing to spend on an iPad subscription? $40? doubtful.
$20? possibly, but apple will be taking 30%.
how much less will their advertisers pay in comparison to the print version?
i don't know the numbers any more than anyone else here does, yet everyone is posting that SI is being cheap.
Some real numbers to chew on: SI has a rate base* of around 3.2 million -- the Magazine Publishers Association (MPA) says its annual circulation is 3,158,101 (2009). You can then guess the revenue coming in from subscribers based on what you think they are getting per subscriber (and newsstand copies, which are low in comparison, except one a year -- swimsuit edition!).
The MPA also estimated SI's ad revenue last year at $560 million (down over $80 million from 2008). Ad revenue estimates tend to run high (no one gets the page rates printed on the rate card, so the revenue number is always lower than that estimated by outsiders).
Nonetheless, you can see that advertising revenue is always going to be a lot higher than revenue coming in from readers. (Most magazines have an even higher percentage of their revenue coming in from advertising than SI. SI actually does a good job getting people to pay to read the product.)
Many publishers today are convinced that they should charge readers for access to their web and mobile/tablet products -- they feel burned by the fact that they have "given" away the web for free these past dozen years. At the same time they are doing a poor job of selling advertisers on the value of this new readership. (While they recognize that advertisers pay the bills associated with print products, they want to make sure readers on the web, smartphones and tablets get used to paying for access to content. )
The key here is this: Apple has made it relatively easy to charge for access to content (whether through paid apps, or in-app subscription purchases). But it is the job of the publishers to get advertisers to pay for ads appearing in the tablet edition -- and that is hard at first because advertisers and their ad agencies want real numbers to look at.
So when all those folks paid to access that first issue of Wired the magazine was able to get $$ from readers -- but since advertisers knew that the first day that app appeared in iTunes the circulation level of that iPad edition was zero they probably were not willing to pay for their ads to appear in that first iPad edition -- so the ads were either heavily discounted or given away.
It is hard to set ad rates when you don't know how many people are going to download the app. As a result, it will take time to get real numbers and present them to the ad community. That's why, for now, the readers are being asked to pay the freight (so to speak).
* Rate base: the level of circulation the magazine promises advertisers it will have. Ad rates are based on this number, if the actual circulation falls below this by too much the advertisers will expect a rebate.
Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method. The sheer volume of iPads that will hit the market in a very short period of time means Apple holds all the cards.
True for now, but this segment is brand new. Just as Android has made huge inroads in the smartphone market and is iOS's biggest threat, we'll see the same issue with tablets. No matter how great your device is, if you have weaker content it'll eventually peter out. Not today, not this year, but a couple of years down the road you'll find yourself in second place or worse.
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method. The sheer volume of iPads that will hit the market in a very short period of time means Apple holds all the cards. I don't think you understand the significance of a product that is only a few months old requiring production to ramp up to an excess of 2 million units a month.
Publishers, Adobe and others might publicly put up a fuss but Apple gets to call the shots on this one.
You're attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a troll? Good luck.
Everything is done for the shareholder's sake. That is the same at SI as well.
I really don't believe this is true. Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business. This leads to the shareholders being pretty happy as well. As a long time Apple consumer and shareholder, I can tell you I am pretty satisfied in both categories. Most restrictions I've seen imposed seemed to be placed in the interest of the consumers.
I really don't believe this is true. Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business. This leads to the shareholders being pretty happy as well. As a long time Apple consumer and shareholder, I can tell you I am pretty satisfied in both categories. Most restrictions I've seen imposed seemed to be placed in the interest of the consumers.
2 bad quarters and we'll see how well your position holds...
Fortunately, we most likely will never get to test this theory.
Yay, someone in a forum with REAL INFO to share, not their rants and opinions. thanks, TNM.
i agree that end users need to foot the bill until the ads sell at a rate that will cover production and distribution [here, distribution = apple] However, it's tough selling ads when users can skip them, and users don't want annoying pop-ups or "your video will begin playing in 30 seconds"
Comments
The reason to go horizontal only is that the designer was making a choice between three options: simply reproduce the magazine as a replica edition (portrait), redesign the magazine for the iPad as portrait, or redesign the magazine for the iPad as landscape. The fourth option -- produce files for both portrait and landscape -- would take more manpower. Remember, SI is a weekly publication, the designer has very little time to turn the print edition into something iPad owners would want on their tablets.
In this case the designer decided to go horizontal only because it works best for the majority of photos.
As for the designers comments concerning subscription prices, I don't think he is in any position to judge the issue. For one thing, SI survives on ad revenue, not its subscription revenue. For another, if Time Inc. wanted to raise the price there is nothing stopping them -- Apple does not set the price of publications, publishers do. They simply take their percentage -- and at 30% that is small compared to the prices publishers pay to print and distribute their paper copies. Remember, the cost to print and distribute a magazine generally exceeds the revenue brought in from readers -- that is why magazines contain ads (that's why magazines discount their annual subscriptions -- the pages sold to advertisers are worth more if the circulation is high, and the product sold to advertisers is YOU, the reader).
More strange than deciding to support only landscape is the fact that they say that supporting portrait increased the file size by 30%. It's a layout with photos and print - I get hints for the different modes, but what in the world are they doing? Or is this that Flash magazine tool crud where text is pngs and you have landscape and portrait 'text'? Ugh.
If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)
Naw. I usually reserve those for when people try to put words in my mouth. I object to that.
And besides, the post I responded to was a nasty accusation disguised as sarcasm. I responded as if the idiotic viewpoint were sincere. I too used sarcasm.
Your routinely trollish tone is a matter of record here. Your self-serving defense of same fools no one.
... Print designers are more fussy (quite rightly) about content being properly typeset and repurposed depending on how it's being displayed - simply squashing and scaling as you could do with html would horrify most print designers. ...
Yeah, they seriously need to get over this, especially their font fetishes. This SI landscape only nonsense is exactly what happens when you try to apply the conventions of the old onto new media. The web/html have been around for approximately 20 years now, you'd think people would begin to learn how to use them.
(Another of the evils of Flash/PDF: It's been used as a crutch by print designers and has retarded development of design native to the medium.)
Likely because that was never claimed by anybody. It is OK to forgive yourself. You can make mistakes without publicly announcing them.
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method. The sheer volume of iPads that will hit the market in a very short period of time means Apple holds all the cards. I don't think you understand the significance of a product that is only a few months old requiring production to ramp up to an excess of 2 million units a month.
Publishers, Adobe and others might publicly put up a fuss but Apple gets to call the shots on this one.
Apple does not set the price of publications, publishers do. They simply take their percentage -- and at 30% that is small compared to the prices publishers pay to print and distribute their paper copies. Remember, the cost to print and distribute a magazine generally exceeds the revenue brought in from readers -- that is why magazines contain ads (that's why magazines discount their annual subscriptions -- the pages sold to advertisers are worth more if the circulation is high, and the product sold to advertisers is YOU, the reader).
yes, but if a year [56 issues] is $40 [at 82% off cover price], HOW MUCH of that cost is in printing and delivery?
how much are people willing to spend on an iPad subscription? $40? doubtful.
$20? possibly, but apple will be taking 30%.
how much less will their advertisers pay in comparison to the print version?
i don't know the numbers any more than anyone else here does, yet everyone is posting that SI is being cheap.
The purported program would offer an opt-in function which would allow subscribers to share their personal information with publications -- information considered imperative for advertising.
I think this is the real sticking point. They can't prove their numbers to advertisers without demographic data... however, they could simply offer incentives for Facebook logins instead, which would connect them with rafts of personal information.
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method.
Obviously, you are right. But you are missing the point about Newtron and his ilk. He displays an oppositional personality. Anything you say, no matter how sensible and rational, he will counter. Snarky personal insults are part of the fun for him. It's not about sharing ideas, it's about winning by having the last word.
Obviously, you are right. But you are missing the point about Newtron and his ilk. He displays an oppositional personality. Anything you say, no matter how sensible and rational, he will counter. Snarky personal insults are part of the fun for him. It's not about sharing ideas, it's about winning by having the last word.
Agreed... but, since that's the case, ignore him and others like him.
To Sports Illustrated:
Way to publicly admit that you cut features and delivered less value than you thought was appropriate for the price. I'd like a refund please. If you're admitting that you purposely remove what people are paying for, then I'm no longer supporting you, and I want my money back.
I don't care what your issues are with Apple, you're lucky enough to be in front me, because you're ON the platform. How about we take you off the platform and see how relevant you remain over the next year?
Have you even read the SDK and App Store guidelines, SI? It says quite clearly that those who bitch and moan to the press, don't suddenly have an easier time negotiating with Apple.
Fools.
You're the fool if you believe SI will not rolling along just fine without Apple. People are not stealing magazines in large amounts the way music was being stolen so any comparisons to the music industry is dumb. There are WAY more sports fans than iPad owners so I know SI will cater to them more readily than to Apple. BTW who said print media needs saving? SJ? So that means it must be true? Please. Apple needs the publications more than they need Apple. There are other tablets on the horizon and if they give they give publications a better deal guess who they're gonna go with and customers/subscribers will follow suit.
This is just a stupid negotiation attempt on SI part. They think that if Apple believe this will be a poor user experience and the only way SI could support multiply modes of view is to increase subscription prices then Apple will fall over.
SI is barking up the wrong tree and all that will happen is people point out the fact that other magazines are not having any issue.
You've put your finger on it, particularly in your initial comment. These companies are deliberately playing out their politics in public, in the hope that customer complaints will sway the negotiations in their direction. It's kind of pathetic. We've seen the same tactics used in the fight between networks and the cable companies over how much the networks charge. The networks run big advertising campaigns to try to persuade subscribers to essentially demand that the cable providers raise their rates. The sad thing is, it seems to work. Not in this case, I hope.
yes, but if a year [56 issues] is $40 [at 82% off cover price], HOW MUCH of that cost is in printing and delivery?
how much are people willing to spend on an iPad subscription? $40? doubtful.
$20? possibly, but apple will be taking 30%.
how much less will their advertisers pay in comparison to the print version?
i don't know the numbers any more than anyone else here does, yet everyone is posting that SI is being cheap.
Some real numbers to chew on: SI has a rate base* of around 3.2 million -- the Magazine Publishers Association (MPA) says its annual circulation is 3,158,101 (2009). You can then guess the revenue coming in from subscribers based on what you think they are getting per subscriber (and newsstand copies, which are low in comparison, except one a year -- swimsuit edition!).
The MPA also estimated SI's ad revenue last year at $560 million (down over $80 million from 2008). Ad revenue estimates tend to run high (no one gets the page rates printed on the rate card, so the revenue number is always lower than that estimated by outsiders).
Nonetheless, you can see that advertising revenue is always going to be a lot higher than revenue coming in from readers. (Most magazines have an even higher percentage of their revenue coming in from advertising than SI. SI actually does a good job getting people to pay to read the product.)
Many publishers today are convinced that they should charge readers for access to their web and mobile/tablet products -- they feel burned by the fact that they have "given" away the web for free these past dozen years. At the same time they are doing a poor job of selling advertisers on the value of this new readership. (While they recognize that advertisers pay the bills associated with print products, they want to make sure readers on the web, smartphones and tablets get used to paying for access to content. )
The key here is this: Apple has made it relatively easy to charge for access to content (whether through paid apps, or in-app subscription purchases). But it is the job of the publishers to get advertisers to pay for ads appearing in the tablet edition -- and that is hard at first because advertisers and their ad agencies want real numbers to look at.
So when all those folks paid to access that first issue of Wired the magazine was able to get $$ from readers -- but since advertisers knew that the first day that app appeared in iTunes the circulation level of that iPad edition was zero they probably were not willing to pay for their ads to appear in that first iPad edition -- so the ads were either heavily discounted or given away.
It is hard to set ad rates when you don't know how many people are going to download the app. As a result, it will take time to get real numbers and present them to the ad community. That's why, for now, the readers are being asked to pay the freight (so to speak).
* Rate base: the level of circulation the magazine promises advertisers it will have. Ad rates are based on this number, if the actual circulation falls below this by too much the advertisers will expect a rebate.
Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method. The sheer volume of iPads that will hit the market in a very short period of time means Apple holds all the cards.
True for now, but this segment is brand new. Just as Android has made huge inroads in the smartphone market and is iOS's biggest threat, we'll see the same issue with tablets. No matter how great your device is, if you have weaker content it'll eventually peter out. Not today, not this year, but a couple of years down the road you'll find yourself in second place or worse.
You're missing the point. Apple doesn't need help to sell the iPad and it certainly doesn't care if SI tries some other distribution method. The sheer volume of iPads that will hit the market in a very short period of time means Apple holds all the cards. I don't think you understand the significance of a product that is only a few months old requiring production to ramp up to an excess of 2 million units a month.
Publishers, Adobe and others might publicly put up a fuss but Apple gets to call the shots on this one.
You're attempting to have a reasonable conversation with a troll? Good luck.
Apple does nothing for the consumer's sake.
Everything is done for the shareholder's sake. That is the same at SI as well.
I really don't believe this is true. Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business. This leads to the shareholders being pretty happy as well. As a long time Apple consumer and shareholder, I can tell you I am pretty satisfied in both categories. Most restrictions I've seen imposed seemed to be placed in the interest of the consumers.
I really don't believe this is true. Looking at the great products delivered over the past 10 years, and the excellent ratings Apple receives on customer service, I would say that apple does everything for the consumer's sake, because it is good business. This leads to the shareholders being pretty happy as well. As a long time Apple consumer and shareholder, I can tell you I am pretty satisfied in both categories. Most restrictions I've seen imposed seemed to be placed in the interest of the consumers.
2 bad quarters and we'll see how well your position holds...
Fortunately, we most likely will never get to test this theory.
Some real numbers to chew on:
Yay, someone in a forum with REAL INFO to share, not their rants and opinions. thanks, TNM.
i agree that end users need to foot the bill until the ads sell at a rate that will cover production and distribution [here, distribution = apple] However, it's tough selling ads when users can skip them, and users don't want annoying pop-ups or "your video will begin playing in 30 seconds"
650+ posts since joining in August sure appears to be a full time job.
He get's payed by google.