Wired's iPad edition arrives, converted from Flash by Adobe
Wired this week released the iPad edition of its technology oriented magazine, with the App Store software completely rewritten by Adobe, jettisoning the version written in Flash for one authored completely in the Apple-approved Objective-C language.
Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired, said the magazine utilizes new digital publishing technology developed by Adobe, which allows the publication to work on the print and digital editions at the same time, using the same authoring and design tools. The result, he said, is a new version of Wired that he has always dreamed of.
"It has all of the visual impact of paper, enhanced by interactive elements like video and animated graphics," he said. "We can offer you a history of Mars landings that lets you explore the red planet yourself. We can take you inside Trent Reznor's recording studio and let you listen to snippets of his work in progress. And we can show you exactly how Pixar rafted each frame of its new movie, Toy Story 3."
Released Wednesday, the iPad edition of Wired (iTunes link) costs $4.99 for the June issue. It includes reviews of the best new LED TVs, a guide to gardening for geeks, and interactive content like a behind-the-scenes tour of a warehouse of frozen medical tissue samples. The 527MB application is intended for users ages 17 ad up.
Wired also released a video (encoded in Adobe Flash, and unplayable on the iPad) showing off some of the features of the new digital magazine:
The Wall Street Journal explained how the magazine and Adobe had to rebuild their application from the ground up after it was revealed that Apple would not allow the use of intermediary tools to port software from another format, such as Flash, to the iPhone OS. As such, Adobe joined the thousands of existing iPhone and iPad developers by recreating the magazine's application in Objective-C.
"Wired, which has been working on an e-reader edition since last summer, has pursued a different path than its Conde Nast brethren by partnering with Adobe Systems," author Russell Adams wrote. "That decision later landed Wired on the wrong side of Apple, which has banned Adobe?s Flash technology from its devices. Wired and Adobe had to rebuild the magazine?s app in Apple-approved code."
Executives with Conde Nast, publisher of Wired, said that the rebuilt, Apple-approved application has all of the features of the previous one. Future issues will add new features such as social connectivity, search functions, and the ability to open a browser within the application.
Conde Nast expects to offer a subscription model in the fall. Currently, it will charge $4.99 per issue, and new issues can be bought as part of a library within a single application.
Conde Nast also released digital versions of its other magazines, including GQ, but they have not received the highly interactive treatment featured in the iPad edition of Wired. Officials with the company previously said they would not create similar iPad apps for their other magazines until the issues between Adobe and Apple are resolved.
Apple recently changed the iPhone developer agreement to ban third-party tools that would allow software to be ported from other formats, like Adobe Flash, to native iPhone OS software. Jobs said such tools would result in substandard applications on the Apple-controlled App Store.
The iPad edition of Wired was first discussed last November, months before Apple's touchscreen device was even acknowledged by the company.
Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired, said the magazine utilizes new digital publishing technology developed by Adobe, which allows the publication to work on the print and digital editions at the same time, using the same authoring and design tools. The result, he said, is a new version of Wired that he has always dreamed of.
"It has all of the visual impact of paper, enhanced by interactive elements like video and animated graphics," he said. "We can offer you a history of Mars landings that lets you explore the red planet yourself. We can take you inside Trent Reznor's recording studio and let you listen to snippets of his work in progress. And we can show you exactly how Pixar rafted each frame of its new movie, Toy Story 3."
Released Wednesday, the iPad edition of Wired (iTunes link) costs $4.99 for the June issue. It includes reviews of the best new LED TVs, a guide to gardening for geeks, and interactive content like a behind-the-scenes tour of a warehouse of frozen medical tissue samples. The 527MB application is intended for users ages 17 ad up.
Wired also released a video (encoded in Adobe Flash, and unplayable on the iPad) showing off some of the features of the new digital magazine:
The Wall Street Journal explained how the magazine and Adobe had to rebuild their application from the ground up after it was revealed that Apple would not allow the use of intermediary tools to port software from another format, such as Flash, to the iPhone OS. As such, Adobe joined the thousands of existing iPhone and iPad developers by recreating the magazine's application in Objective-C.
"Wired, which has been working on an e-reader edition since last summer, has pursued a different path than its Conde Nast brethren by partnering with Adobe Systems," author Russell Adams wrote. "That decision later landed Wired on the wrong side of Apple, which has banned Adobe?s Flash technology from its devices. Wired and Adobe had to rebuild the magazine?s app in Apple-approved code."
Executives with Conde Nast, publisher of Wired, said that the rebuilt, Apple-approved application has all of the features of the previous one. Future issues will add new features such as social connectivity, search functions, and the ability to open a browser within the application.
Conde Nast expects to offer a subscription model in the fall. Currently, it will charge $4.99 per issue, and new issues can be bought as part of a library within a single application.
Conde Nast also released digital versions of its other magazines, including GQ, but they have not received the highly interactive treatment featured in the iPad edition of Wired. Officials with the company previously said they would not create similar iPad apps for their other magazines until the issues between Adobe and Apple are resolved.
Apple recently changed the iPhone developer agreement to ban third-party tools that would allow software to be ported from other formats, like Adobe Flash, to native iPhone OS software. Jobs said such tools would result in substandard applications on the Apple-controlled App Store.
The iPad edition of Wired was first discussed last November, months before Apple's touchscreen device was even acknowledged by the company.
Comments
Sounds like WiReD is desperate for any path towards adequate circulation.
Sounds like Flash brings absolutely nothing of value to the iPhone OS platform that isn't already there.
So.... 4.99 per issue?
Seems pricey for less of the same thing...
Sounds like Flash brings absolutely nothing of value to the iPhone OS platform that isn't already there.
....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...
Conde Nast expects to offer a subscription model in the fall. Currently, it will charge $4.99 per issue, and new issues can be bought as part of a library within a single application.
At least this seems to be a step in the right direction, as opposed to some periodicals that (as far as I've heard) require a separate app for each issue. Even still, I can't believe Apple didn't release a single 'magazine' app that everyone can publish to. Why does everyone have to reinvent the same wheel?
They lost me at Five Bucks.
They lost me at 500+MB! I can't afford to lose that much space to one 'app'. Web pages and streaming video are still better.
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...
Read this:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/flash_saga
It goes a long way towards explaining why Apple doesn't want to let Adobe leverage the iPhone/Pad platform away from Apple.
....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...
Big difference. What adobe planned to do was throw some flash reader runtime on every application bundle (probably a big memory and and battery eater). Because this runtime on the bundle would handle all the flash code run on other platforms, this would give adobe no incentive to update with apples latest api's, so they could be lazy and not innovate. In other words hold everyone to their standards (easy cross platform but low innovation) and not apples. I am a big flash fan, but I see apples point here. Until mobile devices become much more powerful it is a good move to get tight control of their api's.
By doing the program in objective c and compiling to iphone ipa standards they are choosing the most efficient way possible. Memory management, performance and power consumption can easily be achieved.
....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...
Flash offering no functionality that isn't already available without it does not equate to Objective-C providing no functionality that isn't offered by Flash, and quite the opposite is in fact true. To a knowledgeable mind, it's obvious that the reason they rewrote the app "feature-for-feature the same" is that that's always the quickest, simplest way to do any rewrite. But now they aren't hemmed in by the limitations of Flash.
Read this:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/flash_saga
It goes a long way towards explaining why Apple doesn't want to let Adobe leverage the iPhone/Pad platform away from Apple.
I thought Steve already addressed Apple's reluctance....
good read none-the-less.
They lost me at 500+MB! I can't afford to lose that much space to one 'app'. Web pages and streaming video are still better.
Ouch is that 500+ per issue???
Big difference. What adobe planned to do was throw some flash reader runtime on every application bundle
Not in the case of ported apps. When discussing Flash on the iPhone/Pad platform there are always two issues:
1) Running Flash media natively (which is what Android 2.2 is still struggling to accomplish at this date.)
2) Compiling Flash-based applications to act as native iPad apps, effectively bypassing many of Apple's APIs.
Number 1 above is about performance and battery life, number 2 is about Apple's reluctance to offer lowest-common-denominator apps that are (potentially) mediocre across all platforms. People tend to conflate the two.
Wired this week released the iPad edition of its technology oriented magazine, with the App Store software converted by Adobe from its native format of Flash to the Apple-approved Objective-C language. ...
If anyone's interested this is available in the Canadian store as well and also this morning, the iPad apps are now live in the Canadian (and probably other international) stores.
Despite all those false reports from last week, the iPad apps and search categories are appearing in the store this morning for the first time.
However, instead of doing what they are best at (creating great authoring tools) they seem insistent on establishing Flash as a platform.
I don't think that is the best way forward for them. It is certainly not the best way forward for the internet, or Apple.
The other more significant issue, if true: So, with all its grandstanding, Adobe can (if it wants to) and will create a software technology that will conform with Apple-imposed policies?
CGC
They lost me at 500+MB! I can't afford to lose that much space to one 'app'. Web pages and streaming video are still better.
Disk space is cheap.
Not only Flash, it's about creativity.
The developers could not make these.