Magazine Industry Already Preparing for Possible Apple Tablet

[crackbookpro]

The reason people starting using iTunes is because it was an excellent jukebox that synced with an excellent portable media player. The music service grew out of that.

Before iDistribution can be successful, Apple has to prove to "the people" that they have a dependable, convenient model.

On the other side of things, as far as the news-print industry is concerned, they have neither the distribution infrastructure nor the related hardware to push digital distribution on their own.

Fact of the matter is, they need companies like Apple and Amazon (Kindle) - who have both - to move their old-fashioned and dying business model towards something more modern.

-Clive

well put...

Digital Media is something that the news/media/print companies have to collaborate with developers like Apple & the Kindle(amazon) in order to stay in the loop of these ever changing ways of digital communications...

We can't forget about Mr. Gates... Microsoft is one company that I truly think should have been keening in on this market when it was first talked about way back when... As much as I am anticipating the Apple 'rumored' Tablet, I am looking forward to an eBook coming from the one & only Microsoft.

Hopefully, they do make this 'rumored' Microsoft Tablet - https://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/22/microsofts-prototype-multi-touch-tablet-booklet/

 

[couto27]

save the planet, save the florests, dont cut anymore trees.
long live the apple tablet
recycle also please

 

[Vulpinemac]

How is this different from the web? Other than the fact that they would make you pay for it... and there would presumably be no banner ads? Would the pages not scroll? Everything on one screen with pagination and multi-touch page flipping? Does that make a difference to people compared to scrolling pages? I don't understand why I would pay for a tablet to read a magazine when they already have websites. Exclusive content maybe? The Kindle makes more sense as a reader because a) it uses eInk and b) it's focus is books, novels, textbooks... content that's not already available on the web. If it was a full color eInk device... that would be pretty great. Otherwise... I don't get the business model.

The problem is that nobody as yet has been able to make an online magazine or newspaper subscription work. Even papers that push out 'teasers' rarely get people to pay for their articles or even pay for an online subscription; they either want their news free (a la CNN.com) or on a paper out in the front yard. Mostly it's because none of them have managed to make it easily readable and portable at the same time. Even now, some magazines already have an online distribution system, but to the best of my knowledge, none has yet been fully successful--not even Playboy.

 

[t0mat0]

How exactly might it take for the industry to set up a "digital storefront"?
Just wondering how long it took for Nokia, Pre, Sony etc.
Especially if they're still asking questions like "what is our role" to each other...

You would have thought that Apple might have wanted to brainstorm applications and uses of tablets and set up more infrastructure, if they saw a tablet maybe working, but requring a wait to get the hardware available (useful battery, CPU and graphics power etc).

 

[likemyorbs]

Not that it's going to work, but at least the magazine industry is trying something before apple releases its device unlike the record industry that is run by EXTREMELY unintelligent people who underestimated the mp3 player and are still trying to shove cd's down peoples throats

 

[mobi]

The article states they have indeed awakened. They are trying to create a universal standard that Apple will have to use--along with competing devices. This is actually a good thing, since we don't want too much popular media controlled by one company.

What if one of these publishers decided to run a story that Apple didn't like? Apple could pull that newspaper from iTunes if it wanted. If newspapers and magazines truly switch to digital only--that would effectively cut off that peridodical from the entire group of people using it.

An industry with as much wealth and resources and they have just now awakened? Pathetic...they are 10 years overdue.

I dislike the way Apple puppeteers iTunes / App Store... they will indeed do the same with other media.

 

[ChrisA]

The problem is the cost. Curently I pay $7 a month for a newspaper subscription. The paper comes with it's own display which is very large and readable. If thy offer me a deal where I pay $21 a month for the digital subscription after buying an 800 Apple talet I think i'll pass.

They would have to give me about the same thing for about the same price.

Same with a Amazon "Kindle". The books are not that much lower price so there will never be a payback. THere shouod be a saving in not having to cut trees, make paper, print the paper then truck the books off to the store. The author only gets a couple bucks.

None of the current LCD displays are as easy to read as paper.

 

[pagansoul]

I get all my magazine subscriptions via Zinio. I also have a Kindle for reading ebooks. I also read off my Macbookpro and iphone. I tried a newspaper subscription through amazon for Kindle but I tend to one use it one at a time as the mood strikes me. I have never been much a newspaper reader but have always got my information on line. I never watch TV news unless I'm at someone home and they have it on.

Will I end up getting some device to use as another type of reader, maybe, I just like electronics.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

This is an interesting report, since what it is suggesting is that Apple has made a "Kindle-esque" tablet device, but with the distinction that it is integrated into the iTunes Store ...

... the potential is clear: the consumer signs up (buys) various weekly/monthly magazine subscriptions (eventually: daily Newspaper), which are simple "PodCast" -like downloads onto the device.

From the AT&T angle, one would expect that this would more likely be default as WiFi instead of 3G (current cost of bandwidth), but in either case, it would be capable of being synched either directly, and/or to a home desktop computer (preferably Mac).


What makes this interesting is the resistance to it by the potential content providers - - particularly because this is a competitive business: all it takes is for one of the weaker (or "more in trouble") publishers to agree, and it is going to be hard to resist.

Personally, I see & expect that the traditional Publishers will try to keep control by trying to keep their e-Publishing in-house.

The problem with this is that they don't have hardware ... and/or they'll have to try to support a bunch of hardware devices ... plus they have to figure out how to encourage the retail consumer to come to their website to buy their product.

Thus, Apple shows up on their doorstep with a turnkey solution .. but at a price.

The hardcopy publishing industry isn't in healthy enough shape to remain a solid & unified front of resistance to Apple. Someone will fold, and then the rest will pragmatically be forced to follow ... it will always be reluctantly, because it wasn't their idea and it wasn't on their terms.

The real question is which publishers will be so opposed that they would rather go out of business than change.


-hh

EXCELLENT INSIGHTS HH!

 

[EagerDragon]

With Both Feet

IMO - Publishers (books, Magazines, etc) should seriously consider Apple as their best chance of success. Most already have their own online service so they have little to loose.

Apple has millions of subscribers using a single application that runs on Macs and PCs that are used to go to iTunes for content. Apple also has a subscription service (currently for TV shows) that would work just fine for digitized print media.

The number of readers is likely to go up and they can make good money at a 70/30 rate specially of the number of readers goes up and they have no additional cost per subscriber like they would have if they were serving the content themselves.

All they need do is use the Macs they already have in their publishing environment to create a file and submitt it to Apple iTunes store and they are set to service 1 to 50,000,000 subscribers.

How can they go wrong?

There is little to be invested on their part, so even in the unlikely event that the iTunes store distribution or the iTable fails, they have invested little. They probably don't have to abandom their current online store, becuase iTunes offers them a second avenue to distribute their content and one that is likely to be very sucessfull.

Just my opinion.

 

[pjarvi]

I've subscribed to MacWorld magazine via Zinio.com for a couple of years now. Typical of Apple being late to the party and then claiming to have invented it.

 

[dpackman]

Books are different

Relatively temporary information such as periodicals and newspapers are perfect for a subscription system. But books are a different issue since the expectation is that one can reread as desired over many years. Any portable device that allows reading must be part of an open standard that will outlive current devices and companies.

 

[philbeeney]

What makes me laugh about all this, is the way that everybody (publishers, newspapers, etc) are all getting their knickers in a twist trying to stop themselves from becoming irrelevant based on a rumour.

That's all the Apple tablet is at present. Apple haven't officially announced that they are working on one (although they won't until "one more thing" at a keynote or media event) and nobody has seen the fabled tablet.

I love it. Bow down to Steve Jobs all powerful RDF.

 

[Mark Booth]

When and if popular magazines become available for COLOR reading on a high-quality tablet device, the subscriptions to those magazines had better be DRAMATICALLY less expensive than buying the paper versions or I simply won't be interested. As is, I read very few magazines and subscribe to none. I used to be subscribed to 5 or 6 at a time. But it's too easy and far less expensive to read content on the web. Still, I would be interested in a color tablet that gives me access to magazines like Popular Photography and Outdoor Photography, as long as the subscription costs were reasonable. Meaning... $8 per year or so.

Mark

 

[star-fish]

How is this different from the web? Other than the fact that they would make you pay for it... and there would presumably be no banner ads? Would the pages not scroll? Everything on one screen with pagination and multi-touch page flipping? Does that make a difference to people compared to scrolling pages? I don't understand why I would pay for a tablet to read a magazine when they already have websites. Exclusive content maybe? The Kindle makes more sense as a reader because a) it uses eInk and b) it's focus is books, novels, textbooks... content that's not already available on the web. If it was a full color eInk device... that would be pretty great. Otherwise... I don't get the business model.

Theoretically they would get rid of the websites and make people pay. However, I doubt that will ever work because all it takes is for one or two news sites to stay free (or for someone to make a free news site), and they would make an absolute bomb through advertising.

Not to mention all the news sites common to a particular language would have to agree.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

...new players like Salon and The Huffington Post would be happy to fill the void.

But they're not the NYT or WP. Many people would rather pay less and not have to buy an expensive tablet just to read the paper.

See below:

The problem is the cost. Curently I pay $7 a month for a newspaper subscription. The paper comes with it's own display which is very large and readable. If thy offer me a deal where I pay $21 a month for the digital subscription after buying an 800 Apple talet I think i'll pass.

Also, Gizmodo got word of a Windows 7 based tablet. Sure it's not an Apple solution, but it is a solution. If Microsoft can get it out quickly enough, the print media can quickly made a store, and offer exactly what iTunes would offer, but on their own terms.

It it came down to a $500 Microsoft device, plus the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, versus an $800 Apple device with the huffington post or dailykos, do you really need me to tell you which device would win out?

I think how Apple treats their content partners would be enough to keep the print media from dealing with them, if they can at all help it.

 

[SkipperStyle]

If this thing doesnt have some setting that can change the screen to a less-eye-strain-inducing one like e-readers, I dont see who this is supposed to be marketed too.

 

[EagerDragon]

I buy a lot of technical manuals and prefer those manuals that have an available PDF file in either a DVD that is part of the cover or where I can download it as part of the price for the paper copy.

A lot of the printed material are very thick 1200 - 1800 pages long, making them hard to cary around, heavy, and dificult to put in a book stand on my desk.

The PDF format makes it easy for me to review the material while working on a document or program and provide me the ability to copy and paste nibbles of the information into my document as examples or quotes or just as something to remember during my writting.

I can carry a $#$$ load of books in PDF form and search their content fairly quickly for whatever I need.

I will need 3G or 4G for both web surfing and for phone calls in combination with a bluetooth earpiece on such a device as it would provide a superior screen for all I do on the iPhone without the need to put a 10 inch device to my face to talk. Browsing, reading, note taking, and maybe editing some photos or dowloading photos off the camera onto the device would be great.

Publishers should be happy that Apple is considering providing a convinient outlet for their material.

 

[EagerDragon]

Theoretically they would get rid of the websites and make people pay. However, I doubt that will ever work because all it takes is for one or two news sites to stay free (or for someone to make a free news site), and they would make an absolute bomb through advertising.

Not to mention all the news sites common to a particular language would have to agree.

TV shows are "Free" on peoples TV, yet they sell DVD sets for particular seasons and iTunes sells individual episodes. Some are also free at the studio web site, yet people still go to iTunes to buy because it is convinient.

 

[iSee]

...They are trying to create a universal standard that Apple will have to use--along with competing devices...

This would by the ideal outcome. I don't know if they can pull it off, but it would be great for all of us.... it should lead to us getting what we want, when and how we want, at a fair price. It's great for publishers, too -- if customers are very happy, more will be sold. I don't think Apple would like it though. They want to lock content to the devices they sell. Hmm. I just don't think the publishers will be able to dictate terms to Apple. Hope I'm wrong.

Good points. Instead of signing any exclusive deal with Apple the publishing industry should band together and come up with a set pricing structure that they sell to many different storefront platforms (eg. iTunes, Amazon).

Well, they've go to be careful about anti-trust issues. They can agree on standards, but not prices.

 

[Amdahl]

Why pay for propaganda?

Who gives a damn about these so-called 'news' publishers? They all print the same crap stories, with the same crap slant. They all hide what they have been told to hide. The real trick has been convincing idiot Americans to pay so they can be 'informed.' Kind of like paying for TV, when it used to be free. Oh, you've got 300 channels of propaganda now, instead of just 3? Good for you!

Now, their propaganda finance model is falling apart. Congress looks at bailing out the propaganda machine... I say, let the whole thing fall apart.

We'll be better off without these liars.

 

[omahajim]

removed

 

[MacFly123]

They're probably smart to be trying this, but ultimately I think it will be bad for consumers if they're successful. Apple isn't just on top of the music selling industry because they offered a solution, it's because they offered the best solution. I would hate to see publishers reject Apple's good ideas and instead go to the market with a half-baked solution of their own.

Yup! While I can understand their concern, I also don't understand why they can't see WHY Apple and iTunes has been so immensely successful and really has no equal still. iTunes is looking to become basically THE MEDIA store.

Who gives a damn about these so-called 'news' publishers? They all print the same crap stories, with the same crap slant. They all hide what they have been told to hide. The real trick has been convincing idiot Americans to pay so they can be 'informed.' Kind of like paying for TV, when it used to be free. Oh, you've got 300 channels of propaganda now, instead of just 3? Good for you!

Now, their propaganda finance model is falling apart. Congress looks at bailing out the propaganda machine... I say, let the whole thing fall apart.

We'll be better off without these liars.

Nice I can't disagree with you! But hey, they do keep everyone up to date on all the celebrities and fuel the world with narcissism!

 

[firewood]

If this thing doesnt have some setting that can change the screen to a less-eye-strain-inducing one like e-readers, I dont see who this is supposed to be marketed too.

The zillions of people who already read their news, articles, blogs, etc. online from laptop and computer displays, but don't want to be tied to a desk as much anymore.

 

[firewood]

Before iDistribution can be successful, Apple has to prove to "the people" that they have a dependable, convenient model.

"The people" already buy more music from iTunes than Walmart, have downloaded 2 billion apps, and have left maybe 100M credit cards on file with the iTunes store. Proof or no proof, this distribution model is already a more of a success than the typical book or news publisher.

I see Apple and Amazon colliding here, where Amazon has more text content, and Apple has hardware that can do more (apps, movies, interactive color web sites, etc.)