Well done, Apple. You’ve finally done it. You’ve got the world bending the knee for a device they’ve never seen, and which you deny exists. Condé Nast has declared that Wired will be Apple tablet-compatible by mid-2010, although they admit that Apple hasn’t actually told them how they might go about doing that. While this isn’t exactly comparable to adjusting office doorway heights in case someone hires a Yeti, the parallels are clear.
Of course, it’s not so strange to want to streamline your product for tablet access. Make sure column flex doesn’t break the layout, don’t put critical links in rollover menus, that sort of thing. But if the Apple tablet is anywhere as interesting as people hope it will be, I doubt you’re going to be reading Wired in a browser anyway. Quixotic would be too kind a term for what they’re doing; not only are they tilting at windmills, but the windmills don’t officially exist.
Maybe that’s too harsh an estimation of Condé Nast’s effort. After all, the tablet may not officially exist, but it doesn’t officially not exist either. And we’re pretty sure it does, so that settles it. Whatever the case, it seems unlikely that anything they do now will be relevant to Apple’s new platform. It’s been said that it runs iPhone OS, that’s it’s this big and uses that processor, but as a content provider the only thing you need to know is it’s Apple. That means they’re going to have complete control of it from the bottom up; they hold all the keys and if they’re not letting you in, you may as well wait. A damn-the-torpedoes approach is the wrong one here.
Apple’s not really the only target of this initiative, though. HP has released some tablet specs that Condé Nast is working with, and an Adobe Air-based platform for magazine-type media is in the offing as well. A real magazine-style layout with embedded videos (and ads of course) is the goal, but it’s whispered that the NY Times is working with Apple on just that sort of thing. You better believe they’ve got their own framework set up, with the NYT perhaps advising, and of course Apple will force content creators to fit in that box. It’s a “something stirs in Mordor” situation: whatever you do to prepare can’t possibly be enough (that is, if the tablet lives up to the rumors). All you can do is rely on a plucky hobbit. I don’t know how Frodo is represented in this Apple-Condé thing, though. Note to self: avoid fantasy metaphors.
Here’s another snag in Condé’s plan, not Apple-specific but Apple-applicable:
The company intends to charge readers for each title, and it plans to convince the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the magazine industry’s standards board, that its online sales are equivalent to newsstand sales. That will allow Condé to charge advertisers the same rate as for print ads.
If Condé Nast thinks they will be able to charge $4, or whatever a Wired costs these days, to have a digital copy all wrapped up in Adobe, HP, Amazon, or Apple’s DRM, they’re going to have a disappointing launch. And although I suppose if consumers did manage to stomach paper prices for pixel periodicals, you might be able to convince advertisers to pay similar rates for ads. But the premise is unlikely, so the conclusion is even more so. As I’ve said, advertising is changing, and Condé Nast (along with many others) must adapt or die. Those really are the only two options.
In all likelihood, we will indeed be paying good money for virtual Condé Nast publications in a couple years. After all, if we don’t, the poor fellows will go out of business. But I think prices for subscriptions will likely stabilize far below what we’re paying for 12 glossies. Think 99 cents an issue. Sorry guys, but that’s probably what it’ll take.
But I’m making a big deal out of very little. Condé Nast wants to jump the gun a bit, okay, I admire their moxie. In the end, this rather depends on whether the Apple tablet is a revolutionary device or merely a sexy one. Sexy devices sell because they do what other devices do better; that’s the iPod. Revolutionary devices sell because they do something entirely new; that’s the iPhone. I’ll be happy with either one, personally — as long as it doesn’t use iFrame.
And don’t ask me about the CrunchPad.
Right, that’s a “no.” Got it.
everyone watch the latest gilmore gang episode, at aroun d the 35-39 minute mark, arrington says “apple makes perfect products.”
so even the vaporware that is the apple tablet gets more techcrunch coverage than IE9 or ms office 2010
ridiculous
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/04/crunchpad-prototype-coming-this-month-be-available-asap/
Doesn’t ask about crunchpads…
#1 – The first rule of CrunchPad is, you do not talk about CrunchPad.
#2 – The second rule of CrunchPad is, you DO NOT talk about CrunchPad.
#3 – If someone says stop, goes limp, taps out, the talk is over.
#4 – Max of two linked articles to a comment.
#5 – One speculative comment at a time.
#6 – No keyboard, no mouse.
#7 – Speculation will go on as long as they have to.
#8 – If this is your first experience with CrunchPad, you have to keep quiet.
You can tear out and save, pass along and share printed articles, and while you can this with digital press, I dare you to take an iPhone etc into a warm bubble bath for a leisurely read!
Putting a (periodical) magazine mostly “as is” in digital form, even with extra interactivity and time-based media, does not seem to be where things should be heading, but only the future will tell. The magazine format, just like the music album and the TV channel formats, is a thing of the past (the book format is not, though). More and more people will want to be in charge of creating their own reading, listening, and viewing programs, anytime and anywhere. Focus on giving them access to tons of excellent content bits through great, personalized search, browse, and present functionality. Magazines already excel in the content and presentation areas. Anyway, look at what Hulu and others are doing to reinvent TV.
It’s not just apps. Conde Nast also has a nice iPhone-friendly website for the New Yorker:
http://iphone.newyorker.com/
The subscription price for Wired is already less than 99 cents per issue ($10 a year). That seems to be the one thing that is most different between digital pricing and print pricing. News-stand prices are usually around 4 times the subscription price while the difference in the digital world seems to be much less.
If they put a subscription to the New Yorker on a tablet, then that will be a system seller for me. I hate waiting for the mail version, which comes 3-4 days after it’s available online on my desktop (Sundays). I never browse the desktop version because bleh, who wants to read the new yorker on a desktop. You want to kick back, dive in.
As a web developer – all of my web sites will support the iWall, scheduled for release by Apple sometime in 2012 (assuming the world doesnt end of course).
oops…yeti lifting up apple’s uknown device…. sounds scary!!
http://www.msoft-technologies.com
http://www.msoftwebtemplates.com
“advertising is changing, and Condé Nast (along with many others) must adapt or die. Those really are the only two options.”
I strongly disagree with you, our company are developing a platform could potentially increase their online revenue. And it is under the process of filing patent for it.
The argument is that, the advertisement value on a web base layout is NOT as valuable in a print layout. People hate to see ads on websites however it is almost impossible to call a magazine “magazine” with out any advertisements on it.
Sorry friend, but it sounds like you’re not in the “adapt” crowd. I meant to link to this, however, which may have made my point more clear.
Devin, I have couple questions for you.
First of all, when is the last time you click on googles ads? Second, whould you ever feel there is something wrong if a magazine has “0″ advertisement on it? It is the same theroy with a professional baseball game will not look so professional without all the ads around it.
I was at a conference the other day, they were talking about google will never disappear will only grow bigger, and bigger. However the tech world/business world is changing and people who are truly not “adapting” are the ones that think google will never go down.
same thing with the new form of advertisement! company like twitter, and other tech startup who get millions fundings they have lots traffic but they have no way to turn it to profit. Why? is it because they are adapting!?
I am not saying I am 100% right but anyhow the mainstream will always become the unadapting crowd!
As for why twitter isn’t making money…. well, I have some ideas on that but I don’t use the service so I keep my nose out of it. But did you read the article I wrote there? I think that your type of advertiser (no disrespect meant, simply ‘traditional’ advertisers) are sentimental about advertising. It’s been one way for a long time so it should continue to be that way, it’d be weird otherwise, right? I think I understand you, but liking it doesn’t mean it’s going to stick around. Often the things we are most used to are the things that we truly need to cast off in order to advance. As for Google, I’m writing something on that point as we speak :)
You all may find Pixel Mags interesting ( http://www.pixel-mags.com ) – they have signed up a number of major newstand publications to be brought to the iPhone very soon – tablet or not – android too. They also have a deal worked out that let’s downloads count in their circulation numbers. Saw a demo on an itouch last week. Someone should get journalistic and give them a call. We are considering them for our magazine but have some hesitations – ie are they simply replicating print digitally or will they be a platform for the “new magazines” that add value with interactivity, multimedia, personalization, dynamic ads, etc….
I would like to see an article about the big web press printers who produce the these magazines. There is a whole industry involved with prepress, printing, binding and distribution that looks to be severely challenged.
Yeah, I’m sentimental about print and I hate to see it going away, but it’s gotta happen and the halo industries are going to croak too. I’m just glad it didn’t hit all at once with the american car industry stumbling or another major shift.
“While this isn’t exactly comparable to adjusting office doorway heights in case someone hires a Yeti, the parallels are clear.”
If there was a Pulitizer for one-liners we’d have a 2009 winner. I can care less about unannounced devices but this is GREAT writing.
Better late than never. All the delay means it is going to be a perfect device.
Angry Mac Bastards read the Yeti line aloud in their podcast. It was so good I looked this article up to read it. Well done!
interesting stuff, i was just looking at the video of the sports illustrated tablet version at: http://www.chaletstu.com/2009/12/future-of-magazines.html