7 ms·

Time Inc.’s iPad Problem Is Trouble for Every Magazine Publisher

20 points by bensummers 16y ago

bradleyland 16y ago
This whole thing is just asinine. Everyone is grappling with the problem of how they can get their piece of the pie. If I were Time, News Corp, WSJ, Conde Nast, etc, there's no way in hell I'd dump any more money in to Apple's curated platform until Apple figures out exactly what the hell "curated" means. The content providers aren't exactly in a favorable position. Producing an HTML5 version of their content means they'd have yet another production channel to support. Publishers want a create once, publish many solution. Adobe's (the biggest name in content creation) current answer to this problem is a horrid mess of gigantic, flat images embedded in a rudimentary framework. Think flat images and image maps. It's a technical shortcut at best. Ideally, publishers should produce HTML5 versions of their content that take advantage of the more competent layout and text options therein. This content would display well on the iPad and future devices that implement the WebKit mobile browser, which looks like it will be the front runner for the time being. Even if Firefox Mobile gains a significant foothold, HTML5 is still a champion of interoperability when compared to native apps. Basically, they're all tripping over their feet because they're unwilling to commit to their own solution. Yes, Apple makes it easy to offload the delivery and payment portion of the process, but they extract their pound of flesh. Who can blame them? Apple's greatest fault lies in the fact that they're making up the rules as they go along. They need to feel a little sting as a result. Until they do, they'll feel entitled to continue with the status quo.
- elblanco 16y ago
  * Adobe's (the biggest name in content creation) current answer to this problem is a horrid mess of gigantic, flat images embedded in a rudimentary framework. Think flat images and image maps. It's a technical shortcut at best. * If I'm not mistaken, Adobe's solution was thrown together simply as the only way for one magazine (I think it was Wired?) to get their zine on the iPad since Apple threw away the first solution. Of course nobody wants to craft their own, superior solution, Apple may/may not reject it/make up a rule preventing it/embrace it/whatever and the solution that finally makes it through is a horrid mess that's clearly not the best possible for the platform.
dflock 16y ago
This is HTML5/CSS3 Sports Illustrated segment from Google I/O this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3j7mM_JBNw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3j7mM_JBNw Worth watching, if you're interested in this and haven't seen it.
listic 16y ago
Why did Time Inc. have to develop their own app vs. using Zinio?
roc 16y ago
As stated in the article: Any number of other iOS apps exist to display content bought/subscribed-to elsewhere. Given the apparent double-standard, I'd say the burden of proof is on Time to demonstrate that they really were unfairly rejected and the problem isn't something along the lines of their implementation violating the ToS.
GBKS 16y ago
I don't think iPad magazine apps are a good solution. Seems like just another hack solution for publishers to charge money for something. I don't see how an iPad magazine app has another to offer that an HTML5/CSS3 site can't. So in that sense, I can see how Apple simply doesn't want things to go down this route for the best interest of the users. It's an extra layer of complexity/technology/payments between the user and the content that is simply not necessary.
- delackner 16y ago
  Seriously? There are tons of situations where comfortably reading an offline magazine is much more convenient than depending on your 3G modem to trickle-feed you each successive page. The app content may make the most sense as mostly HTML inside, but up-front all at once download is preferable in my mind.
  - GBKS 16y ago
    That really depends on the magazine then. If you're talking about a Wired app that boasts 500 MB, then yes, you want to download it first. For most news and articles though, where the app would be just a re-hash of the website or where the content is largely text and image-based, I don't see the value. You could even intelligently load content in the background to prevent this problem.

20 points by bensummers 16y ago

This whole thing is just asinine. Everyone is grappling with the problem of how they can get their piece of the pie. If I were Time, News Corp, WSJ, Conde Nast, etc, there's no way in hell I'd dump any more money in to Apple's curated platform until Apple figures out exactly what the hell "curated" means. The content providers aren't exactly in a favorable position. Producing an HTML5 version of their content means they'd have yet another production channel to support. Publishers want a create once, publish many solution. Adobe's (the biggest name in content creation) current answer to this problem is a horrid mess of gigantic, flat images embedded in a rudimentary framework. Think flat images and image maps. It's a technical shortcut at best. Ideally, publishers should produce HTML5 versions of their content that take advantage of the more competent layout and text options therein. This content would display well on the iPad and future devices that implement the WebKit mobile browser, which looks like it will be the front runner for the time being. Even if Firefox Mobile gains a significant foothold, HTML5 is still a champion of interoperability when compared to native apps. Basically, they're all tripping over their feet because they're unwilling to commit to their own solution. Yes, Apple makes it easy to offload the delivery and payment portion of the process, but they extract their pound of flesh. Who can blame them? Apple's greatest fault lies in the fact that they're making up the rules as they go along. They need to feel a little sting as a result. Until they do, they'll feel entitled to continue with the status quo.

elblanco 16y ago
* Adobe's (the biggest name in content creation) current answer to this problem is a horrid mess of gigantic, flat images embedded in a rudimentary framework. Think flat images and image maps. It's a technical shortcut at best. * If I'm not mistaken, Adobe's solution was thrown together simply as the only way for one magazine (I think it was Wired?) to get their zine on the iPad since Apple threw away the first solution. Of course nobody wants to craft their own, superior solution, Apple may/may not reject it/make up a rule preventing it/embrace it/whatever and the solution that finally makes it through is a horrid mess that's clearly not the best possible for the platform.

dflock 16y ago

This is HTML5/CSS3 Sports Illustrated segment from Google I/O this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3j7mM_JBNw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3j7mM_JBNw Worth watching, if you're interested in this and haven't seen it.

listic 16y ago

Why did Time Inc. have to develop their own app vs. using Zinio?

roc 16y ago

As stated in the article: Any number of other iOS apps exist to display content bought/subscribed-to elsewhere. Given the apparent double-standard, I'd say the burden of proof is on Time to demonstrate that they really were unfairly rejected and the problem isn't something along the lines of their implementation violating the ToS.

GBKS 16y ago

I don't think iPad magazine apps are a good solution. Seems like just another hack solution for publishers to charge money for something. I don't see how an iPad magazine app has another to offer that an HTML5/CSS3 site can't. So in that sense, I can see how Apple simply doesn't want things to go down this route for the best interest of the users. It's an extra layer of complexity/technology/payments between the user and the content that is simply not necessary.

delackner 16y ago
Seriously? There are tons of situations where comfortably reading an offline magazine is much more convenient than depending on your 3G modem to trickle-feed you each successive page. The app content may make the most sense as mostly HTML inside, but up-front all at once download is preferable in my mind.
- GBKS 16y ago
  That really depends on the magazine then. If you're talking about a Wired app that boasts 500 MB, then yes, you want to download it first. For most news and articles though, where the app would be just a re-hash of the website or where the content is largely text and image-based, I don't see the value. You could even intelligently load content in the background to prevent this problem.