4 ms·
I don't have a problem paying for content, but I do have a problem with IOS-only. Even though I own an iPad, I like to have access to my reading material in mul
by mjb 14y ago
I don't have a problem paying for content, but I do have a problem with IOS-only. Even though I own an iPad, I like to have access to my reading material in multiple places. I spend a bunch more time looking at my Kindle, for example, and prefer the reading experience there to the iPad.
A decade ago, something like this published in the closed formats of the time (MS Word, maybe) would have met with a huge backlash. Today, it seems like Apple have convinced the market that 'closed' is OK, because it's well-designed and a little bit shiny. I think it's a real step backward, especially given the great open standards that are available (like HTML5) and other tools which give similar control with more accessibility (like PDF).
- lutusp 14y ago> Today, it seems like Apple have convinced the market that 'closed' is OK ... Yes, to the degree that Microsoft has decided to imitate the Apple model. It seems Microsoft has closed Windows 8 to third-part applications (except pre-existing ones operating in compatibility mode). All Windows 8 apps that depend on Windows 8 features can only be gotten from Microsoft directly, in an obvious imitation of the App store: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/10/developers-windows-8/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/10/developers-windows-8/ What's worse, these cyber-birdcages seem wildly popular.
- guiambros 14y agoI also share the concern with an iOS-only model, but give him a break: it's just a 2 months proof-of-concept. He needs critical mass in order to make this sustainable in the long term - without having to resort to ads, sponsored reviews and all sorts of ways to keep the quality. The choice for iOS for the initial platform seems obvious: it's much easier to monetize quickly. And it's easy to add Kindle, Android, HTML5 and others later on - at the cost of maintaining multiple versions, provided that there's enough interested paying subscribers to justify the effort. I think that's exactly the right approach, and a real step forward.
- mjb 14y ago> I think that's exactly the right approach, and a real step forward. I disagree. I think, sales issues aside, that open standards like HTML5 offer enough to give a good reading experience on most devices. Where it doesn't, that's typically because the device doesn't support the format, rather than the converse. As for how monetizing this is going to work for Marco, I don't know. Maybe iOS-only is the only way he could get that to work, and that's the right choice for him. If that's true, I still think it's unfortunate.
- arrrg 14y agoDo you think a multi-platform launch would have been possible with about the same effort? That’s the important question here. Also take into account developer experience and what skills Marco Arment has. We are talking about a small project with limited resources and a developer with a certain skill set. I don’t think you can ignore that. You can certainly ask for support on more devices and be disappointed that the magazine in the offered format isn’t a good fit for your devices – but I do not understand the apparent moral condemnation of that decision. It seems harmless and morally neutral to me – maybe ill-advised (in that it might doom the magazine), but not morally problematic.
- revelation 14y agoReally? Do we really have to make up stuff now in excuse? The guy runs an Apple blog.
- guiambros 14y ago