Hearst praises Apple's 'efficient' iPad as digital subscriptions swell

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    It's always good to be skeptical, but with Apple's track record, companies should listen. This should have been a no-brainer.
  • Reply 22 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    I most frequently see them at the airport bookstore while waiting for a flight. Okay, I see a few magazines at the doctor and dentist offices. I read Playboy, Sports Illustrated and Consumer Reports when I get my haircut (at a barber shop, not a hair salon).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    I gotta find a new barber!



    'Barber' is apparently a politically incorrect name. They need to be called Hair Stylists.



    There was this indian movie titled 'Billu Barber' that generated a lot of protests from the 'Hair Stylist' associations!! . The name was eventually changed to just 'Billu'.
  • Reply 23 of 38
    red oakred oak Posts: 949member
    I agree with the above that the organization of publications needs a lot of work. It's awkward to navigate and to find things in Newstand. I have to believe Apple can do a much better job with it



    I also think it would be interesting for an iPad to have a 'Newsstand' view locked mode. So a doctor's office, for example, could leave on iPad out. In this mode, only the magazine/newspapers are displayed. The home page would just be the covers. Perhaps allow access to Safari and Weather as well



    In the bigger picture, this is really great for Apple. The cut of all these revenues is really going to start to add up, especially if they are successful rolling these content initiatives internationally. I'm assuming Apple is getting a cut of all the Zinio revenues as well, which is the top grossing app currently on the iPad. Everyone talks a out the Amazon Fire, but you think they are going to sell more content per device than Apple?



    Last, a higher resolution iPad 3 will help seal the deal. The publications will look twice as good as they do now and will easier to read
  • Reply 24 of 38
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Anyone here subscribing to magazines? I don't even know where to find them.



    Sound+Vision. $11.99 a year (discounted price effective at the moment). Hadn't bought this magazine so cheap.
  • Reply 25 of 38
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    Newsstand needs work. It seems every magazine is listed as free which is misleading as you have to pay for in-app purchases to get content. I also hate the way the magazine store is mixed in with the app store. There is no way to sort publications. Not a huge deal but annoyingly flawed.



    Just give me a search function and i'll be happy.
  • Reply 26 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Carey admitted that there was "so much drama" in negotiations with Apple, noting that someone could sell the movie rights to the debate that ensued.



    I'd pay money to see this.
  • Reply 27 of 38
    I get the feeling that all those executives working in the film, music and print industry are like a bunch of kids on the first day of school. They whine, cry, kicking and screaming as they head out the door because they can't stay home with mommy and daddy anymore but have to venture into the unknown. But then they go to school and find out that it's not such a horrible place after all.



    Every time Apple does something new, these media executives are crying foul, screaming about the injustice. But after they finally give in, they realize that things aren't so bad and that Apple just helped open up a huge revenue stream for them. They are riding on Apple's coat tails as Apple spearheads one paradigm shift after another. Makes me wonder where all the "drama" that you can make a movie out of was coming from.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    I wasn't sure if I'd like my iPad, honestly, but I do. Quite a lot.



    I don't really subscribe to anything (yet) in the Newsstand app. I must be in the minority, based on Apple's UX philosophy of only giving you the ability to browse a handful of their selections, but I like having an exhaustive list of magazines to look through to find ones in which I'm interested. For me, the magazines are just not as easy to buy.



    However, I do find the presentation of content on the iPad to be pretty compelling. I have the NY Post's app, and it is pretty excellent.
  • Reply 29 of 38
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 447member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    There is a big difference between adult and judgmental adult. Too many people these days just believe their morality and rational is the only right one.



    Morality isn't a question of opinion. There are people who have differing opinions on various moral subjects for sure, however in the end there is only one right answer, which means the other people are wrong, whether they like it or not. Two examples:



    1. Smoking or promoting smoking helps nobody. It doesn't matter how people feel about it, in the end the results are always the same - death, disease, and stench (unless something else kills you before the cigs do). It's actually tragic - the addiction to tobacco. I'm so sorry for the folks who are addicted. I wish all the best to those trying to quit. The devastation caused to humans by smoking is why promoting smoking is immoral. People who think otherwise are wrong.



    2. Stealing is immoral. There is no situation that ever makes it okay. It doesn't matter how many opinions there may be on the subject, it is immoral, black & white, case closed. People may try to justify it all day long, but they would be wrong.



    Bringing this full circle, it's too bad someone chose that particular magazine cover as an example for electronic magazine distribution. There are many other choices that would be positive and uplifting. Also, it's nice to see the publishing industry realizing that the distribution model Apple proposed is viable, and beneficial. They weren't trying to steal anybody's lunch. In fact, as electronic distribution increases, I'm sure we'll see Apple coming up with ways to add even more value, as they have done with other media.
  • Reply 30 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KDMeister View Post


    I get the feeling that all those executives working in the film, music and print industry are like a bunch of kids on the first day of school. They whine, cry, kicking and screaming as they head out the door because they can't stay home with mommy and daddy anymore but have to venture into the unknown. But then they go to school and find out that it's not such a horrible place after all.



    Every time Apple does something new, these media executives are crying foul, screaming about the injustice. But after they finally give in, they realize that things aren't so bad and that Apple just helped open up a huge revenue stream for them. They are riding on Apple's coat tails as Apple spearheads one paradigm shift after another. Makes me wonder where all the "drama" that you can make a movie out of was coming from.



    Yes, this is completely true. As someone has been a national newsstand magazine publisher and fully understands the distribution models for traditional print publications, I never got what all the wailing was about. I can assure everyone that the percentage that Apple retains for the service of providing an exceptionally valuable store front is smaller than the charges from distributors and retailers added together on each copy of a magazine. Publishers will make much more money through digital distribution than traditional means - not to mention the considerable savings attained through reduced print runs and transportation costs.
  • Reply 31 of 38
    dualiedualie Posts: 334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Did you *have* to pick the picture of the cigarette addict? Out of all the pictures available you chose to promote the "smoking is cool" meme.



    Yeah no shit. I really detest that. Smoking is one of the most uncool things you can show.



    I had to laugh at Hearst however. It just goes to show that Apple knows its customer far better than the publishers do. Most should just wise up and take its advice.
  • Reply 32 of 38
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    I'm so happy to see that 65% will willingly give their personal information to the publishers. Now maybe the publishers and others will stop trying to get my information.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    People so eagerly type everything in to Facebook, they should not be so surprised 65% were willing to share.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    Morality isn't a question of opinion. There are people who have differing opinions on various moral subjects for sure, however in the end there is only one right answer, which means the other people are wrong, whether they like it or not. Two examples:



    1. Smoking or promoting smoking helps nobody. It doesn't matter how people feel about it, in the end the results are always the same - death, disease, and stench (unless something else kills you before the cigs do). It's actually tragic - the addiction to tobacco. I'm so sorry for the folks who are addicted. I wish all the best to those trying to quit. The devastation caused to humans by smoking is why promoting smoking is immoral. People who think otherwise are wrong.



    2. Stealing is immoral. There is no situation that ever makes it okay. It doesn't matter how many opinions there may be on the subject, it is immoral, black & white, case closed. People may try to justify it all day long, but they would be wrong.



    Bringing this full circle, it's too bad someone chose that particular magazine cover as an example for electronic magazine distribution. There are many other choices that would be positive and uplifting. Also, it's nice to see the publishing industry realizing that the distribution model Apple proposed is viable, and beneficial. They weren't trying to steal anybody's lunch. In fact, as electronic distribution increases, I'm sure we'll see Apple coming up with ways to add even more value, as they have done with other media.



    Your whole post proves my point on how opinionated people, are judgmental. Thinking that their world is black and white. Right or wrong. Never allowing for differences of opinion. Everyone has an opinion and in a free society they have a right to it. Who am I to dictate which morality is right or wrong? You are being ethnocentric. You're judging other people relative to your own particular morality.



    Societal consensus dictates secular morality and law. A culture dictates morality. A religion dictates morality. Morality and Laws are based on the opinions of those served by their rules of morality. The consensus makes the Laws of enforcement, not someone's individual opinion or morality.



    People today who live in a free society, like the United States of America, that values individual human rights, have the choice to choose what's right or wrong within the Law. If the laws of their society says "smoking is legal," they have a right to smoke. It's their choice to do so. It's not illegal.



    Smoking has nothing to do with my individual opinion, religion, or morality. I do not judge others on whether it's right or wrong. I do judge on legal or illegal. It's their choice to smoke. Our society currently says so. If one doesn't like that, they can work to unite others to change the rules against smoking or anything else they don't approve of, or they can find a place where those rules do not apply.



    There are ethical reasons for stealing. Take any graduate college ethics course and you learn quickly that nothing in the world is ever black or white. Their is always grey between them. Giving examples on this point is like arguing religion, it's a futile argument. So I won't try to convince you of anything. It would be a waste of my time.



    In my opinion, in a large melting pot of moralities and ethnic cultures, an aggressive vocal minority is usually pushing their particular brand of morality on the society. As some in Government have stated, "never waste a good crisis." Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. Your brand of political correctness might be the flavor of today but gone tomorrow.



    Reading your post, I think your worldview is dangerous for this planet. World Wars were fought to stop dictators like people who actively and criminally sought to deny basic human rights to people with a differing point of view or ethnicity. I'm not saying that you personally would take it that far, but then again I don't know you. I do know what I read in your words.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 447member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    Your whole post proves my point on how opinionated people, are judgmental. Thinking that their world is black and white. Right or wrong. Never allowing for differences of opinion. Everyone has an opinion and in a free society they have a right to it. Who am I to dictate which morality is right or wrong? You are being ethnocentric. You're judging other people relative to your own particular morality.



    Societal consensus dictates secular morality and law. A culture dictates morality. A religion dictates morality. Morality and Laws are based on the opinions of those served by their rules of morality. The consensus makes the Laws of enforcement, not someone's individual opinion or morality.



    People today who live in a free society, like the United States of America, that values individual human rights, have the choice to choose what's right or wrong within the Law. If the laws of their society says "smoking is legal," they have a right to smoke. It's their choice to do so. It's not illegal.



    Smoking has nothing to do with my individual opinion, religion, or morality. I do not judge others on whether it's right or wrong. I do judge on legal or illegal. It's their choice to smoke. Our society currently says so. If one doesn't like that, they can work to unite others to change the rules against smoking or anything else they don't approve of, or they can find a place where those rules do not apply.



    There are ethical reasons for stealing. Take any graduate college ethics course and you learn quickly that nothing in the world is ever black or white. Their is always grey between them. Giving examples on this point is like arguing religion, it's a futile argument. So I won't try to convince you of anything. It would be a waste of my time.



    In my opinion, in a large melting pot of moralities and ethnic cultures, an aggressive vocal minority is usually pushing their particular brand of morality on the society. As some in Government have stated, "never waste a good crisis." Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. Your brand of political correctness might be the flavor of today but gone tomorrow.



    Reading your post, I think your worldview is dangerous for this planet. World Wars were fought to stop dictators like people who actively and criminally sought to deny basic human rights to people with a differing point of view or ethnicity. I'm not saying that you personally would take it that far, but then again I don't know you. I do know what I read in your words.



    You're getting law, rights and morality confused. I didn't say anything about smoking or stealing being illegal, or of taking away anyone's agency. One day you will come to learn that morality doesn't come from the opinions of people in societies, morality is absolute. Societies determine what laws that society should abide by. There are plenty of things that can be legal, socially acceptable, and freely available for people to choose to participate in, but which are still immoral.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    You're getting law, rights and morality confused. I didn't say anything about smoking or stealing being illegal, or of taking away anyone's agency. One day you will come to learn that morality doesn't come from the opinions of people in societies, morality is absolute. Societies determine what laws that society should abide by. There are plenty of things that can be legal, socially acceptable, and freely available for people to choose to participate in, but which are still immoral.



    If what you said in this post and the other one is how you think, then I betting you believe smoking is immoral.



    Is smoking immoral? I don't know anyone who believes that. It might be a disgusting habit. It might be an unhealthy practice. But I don't believe it is immoral. This was one of the reasons I replied to your post in the first place.



    I don't need to learn what you said "morality doesn't come from," opinions because it is wrong. I've had eight years of graduate studies in this discipline and not once could your premise prevail as you stated it.



    People's opinions on morality are their bias that becomes the basis of the particular morality they wish to follow. Otherwise they would not follow it. Opinions are conclusions of the thought process that guide a person's choices. It is their bias. It is the center of why we choose a particular religion, politic, or a lifelong mate. I'm not confusing any of this. I believe you have.



    The truth is opinion is irreversibly linked to the thought process that allows one's belief structure to follow a morality. Globally you'll find many different cultures and mores from your own. It is naive to think that these different moralities are all wrong. The morality you believe absolutely today may changed in time. It has changed many times during the evolution of Christianity.



    You says morality is absolute. This belief is the dangerous part of both your post. It is the basis of much destruction and death throughout history. The Nazis had a particular morality of Arian supremacy that ended in the deaths of tens of millions of human beings. It is the basis of ethnic cleansing still today and throughout history. It is total intolerance of what and how others believe, think, and worship.
  • Reply 37 of 38
    mytdavemytdave Posts: 447member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    If what you said in this post and the other one is how you think, then I betting you believe smoking is immoral.



    Is smoking immoral? I don't know anyone who believes that. It might be a disgusting habit. It might be an unhealthy practice. But I don't believe it is immoral. This was one of the reasons I replied to your post in the first place.



    I don't need to learn what you said "morality doesn't come from," opinions because it is wrong. I've had eight years of graduate studies in this discipline and not once could your premise prevail as you stated it.



    People's opinions on morality are their bias that becomes the basis of the particular morality they wish to follow. Otherwise they would not follow it. Opinions are conclusions of the thought process that guide a person's choices. It is their bias. It is the center of why we choose a particular religion, politic, or a lifelong mate. I'm not confusing any of this. I believe you have.



    The truth is opinion is irreversibly linked to the thought process that allows one's belief structure to follow a morality. Globally you'll find many different cultures and mores from your own. It is naive to think that these different moralities are all wrong. The morality you believe absolutely today may changed in time. It has changed many times during the evolution of Christianity.



    You says morality is absolute. This belief is the dangerous part of both your post. It is the basis of much destruction and death throughout history. The Nazis had a particular morality of Arian supremacy that ended in the deaths of tens of millions of human beings. It is the basis of ethnic cleansing still today and throughout history. It is total intolerance of what and how others believe, think, and worship.



    You're still confused. It's probably 8 years of study in the 'discipline' that has you confused. I don't don't want to sound disrespectful, but moral relativism is utter horseshit. Most folks realize this, or at least they used to.



    Here's a few points for you, and then I'll have to be all done with this discussion:



    I didn't say smoking is immoral, I said promoting the practice is. There's a big difference.



    People choose a course of action because they have agency. People choose based on their beliefs and desires, fortitude or lack thereof. People can choose that which is moral or immoral. Morality itself is separate. Things are either moral or immoral regardless of what people believe. Morality is a constant, like the laws of the universe. It doesn't matter whether you believe in gravity or not, it still exists.



    Morality isn't the basis of destruction through history, bad choices are. The Nazis through their agency chose immorality. They believed in a false premise, a premise that is/was immoral. The morality (right) or immorality (wrong) wasn't the problem, their choices were. They chose poorly.



    There is plenty of room for tolerance of how people believe, think and worship. This doesn't change the nature of morality. One of the simplest examples, once again, is stealing. Search the world over, and you will find that cultures everywhere understand that stealing is immoral, it is wrong to do. Most people know it. Some people just believe it. Others have lost their "moral compass."



    Hypothetical: If world cultures change in the next hundred years (or less), and somehow stealing becomes acceptable, and people's belief systems change to accept the behavior as common practice, well then, it could become legal, acceptable, and expected. But it would still be immoral, because morality is a constant, regardless of how many people think otherwise. The society's behavior might change, but that would just mean the whole population just became immoral with regards to that particular thing.
  • Reply 38 of 38
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mytdave View Post


    Morality isn't a question of opinion. There are people who have differing opinions on various moral subjects for sure, however in the end there is only one right answer, which means the other people are wrong, whether they like it or not.



    And what exactly distinguishes the right answer from the wrong answers?
Sign In or Register to comment.