Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?
Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.
It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.
Well, why do people have more than one computer in their home too? Convenience for one...and the iPad is set up to be a killer device in terms of convenient (portable/lightweight) convergence of all different media type playback, as well as providing good options for productivity/communication.
Not all web content is the same or free as their print counterparts, and they are becoming increasingly annoying to traverse as more developers infest roadblock or pop-up ads in their content, a lot of which I suspect will not be there in a true paid content version (I don't mind reasonable static, non intrusive ads, by the dynamic, fly-over stuff is ridiculous). Also, you need to be tethered to the internet to read current content - the Kindle/iBookstore model will deliver entire ePubs to your device, making it, right at the start, very appealing to the tens of millions of commuters in this country (especially since, unlike the Kindle, it is multi-purposed).
And finally, you don't have to subscribe to anything since the iPad has mobile Safari (I can't imagine that app publishers would block direct access to their regular sites based on browser identification)
The Touch and iPhone were, from one perspective, the beta devices for a platform like an iPad - we've all read the numbers that iPhone owners use three or four times the number of apps than other smartphone users, and all on the necessarily cramped screen of a pocket sized device. This is the best indicator that people are eager to use a device in this general category - Apple is betting that the potential negative of having to carry a second, larger device will be offset by the features and performance that a faster device with more real estate delivers.
Short of major technical issues at the start, the iPad will certainly not fail, though how successful it becomes is tied to how successful they are in getting the various media publishers on board - limited content availability will lessen its appeal, which is partly why Apple likes showing off all the other things the iPad does (music, photos, videos, etc.) It's distinctly NOT an ebook device, but a universal tablet that, by the way, can be a far superior ebook experience than any other device out there.
The Ipad will be a Hit, and it will all be due to the App store and Content. The App store is a huge success, I have an android Phone and Like it, but no way can its applib store even compete with the App store apple has put together. The Ipod Touch I own has such a diversity of apps, now add the Ipad's convienient size to that and it opens up so much more possible applications for it. I'm using mine for a Comic and E-reader, but it also will be a video player, game machine.. Its so mind blowing that it will fill so many niches.
$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).
That is EXACTLY what I thought. This is just another example of a company that does not get it.
For $2.69 a week, which is $11.66 a month, I can get the print and the online journals. What do these idiots think they are going to provide for that additional cost. Media needs to learn that people do not like getting gouged.
If print and online cost $11.66 a month then an iPad only publication should be about $10 a month. At least that is all that I would pay.
Nobody yet knows how consumers will respond to the iPad and to its new paid-content model, which will allow publishers to both charge per app and also charge subscription fees, similar to a physical newspaper or magazine.
Apple just needs a catchy marketing angle and consumers will look past the cost:
The content subscription deal is going to be tough. You pay for a device and possibly a 3G fee and then you're paying subscriptions for each publication and movies and apps. I can see this device being the most jailbroken iPod ever.
No Flash is already a problem to online advertisers - there are 70 million devices out there browsing away skipping the ads, not to mention the Flash blockers on the desktop. This may start to push them to HTML 5 advertising and then we all get our CPUs maxed out. There will need to be software to author HTML 5 animations though. If the advertising industry pushes this ahead, it has its benefits.
No Flash is already a problem to online advertisers - there are 70 million devices out there browsing away skipping the ads, not to mention the Flash blockers on the desktop. This may start to push them to HTML 5 advertising and then we all get our CPUs maxed out. There will need to be software to author HTML 5 animations though. If the advertising industry pushes this ahead, it has its benefits.
It has been mentioned before on the forum several times that there is currently no means of blocking HTML5 ads. In addition JS driven animations could potentially consume as much battery resources as Flash. And by the way I'll mention again that I have successfully created Flash ads that do play on the iPhone and are not blocked by ClickToFlash either.
So it's looking like a short pop for the iPad then a drop, mainstream won't pick it up like they did the iPod Classic.
With the original iPods, one could place a copy of all their existing content on the device and mix and match, take it with them. It was a very practical, social device and solved a need.
With the iPad only all new content has to come on the device and it's not transferable to others like print media is. So people lose the social aspect of a printed copy, loaning it to friends, family and such. The iPad would be for loners and those with children who need a controlled device.
Problem with the iPod Touch is it's poor storage capability and eye candy touchscreen, so it morphed chiefly into a portable gaming device instead of a music carrying device.
With the iPad, people are going to have to shell out a minimum of $500 just to see fancier publication content that they already can get on the internet with their computers, have work with their hands a lot navigating and holding the iPad device. When people really just want to absorb essential information in the quickest and easiest way possible. RSS feeds were created for a reason. People are bombarded with information to get their attention, the iPad is just another device aiming to do that.
The iPad is just too much work, the screen will require constant cleaning, the storage is downright pitifully small.
Sorry Apple, I can't find too much positive about this device outside the youth/educational market.
People need to feel the device is going to save them money or provide a essential need, not just having to pay more for a fancier way of getting something they already get for free or cheaper. Rich snob device is my estimation of the iPad.
The reflective, fragile, glass touchscreen that large is going to have major issues.
What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?
When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.
There's nothing to 'Get'.
All you've shown is that you're locked into some little technologically unaware world that has left you unfamiliar with a proven effective (been using it for over 7 years now) method of buying/enjoying digital publications e.g ZINIO.
Additionally: Platforms that currently support Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR don't require that companies take any special steps to function because the have hardware/software capable enough to support their offerings... Right Here/Right Now.
The Ipad will be a Hit, and it will all be due to the App store and Content. The App store is a huge success, I have an android Phone and Like it, but no way can its applib store even compete with the App store apple has put together. The Ipod Touch I own has such a diversity of apps, now add the Ipad's convienient size to that and it opens up so much more possible applications for it. I'm using mine for a Comic and E-reader, but it also will be a video player, game machine.. Its so mind blowing that it will fill so many niches.
Maybe you should consider upgrading to an actual modern Google Phone (android 2.x) that supports the Google Market.
The Applib is rather archaic by comparison, as the Google Market offers a far superior layout, as well as 10's of thousand more apps, many that parallel iPhone App functionality (if that's your thing).
The Zinio App is free, some of the subscriptions are pretty expensive and the "magazines" still contain Ads, there's a few free samples of older magazines.
The National Geographic is not bad, it's quite readable, it should be stunning on the larger iPad screen.
Saving content to read offline is a nice touch.
Thanks for the heads up, it's not a bad App.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
There's nothing to 'Get'.
All you've shown is that you're locked into some little technologically unaware world that has left you unfamiliar with a proven effective (been using it for over 7 years now) method of buying/enjoying digital publications e.g ZINIO.
Additionally: Platforms that currently support Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR don't require that companies take any special steps to function because the have hardware/software capable enough to support their offerings... Right Here/Right Now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Maybe you should consider upgrading to an actual modern Google Phone (android 2.x) that supports the Google Market.
The Applib is rather archaic by comparison, as the Google Market offers a far superior layout, as well as 10's of thousand more apps, many that parallel iPhone App functionality (if that's your thing).
$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).
Herr Murdoch, Führer of News Corp., has dictated that his publications are going to gouge Internet readers with fees. This WSJ stunt is exactly what he meant. He's bucking the way the Internet works. The obvious response is to ignore him and use the superior alternatives.
(Keep in mind that this is the guy who invented 'tits on page 3' and FuxNews).
Comments
Speaking of which:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=883175
CBS is also going HTML5. All thanks to the iPad.
Expect ABC to follow suit shortly.
Apple is dictating the rules of the game.
Apple is not. A quality product offering is. The first quality product offering thats not some dumb geek gadget, in a long time.
Hope they didn't invest much.
Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?
Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.
It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.
Well, why do people have more than one computer in their home too? Convenience for one...and the iPad is set up to be a killer device in terms of convenient (portable/lightweight) convergence of all different media type playback, as well as providing good options for productivity/communication.
Not all web content is the same or free as their print counterparts, and they are becoming increasingly annoying to traverse as more developers infest roadblock or pop-up ads in their content, a lot of which I suspect will not be there in a true paid content version (I don't mind reasonable static, non intrusive ads, by the dynamic, fly-over stuff is ridiculous). Also, you need to be tethered to the internet to read current content - the Kindle/iBookstore model will deliver entire ePubs to your device, making it, right at the start, very appealing to the tens of millions of commuters in this country (especially since, unlike the Kindle, it is multi-purposed).
And finally, you don't have to subscribe to anything since the iPad has mobile Safari (I can't imagine that app publishers would block direct access to their regular sites based on browser identification)
The Touch and iPhone were, from one perspective, the beta devices for a platform like an iPad - we've all read the numbers that iPhone owners use three or four times the number of apps than other smartphone users, and all on the necessarily cramped screen of a pocket sized device. This is the best indicator that people are eager to use a device in this general category - Apple is betting that the potential negative of having to carry a second, larger device will be offset by the features and performance that a faster device with more real estate delivers.
Short of major technical issues at the start, the iPad will certainly not fail, though how successful it becomes is tied to how successful they are in getting the various media publishers on board - limited content availability will lessen its appeal, which is partly why Apple likes showing off all the other things the iPad does (music, photos, videos, etc.) It's distinctly NOT an ebook device, but a universal tablet that, by the way, can be a far superior ebook experience than any other device out there.
$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).
That is EXACTLY what I thought. This is just another example of a company that does not get it.
For $2.69 a week, which is $11.66 a month, I can get the print and the online journals. What do these idiots think they are going to provide for that additional cost. Media needs to learn that people do not like getting gouged.
If print and online cost $11.66 a month then an iPad only publication should be about $10 a month. At least that is all that I would pay.
Nobody yet knows how consumers will respond to the iPad and to its new paid-content model, which will allow publishers to both charge per app and also charge subscription fees, similar to a physical newspaper or magazine.
Apple just needs a catchy marketing angle and consumers will look past the cost:
The content subscription deal is going to be tough. You pay for a device and possibly a 3G fee and then you're paying subscriptions for each publication and movies and apps. I can see this device being the most jailbroken iPod ever.
No Flash is already a problem to online advertisers - there are 70 million devices out there browsing away skipping the ads, not to mention the Flash blockers on the desktop. This may start to push them to HTML 5 advertising and then we all get our CPUs maxed out. There will need to be software to author HTML 5 animations though. If the advertising industry pushes this ahead, it has its benefits.
No Flash is already a problem to online advertisers - there are 70 million devices out there browsing away skipping the ads, not to mention the Flash blockers on the desktop. This may start to push them to HTML 5 advertising and then we all get our CPUs maxed out. There will need to be software to author HTML 5 animations though. If the advertising industry pushes this ahead, it has its benefits.
It has been mentioned before on the forum several times that there is currently no means of blocking HTML5 ads. In addition JS driven animations could potentially consume as much battery resources as Flash. And by the way I'll mention again that I have successfully created Flash ads that do play on the iPhone and are not blocked by ClickToFlash either.
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...r-asses-2010-3
So it's looking like a short pop for the iPad then a drop, mainstream won't pick it up like they did the iPod Classic.
With the original iPods, one could place a copy of all their existing content on the device and mix and match, take it with them. It was a very practical, social device and solved a need.
With the iPad only all new content has to come on the device and it's not transferable to others like print media is. So people lose the social aspect of a printed copy, loaning it to friends, family and such. The iPad would be for loners and those with children who need a controlled device.
Problem with the iPod Touch is it's poor storage capability and eye candy touchscreen, so it morphed chiefly into a portable gaming device instead of a music carrying device.
With the iPad, people are going to have to shell out a minimum of $500 just to see fancier publication content that they already can get on the internet with their computers, have work with their hands a lot navigating and holding the iPad device. When people really just want to absorb essential information in the quickest and easiest way possible. RSS feeds were created for a reason. People are bombarded with information to get their attention, the iPad is just another device aiming to do that.
The iPad is just too much work, the screen will require constant cleaning, the storage is downright pitifully small.
Sorry Apple, I can't find too much positive about this device outside the youth/educational market.
People need to feel the device is going to save them money or provide a essential need, not just having to pay more for a fancier way of getting something they already get for free or cheaper. Rich snob device is my estimation of the iPad.
The reflective, fragile, glass touchscreen that large is going to have major issues.
ZINIO what?
Get it?
What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?
When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.
There's nothing to 'Get'.
All you've shown is that you're locked into some little technologically unaware world that has left you unfamiliar with a proven effective (been using it for over 7 years now) method of buying/enjoying digital publications e.g ZINIO.
Additionally: Platforms that currently support Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR don't require that companies take any special steps to function because the have hardware/software capable enough to support their offerings... Right Here/Right Now.
The Ipad will be a Hit, and it will all be due to the App store and Content. The App store is a huge success, I have an android Phone and Like it, but no way can its applib store even compete with the App store apple has put together. The Ipod Touch I own has such a diversity of apps, now add the Ipad's convienient size to that and it opens up so much more possible applications for it. I'm using mine for a Comic and E-reader, but it also will be a video player, game machine.. Its so mind blowing that it will fill so many niches.
Maybe you should consider upgrading to an actual modern Google Phone (android 2.x) that supports the Google Market.
The Applib is rather archaic by comparison, as the Google Market offers a far superior layout, as well as 10's of thousand more apps, many that parallel iPhone App functionality (if that's your thing).
http://www.zinio.com/splash.jsp?code=ipad
Hey is there an Android version?
The Zinio App is free, some of the subscriptions are pretty expensive and the "magazines" still contain Ads, there's a few free samples of older magazines.
The National Geographic is not bad, it's quite readable, it should be stunning on the larger iPad screen.
Saving content to read offline is a nice touch.
Thanks for the heads up, it's not a bad App.
There's nothing to 'Get'.
All you've shown is that you're locked into some little technologically unaware world that has left you unfamiliar with a proven effective (been using it for over 7 years now) method of buying/enjoying digital publications e.g ZINIO.
Additionally: Platforms that currently support Adobe Flash and Adobe AIR don't require that companies take any special steps to function because the have hardware/software capable enough to support their offerings... Right Here/Right Now.
Maybe you should consider upgrading to an actual modern Google Phone (android 2.x) that supports the Google Market.
The Applib is rather archaic by comparison, as the Google Market offers a far superior layout, as well as 10's of thousand more apps, many that parallel iPhone App functionality (if that's your thing).
Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.
"Reality Distortion Effect" is anything spewing from a troll's mouth. Try mouthwash woohoo.
$17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).
Herr Murdoch, Führer of News Corp., has dictated that his publications are going to gouge Internet readers with fees. This WSJ stunt is exactly what he meant. He's bucking the way the Internet works. The obvious response is to ignore him and use the superior alternatives.
(Keep in mind that this is the guy who invented 'tits on page 3' and FuxNews).