Seems like a pretty cool version of what a "digital" magazine can be.
It'd be interesting to see the Flash version of this side by side with the Objective-C version and compare framerates, touch responsiveness, battery drain, hardware heat, etc. Unfortunately that's probably impossible outside of Adobe's labs.
The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?...
Wired is indeed a sh*tty magazine that' long past it's prime, but what I find extremely offensive is the way it's displayed in the app store.
It just says you are buying Wired magazine for $4.99.
There is no mention of a subscription, or of how much the issues will cost at all. It seems to be borderline advertising fraud to me to sell someone something without telling them upfront about the costs. A lot of folks are going to think they have Wired magazine "for life," for $4.99. Do they? Probably not.
If this is an ad-supported app, then why not free from the get-go? If you are paying $4.99, then is every issue going to be $4.99?
It's purposely deceptive to market the thing the way they are. Why would I buy anything from a company that isn't up front about what they are going to charge? (even if it wasn't a sh*tty magazine).
I guess we'll know next month. However, like with videos and podcasts and the like, you only need keep the most recent issue on your iPad (assuming iTunes and the app allows us to selectively sync only the issues we want). Truth is, if it makes for a richer user experience, then I'm ok with the 500+ MB size of the app. When you think about it, how many e-magazines will you really be subscribing to anyway (especially at these prices)?
I like it a lot. I guess I never really saw the potential of the ipad magazines until now. It really looks like something you'd see in a futuristic movie from the 80's. "People in the future will have electronic interactive magazines."
If they do like GQ and make it $5.00 for the app and latest issue but backs and forwards are a little less, I think folks will go for it.
What I love is that there is all this ire about Apple being the new Nazis etc over this 'no Flash, no Java in any form' stuff. AND yet, no one has taken a stand and said "F you Apple. We stand by Flash. If your folks can't see our stuff, that's on you. But we aren't going to bend over and take it from you."
Adobe freaking helped Wired do the conversion. And you can bet that a revised convertor will come out of this that will take your Flash stuff and put it in top to bottom Objective C. It probably won't be very pretty and might be rather bloated, at least for now, but it will be native.
Because in the end, money is more important. Even to Adobe
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.
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
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
That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
You can go to wired.com and get a year of the printed magazine for $10 PLUS A FREE WIRED BASEBALL CAP!!!
So.... 4.99 per issue?
Seems pricey for less of the same thing...
Agreed - unfortunately, many other magazines do the same thing. If they would offer subscriptions for something like the price of print, I'd be getting a couple of magazines. But I'm not paying 2-5 times as much for the digital version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
....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...
It's not true to say that it makes no difference, Obj-C is far more capable than Flash, even though Adobe didn't take advantage of any features beyond what was already there. Good example of why Jobs doesn't want ported apps.
However, the real issue is that it's not about features. It's about reliability and efficiency. Adobe's use of unsupported APIs creates security and performance issues that are undesirable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux
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.
#2 also creates security problems and performance issues. A ported app will ALWAYS be slower and less efficient of CPU cycles than a native app. Adobe's attempt to label it a native app is very misleading. While it uses native APIs, the entire app design is based around Flash - which means that it will never be optimized for the iDevices. It's like taking a piece of German literature and simply replacing each word with the exact English equivalent. While you might be able to read the document, it will never be as good as something written natively in English or translated by an expert who really understands the English language.
Get used to the idea. While the whole publishing industry business model is in chaos right now because of disruptive technology like the iPad and others there's absolutely no doubt that we all will being paying for online content in one way or another. Subscriptions or annoying, intrusive advertising, pick your poison.
The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?
CGC
Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.
I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.
Just as Moore's law dictates that a unit of processing power halves in price every 18 months, the price of bandwidth and storage is dropping even faster. Which is to say, the trend lines that determine the cost of doing business online all point the same way: to zero.
Gee, Chris wrote that over two years ago. Hasn't his cost of doing business online reached zero yet?
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
I call panic.
Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?
That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
My kid's netbook has a 160 Gig drive. When he fills that up, he'll transfer some data to one of the 1T external drives we have. After that, we'll likely throw a cheap big drive into the netbook.
I agree that in this day and age, the storage on the iPad is inadequate.
....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...
Because the Objective-C generated app from Flash is not going to take advantage of all of Objective-C and Cocoa - it's just going to use enough to get the app to work. How to you exploit CoreAnimation from Flash? How do you handle low memory warnings from Flash? Autorelease pools? etc. I could go on.
I had a first look at it and have mixed impressions so far. The interactive content is mostly great, there is a real added value compared to the print edition (if it is really $10 vs. $60 added value per year, I can't decide). The iPad edition adds a lot of video and things like rotatable graphics and it is not gimmicky, but put to good use. That is the part I like and as everything is available offline, the 500MB are acceptable. Nobody carries around several printed editions of Wired, no need to have more than one on the iPad either.
The part I severely dislike, is that Adobe obviously had the upper hand in making the app's GUI as much Flash-like as somehow possible without violating any terms. Just like their desktop apps look odd on any platform, this does not look like an iPhone OS app. Different buttons, different shadows, different scroll bars... it is really everything needed to prove that Jobs had some valid points. It feels alien and it was certainly more work to make it that odd, than to simply use the interface components provided by Apple. And Adobe's are not by any mean better, they are just different for the sake of being different and the usability actually suffers from that. There is no need for a completely different interface for one single magazine, several comic apps show that custom content and stock controls can play along nicely and are less irritating for the user.
Hopefully somebody will tell Adobe to try it a third time.
Comments
Disk space is cheap.
Not on the iPad.
It'd be interesting to see the Flash version of this side by side with the Objective-C version and compare framerates, touch responsiveness, battery drain, hardware heat, etc. Unfortunately that's probably impossible outside of Adobe's labs.
The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?...
Wired is indeed a sh*tty magazine that' long past it's prime, but what I find extremely offensive is the way it's displayed in the app store.
It just says you are buying Wired magazine for $4.99.
There is no mention of a subscription, or of how much the issues will cost at all. It seems to be borderline advertising fraud to me to sell someone something without telling them upfront about the costs. A lot of folks are going to think they have Wired magazine "for life," for $4.99. Do they? Probably not.
If this is an ad-supported app, then why not free from the get-go? If you are paying $4.99, then is every issue going to be $4.99?
It's purposely deceptive to market the thing the way they are. Why would I buy anything from a company that isn't up front about what they are going to charge? (even if it wasn't a sh*tty magazine).
Ouch is that 500+ per issue???
I guess we'll know next month. However, like with videos and podcasts and the like, you only need keep the most recent issue on your iPad (assuming iTunes and the app allows us to selectively sync only the issues we want). Truth is, if it makes for a richer user experience, then I'm ok with the 500+ MB size of the app. When you think about it, how many e-magazines will you really be subscribing to anyway (especially at these prices)?
They lost me at Five Bucks.
If they do like GQ and make it $5.00 for the app and latest issue but backs and forwards are a little less, I think folks will go for it.
What I love is that there is all this ire about Apple being the new Nazis etc over this 'no Flash, no Java in any form' stuff. AND yet, no one has taken a stand and said "F you Apple. We stand by Flash. If your folks can't see our stuff, that's on you. But we aren't going to bend over and take it from you."
Adobe freaking helped Wired do the conversion. And you can bet that a revised convertor will come out of this that will take your Flash stuff and put it in top to bottom Objective C. It probably won't be very pretty and might be rather bloated, at least for now, but it will be native.
Because in the end, money is more important. Even to Adobe
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.
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
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
That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
You can go to wired.com and get a year of the printed magazine for $10 PLUS A FREE WIRED BASEBALL CAP!!!
So.... 4.99 per issue?
Seems pricey for less of the same thing...
Agreed - unfortunately, many other magazines do the same thing. If they would offer subscriptions for something like the price of print, I'd be getting a couple of magazines. But I'm not paying 2-5 times as much for the digital version.
....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...
It's not true to say that it makes no difference, Obj-C is far more capable than Flash, even though Adobe didn't take advantage of any features beyond what was already there. Good example of why Jobs doesn't want ported apps.
However, the real issue is that it's not about features. It's about reliability and efficiency. Adobe's use of unsupported APIs creates security and performance issues that are undesirable.
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.
#2 also creates security problems and performance issues. A ported app will ALWAYS be slower and less efficient of CPU cycles than a native app. Adobe's attempt to label it a native app is very misleading. While it uses native APIs, the entire app design is based around Flash - which means that it will never be optimized for the iDevices. It's like taking a piece of German literature and simply replacing each word with the exact English equivalent. While you might be able to read the document, it will never be as good as something written natively in English or translated by an expert who really understands the English language.
They lost me at Five Bucks.
Get used to the idea. While the whole publishing industry business model is in chaos right now because of disruptive technology like the iPad and others there's absolutely no doubt that we all will being paying for online content in one way or another. Subscriptions or annoying, intrusive advertising, pick your poison.
The real issue here: Would many really pay that much for subscription to products like "Wired"?
CGC
Yesterday, I was killing some time at a magazine stand. I used to buy lots of magazines, and I really like good, big magazine stands.
I saw an article or two on the covers which interested me. I almost bought a couple. But then it occurred to me that I could access the same content for free on the 'web.
So I didn't buy any magazines.
I guess Anderson hasn't successfully made his "everything should be free" argument to Conde Nast yet. Keep trying Chris!!!
Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business
By Chris Anderson
Just as Moore's law dictates that a unit of processing power halves in price every 18 months, the price of bandwidth and storage is dropping even faster. Which is to say, the trend lines that determine the cost of doing business online all point the same way: to zero.
Gee, Chris wrote that over two years ago. Hasn't his cost of doing business online reached zero yet?
gc
I call bullshit.
The vast majority of the software in the App Store is mediocre. Way too much of it is just plain crap. If Apple were dedicated to offering only good software in the App store, it would not have decided to carry every piece of crap that is submitted - so long as it is suitable for a 12 year old virgin. Instead, they would have offered only worthwhile titles.
I call bullshit.
I call panic.
Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?
I call panic.
That's stubborn businesses my friend. If either side gave a little, they would meet in the middle. Instead, both feel they are 100% correct and will not budge on their point of view.
Compromise often leads to mediocrity.
Not on the iPad.
Granted.
My kid's netbook has a 160 Gig drive. When he fills that up, he'll transfer some data to one of the 1T external drives we have. After that, we'll likely throw a cheap big drive into the netbook.
I agree that in this day and age, the storage on the iPad is inadequate.
More info / insight into this... Pretty interesting stuff.
When you think about it, how many e-magazines will you really be subscribing to anyway (especially at these prices)?
Enough for Apple to single-handedly save the industry?
....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...
Because the Objective-C generated app from Flash is not going to take advantage of all of Objective-C and Cocoa - it's just going to use enough to get the app to work. How to you exploit CoreAnimation from Flash? How do you handle low memory warnings from Flash? Autorelease pools? etc. I could go on.
I call panic.
Seeing that Flash designer career flash before your eyes?
I call panic.
If he's a flash designer why would you rub it in his face that he could have financial troubles ahead? Kind of a dick move.
The part I severely dislike, is that Adobe obviously had the upper hand in making the app's GUI as much Flash-like as somehow possible without violating any terms. Just like their desktop apps look odd on any platform, this does not look like an iPhone OS app. Different buttons, different shadows, different scroll bars... it is really everything needed to prove that Jobs had some valid points. It feels alien and it was certainly more work to make it that odd, than to simply use the interface components provided by Apple. And Adobe's are not by any mean better, they are just different for the sake of being different and the usability actually suffers from that. There is no need for a completely different interface for one single magazine, several comic apps show that custom content and stock controls can play along nicely and are less irritating for the user.
Hopefully somebody will tell Adobe to try it a third time.