Of all the posts I have read, I think yours hits the nail squarely on the head. An iTunes magazine stand. Brilliant! No doubt some will be free and others will cost a few bucks. Damn this stuff gets me excited!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One Vision for Magazine Content on the Apple Tablet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TV and radio are two different mediums. TV didn't "kill off" movies but cable television and the plethora of paid and streaming movie services has put a *huge* dent in the movie theater industry.
One aesthetic note
Can I say something? Wired is often illegible, and if it was music, I'd call it "over-produced."
Can I say something? Wired is often illegible, and if it was music, I'd call it "over-produced."
This is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. Death of websites ? The thing with websites is there is more to them than just your average blog or news site. You have game sites, flash portals, news sites, aggregate sites, discussion forums.
The big advantage the web has over printed content is that information is available in short updates, immediately. You don't have to wait each month or each day to get the news, discuss your favorite subject, read an interview.
A tablet won't change that. And especially not a "electronic magazine framework". Look at the iPhone, it's essentially a tablet device. It has e-readers. It can read e-books. None of it replaces the Web.
The key word is interactivity.
Not to mention the web is open and accessible from many types of devices. People don't need to shell out hundreds of dollars for a "web reader", it's included in every modern PC or phone or tablet device.
I won't speak for dude but I don't think he meant to imply that websites will go the way of the dodo bird. I *think* he was implying that sites, such as MR, may very well be more magazine oriented as opposed to what we consider as a traditional websites.
eMagazines are quite capable of providing RSS feeds and updates.
He did say "I foresee the death of the traditional website". And MR as a magazine ? We just throw the forum away ? What about the Wiki ?
Static and interactive content can't really be done in a magazine format. And...
What's the advantage of using a magazine format then ? What deficiency in HTML and Web browsers is solved by this ? The magazine format works right now because updates come in batch. Imagine getting a page a day, or a paragraph per hour.
A tablet with mobile safari would make much more sense than yet another "web" format. Unless this dramatically fixes some kind of flaw in the traditionnal web, it won't work nor is it really needed.
Websites are here to stay for now, and no e-Reader and e-Book format magazines, released once per hour, are going to change that. His comment was utterly ridiculous.
I don't see the death of the traditional website but I do think there is a huge market for eMagazines and the like. I simply see websites as complimenting eMagazines. You know, "For more info., visit our website @..."
Let me give you a perfect example of where having an eMagazine over-and-above a website would be awesome. Surfer Magazine. They have a decent website and a great magazine but to have the actual magazine digitally delivered would be a bonus.
Let me give you a perfect example of where having an eMagazine over-and-above a website would be awesome. Surfer Magazine. They have a decent website and a great magazine but to have the actual magazine digitally delivered would be a bonus.
So we've gone from :
To digital distribution of magazines would be great and complementary to websites ?
Seriously..
Magazines are magazines, the web is the web. All the content inside the magazine can be posted online, not all the online content can be in a magazine. Guess why print media is dying ?
Replacing physical magazines with what is essentially a PDF of the magazine itself is pointless. Just put the content online, then everyone can read it using a Web browser.
Sure going e-book for magazines is a great idea. They can charge 0.99$ instead of giving it away on their websites. However, it doesn't spell the death of the traditionnal web like that other poster said. That's just ridiculous.
The idea isn't new though, our own internal newsletter which was distributed as a magazine is now distributed as PDFs by e-mail. Saves tons of costs, since most people didn't even read it anyhow.
To digital distribution of magazines would be great and complementary to websites ?
Seriously..
Magazines are magazines, the web is the web. All the content inside the magazine can be posted online, not all the online content can be in a magazine. Guess why print media is dying ?
Replacing physical magazines with what is essentially a PDF of the magazine itself is pointless. Just put the content online, then everyone can read it using a Web browser.
Sure going e-book for magazines is a great idea. They can charge 0.99$ instead of giving it away on their websites. However, it doesn't spell the death of the traditionnal web like that other poster said. That's just ridiculous.
The idea isn't new though, our own internal newsletter which was distributed as a magazine is now distributed as PDFs by e-mail. Saves tons of costs, since most people didn't even read it anyhow.
So we've gone from :
To digital distribution of magazines would be great and complementary to websites ?
Seriously..
Magazines are magazines, the web is the web. All the content inside the magazine can be posted online, not all the online content can be in a magazine. Guess why print media is dying ?
Replacing physical magazines with what is essentially a PDF of the magazine itself is pointless. Just put the content online, then everyone can read it using a Web browser.
Sure going e-book for magazines is a great idea. They can charge 0.99$ instead of giving it away on their websites. However, it doesn't spell the death of the traditionnal web like that other poster said. That's just ridiculous.
The idea isn't new though, our own internal newsletter which was distributed as a magazine is now distributed as PDFs by e-mail. Saves tons of costs, since most people didn't even read it anyhow.
It will be interesting to see if there's a business model. Whatever the model is, though, I'm sure the content will be also available on the web (perhaps after an exclusivity window or perhps for a fee.)
It's already being done. Many publications charge for access to some content on their websites. This is neither new or novel, premium content has been around for a while. It even started with porn (which incidentally is a big innovator as far as web technologies go).
Not quite sure where to jump in to this but Thanks SkinnyLegs but your exactly right. I didn't say the end of all websites just a major leap forward from the 'traditional' fixed html website which feels incredibly rigid and old fashioned even when compared to the viscerally dynamic sensation of a good magazine.
As a general point of debate to KNight WRX;
Magazines as they stand are an incredibly pleasurable and accessible reading medium for billions of non-geek-tech readers. The format is tried and tested loved and embraced by everyone. MAgazines are beautifully formatted, well structured and easy to read -a digital magazine would be loved especially by advertisers who can return to engaging full page video ads instead of the crappy little peripheral flash ads - that in itself is a revelation. Good ads are actually a pleasurable part of certain magazines and having a format that these together with good content can be delivered periodically will be a huge step forward. I also think most websites are scrappy, scruffy nasty things that are dearly in need of the kind of aesthetic form and structure that good magazines have.
Furthermore, the augmentation of the fixed structure page-by-page magazine format with interactivity, video embeds, direct access, scrap booking, instant revision is nothing less than a super evolved horizontal 'page-by-page' blog.
If Apple can create a super-easy magazine publishing framework then we could truly have a revolution on our hands.
Imagine if Apple can allow a non technically literate chef to create a cooking magazine - or more remarkably a GROUP of chefs to contribute articles to a single magazine without the need for ANY technical knowhow then YES, I believe the traditional website days are numbered.
Currently a great many websites suffer the same fate as non-apps store web apps - they are invisible. A 'magazine stand' in iTunes would bring credibility to the publication and provide a convenient single universal location, updating and developing platform. Integrating music and media purchasing would be easy and genuinely useful. Content providers could also very easily charge a subscription through itunes for a publication - something that currently is nigh on impossible and impractical. I guarantee if Apple don't do this someone will - and they may not be as good as Apple at it.
Imagine a magazine where the news page changed daily but new articles appear in the contents page...that is a website but accessible, fluid and dynamic.
Traditional websites are very rigid in comparison and cost a lot of money to maintain and develop.
Apple could seriously turn the world on it's head here I believe.
I'm sure there are a number of flaws and holes in my thinking but still I'm certain it could herald the end of the traditional website.
Even though I have two macbook s and an iPhone I would certainly buy a Mac Tablet that was purposed built for iTunes MAgazine Stand - with a 300ppi colour display, and natural reading multi-touch gestures and organisation. I would enjoy it immensely.
As a general point of debate to KNight WRX;
Magazines as they stand are an incredibly pleasurable and accessible reading medium for billions of non-geek-tech readers. The format is tried and tested loved and embraced by everyone. MAgazines are beautifully formatted, well structured and easy to read -a digital magazine would be loved especially by advertisers who can return to engaging full page video ads instead of the crappy little peripheral flash ads - that in itself is a revelation. Good ads are actually a pleasurable part of certain magazines and having a format that these together with good content can be delivered periodically will be a huge step forward. I also think most websites are scrappy, scruffy nasty things that are dearly in need of the kind of aesthetic form and structure that good magazines have.
Furthermore, the augmentation of the fixed structure page-by-page magazine format with interactivity, video embeds, direct access, scrap booking, instant revision is nothing less than a super evolved horizontal 'page-by-page' blog.
If Apple can create a super-easy magazine publishing framework then we could truly have a revolution on our hands.
Imagine if Apple can allow a non technically literate chef to create a cooking magazine - or more remarkably a GROUP of chefs to contribute articles to a single magazine without the need for ANY technical knowhow then YES, I believe the traditional website days are numbered.
Currently a great many websites suffer the same fate as non-apps store web apps - they are invisible. A 'magazine stand' in iTunes would bring credibility to the publication and provide a convenient single universal location, updating and developing platform. Integrating music and media purchasing would be easy and genuinely useful. Content providers could also very easily charge a subscription through itunes for a publication - something that currently is nigh on impossible and impractical. I guarantee if Apple don't do this someone will - and they may not be as good as Apple at it.
Imagine a magazine where the news page changed daily but new articles appear in the contents page...that is a website but accessible, fluid and dynamic.
Traditional websites are very rigid in comparison and cost a lot of money to maintain and develop.
Apple could seriously turn the world on it's head here I believe.
I'm sure there are a number of flaws and holes in my thinking but still I'm certain it could herald the end of the traditional website.
Even though I have two macbook s and an iPhone I would certainly buy a Mac Tablet that was purposed built for iTunes MAgazine Stand - with a 300ppi colour display, and natural reading multi-touch gestures and organisation. I would enjoy it immensely.
I understand all that. What I'm saying is I'm wondering if there is a business model for news on the tablet (beyond viewing the web in a browser).
The fact of the matter is, all you describe surferfromuk is the Web and Web authoring tools. You don't need any technical know-how to publish yourself on the web these days. That's what CMSes are for.
A magazine "framework" like you describe wouldn't be any simpler than the many simple content management systems.
The only thing would be visibility. But guess what, the print media isn't dying because of lack of visibility or the paper it's printed on. The Web is just a better medium for information that Magazines are, no matter how much you like them.
Magazines have one fatal flaw, they need to be edited and published. This takes time. The Web on the other hand, with a good dynamic (HTML hasn't been static since about 1996) frameworks can get information up in minutes without having to re-edit your whole site, publish it, and upload it to some "virtual newstand".
Basically, Apple could just sell you a bunch of web bookmarks, and you'd be better off than magazines in e-book format.
A cook with a good CMS will throw up a dynamic cooking site that is tons better than what you describe, more accessible (not needing some special e-reader for your magazine framework) and integrated to tools we have today.
Your idea is just the Web with different words. It's not a solution to an existing problem.
E-books and the iTunes bookstore is about 1,000,000 times more probable than some wacky Magazine framework that's just a website embedded in a PDF file. In fact, with Google, Amazon and many others already doing it, I expect Apple isn't going to be far behind. One thing the web can't do that books can is novels. Reading a novel in a web browser on a computer screen just doesn't work.
I'm not wondering. It'll work at first, because people will be "wow, high-tech!" then it'll fizzle once people realise that reading a magazine once a month ain't any better because it's in a digital format. The newspaper/magazine era, information on a time constraint, just doesn't work anymore.
A magazine "framework" like you describe wouldn't be any simpler than the many simple content management systems.
The only thing would be visibility. But guess what, the print media isn't dying because of lack of visibility or the paper it's printed on. The Web is just a better medium for information that Magazines are, no matter how much you like them.
Magazines have one fatal flaw, they need to be edited and published. This takes time. The Web on the other hand, with a good dynamic (HTML hasn't been static since about 1996) frameworks can get information up in minutes without having to re-edit your whole site, publish it, and upload it to some "virtual newstand".
Basically, Apple could just sell you a bunch of web bookmarks, and you'd be better off than magazines in e-book format.
A cook with a good CMS will throw up a dynamic cooking site that is tons better than what you describe, more accessible (not needing some special e-reader for your magazine framework) and integrated to tools we have today.
Your idea is just the Web with different words. It's not a solution to an existing problem.
E-books and the iTunes bookstore is about 1,000,000 times more probable than some wacky Magazine framework that's just a website embedded in a PDF file. In fact, with Google, Amazon and many others already doing it, I expect Apple isn't going to be far behind. One thing the web can't do that books can is novels. Reading a novel in a web browser on a computer screen just doesn't work.
I'm not wondering. It'll work at first, because people will be "wow, high-tech!" then it'll fizzle once people realise that reading a magazine once a month ain't any better because it's in a digital format. The newspaper/magazine era, information on a time constraint, just doesn't work anymore.
Maybe. I'm not sure there's a "it'll work at first." I'd be willing to pay a reasonable amount for the NY Times, for example, but not as long as the web version is free. (Of course, the NY Times web version updates all day long...) The tablet version would have to update at least as frequently as the web version, but would have to offer something additional worth paying for, and I don't know what that would be (other than that which the NY Times already charges for - crosswords, archives, etc.)
No, it does work it's just that nobody will pay for anything on the internet - or at least there is no viable means of monetarizing professional produced content and so unregulated amateur content that costs nothing to produce has gained undue prominence. The internet is like the worlds biggest coffee shop but it lacks a magazine stand with professional content. Even the newspapers really don't know how to internet publish a variant of their papers. They're stuck in a hierarchical splatter gun paradigm which makes their sites labyrinthine and whilst technologically far superior to the printed paper page they presentation and publishing format is garbage. Things will change - I personally guarantee it.
CMSs are hard to use? There are CMS services out there, it's no harder to use than a web forum, I think a web forum qualifies as a form of CMS. So is the Wordpress software and service. Tumblr, etc. too. You don't need admin skills to use such a system, just have access to the service.
Everything finds its niche or goes away. But if the movie theater industry gets a dent, it's probably because there's more screens today than there were in decades past, there might be what is called an oversupply.
A major movie like E.T. opened on 1778 screens, the #1 movie in 1982. Return of the Jedi had 1,764 screens in 1983. Spider-Man 3 went to 4,324 screens in 2007. The Dark Knight opened on 4,366 screens, #1 movie in 2008. E.T. & Jedi opened well before IP streaming movies, though I don't know how widespread cable TV was then, that would be the closest counterpart with pay per view and such. Purchased home video (tape) didn't hit it big yet either.
Everything finds its niche or goes away. But if the movie theater industry gets a dent, it's probably because there's more screens today than there were in decades past, there might be what is called an oversupply.
A major movie like E.T. opened on 1778 screens, the #1 movie in 1982. Return of the Jedi had 1,764 screens in 1983. Spider-Man 3 went to 4,324 screens in 2007. The Dark Knight opened on 4,366 screens, #1 movie in 2008. E.T. & Jedi opened well before IP streaming movies, though I don't know how widespread cable TV was then, that would be the closest counterpart with pay per view and such. Purchased home video (tape) didn't hit it big yet either.
Yes, I do see traditional websites as complimentary to eMagazines.
Maybe I'm missing something here but regardless of whether media is pushed to a device like an iPad or you point your browser to a website, it's all the "web." No?
Eh...I'm not 'gonna pick your post apart any longer because honestly, I don't like my posts being picked apart.
I stand by my assertion that I think there is a *huge* market for eMagazines and I think Apple is uniquely positioned to create a device that can advantage of this. I don't think publishing companies will simply convert their magazine to a PDF file. Indeed, that could prove to be very boring. I do, however, see making the magazine much more rich by adding video and audio and other stuff you simply can't put in a magazine.
Actually, you didn't just hit the nail on the head; you hit it *squarely* on the head. You, my friend, are a prophet.
this tablet has to be coming sometime next year. i hope at least an announcement is made early 2010
Not in the least. My color calibrator works just fine with my Glossy iMac screen, as well as with my Matte secondary monitor. The colors are the same, but the intensity of the glossy screen is far superior to the matte screen sitting right next to it.