Time Inc. Also Working on Digital Content In Anticipation of Apple Tablet

[EssentialParado]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

this is like the 97th thread by Macrumors this year about an Apple tablet (which has been rumored for about 10 years).

Ah, the good old days when an Apple 'iPhone' was rumored month after month for 10 years…

What are they going to charge for an issue?

Theoretically, the issues could be completely free of charge. If you look at most magazine subscriptions – e.g., Wired, at $10 per year(!) – that cost wouldn't even handle the costs to print the issues, let alone deliver them to your home. Magazines make all their money on advertisements in the issue. If you remove the printing and delivery costs completely, we could see a library of every major magazine for free on iTunes.

Personally I'd love this device in more ways than one. I've always much preferred reading magazines than having to see web banners or pop-up ads on a website. A magazine has lovely full page ads and I totally don't mind them. In fact, I rather quite enjoy ads in magazines.

If they keep the same ad system as in magazines (which I think they will), reading a magazine on a tablet will be much more enjoyable than websites.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sorry for the long post here... came late in the discussion... Tried to pick and choose the ones I wanted to respond to...

I will say that off on what I saw in the SI demo video I am wiling to pony up maybe for the iPad.

Its funny seeing different industries falling over themselves to "defend" against Apple blundering into their market and gobbling up their potential revenue streams. But the print media seems to have a great opportunity to claw back revenue that they've basically totally lost to the internet. Im rooting for them!

After seeing the demo I would be willing to considering to subscribing again to some magazines that I have given up on.

I think it could be hard for them though to produce content that could work on multiple tablets and provide the same "feel". Apple is a hit in the iPod/iTunes realm because of the consistent interface.

Yeah but they weren't the iPod or the iPhone - the best and most popular in class.

Apple so far has the knack at doing things right with the likes of the iPod and iPhone/iPod Touch.

I'm sure this will be the jumping off point where they will start restricting the information on the website and a "subscription" will get you full access to everything. I think this interface will be a combination of a magazine and a up-to-date game score. Meaning that it will be mixed monthly articles and content and then also current information. I'm sure that the interface will support on the fly additions to the magazine. Infact I wouldn't be surprised that once you subscribe you can just see a list of months that have a magazine and you can just read them. But I do believe that this will be the cutting off point where you may not see as much "free" information online. They have to make their money some how.

Yep, an iPad with magazine/newspaper content may mean the end of the free stuff on the internet as we know it.

From what I've seen there is no reason why this format couldn't be multi-platform. Most, if not all, of what was shown could be implemented on Android or Web OS. As has been mentioned, all this content is already available on the Web for free. Then the obvious question for publishers is how do they monetize this and to that question there is only one answer: iTunes store.

Everyone thinks that the iTunes LP stuff is actually about selling pretty pictures and notes with music downloads. I think it is really a precursor to a complete full-bore multimedia onslaught that this Time Inc. preview represents.

Not so sure about the multi-platform idea. It is how the interface ends up being like. Like with the iPhone/iPod Touch, there are others that are close to the usability of these two - but still not the same in the end.

As to the content being free right now, see my above comment. But as an example though I would hope the publishers would allow us to "keep" the digital content as we can with their printed versions. And with Apple's Spotlight function be able to search for past articles. With the Washington Post after a certain time you have to pay to get an article from the archives the last time I saw.

So where are all the posts from everyone claiming they don't see how a tablet is viable and useful? This video sends an excellent point of exactly why tablets will sell, they just have to provide dynamic features we could never achieve with print. Up until know tablets have replicated print environments, in which case, just grab some paper. This shows some of the growth potential for this market.

It is amazing to see how other companies have changed their approach to Apple post iPhone. The iPod was seen as a flash in the pan revolution that Apple lucked out on, saving their company from what seemed inevitable disaster. Then, when the iPhone was announced, everyone claimed Apple would never be able to revolutionize the phone industry and no one would spend so much on a phone, etc.

The big question for me regarding Apple's tablet is going to be how durable it is. Clearly the tablet will be a wonderful cross between my iphone and my laptop for when i'm just casually reading or watching the internet. The laptop will be for getting work done (writing, photos\video\music editing) and the desktop as an evolved server. The question becomes, will I take my tablet with me out of the house along with my iPhone? Will it be useful and durable enough to be justify me carrying it in a backpack of some sort?

Your first comments are on spot, one of the reasons the iPhone has done so well so far. And if Apple and Verizon can make peace - Apple will sell a ton of iPhones with Verizon users. Many people I know would love the iPhone but love the Verizon network.

As to your "big question" - I think bandwidth concerns would limit the iPad from being able to access this sort of content for a full download. I see updates being allowed - but wifi or USB to deliver the full content to the iPad.

In the end I have ended up with with what you have mentioned. My iPhone is the current use of the future iPad. But the iPhone screen is too small to fill the promise IMO of the SI video. I think the perfect storm would be the iPad announced along with the long rumored iPhone Nano.

For me an iPad would be useful enough to carry with me along with my iPhone - if I was able to have the iPad synced up over night with the latest news/updates - and the iPhone giving me instant updates on breaking news. My Macbook Pro is my go to computer, and my iMac is now more like a server.

As to durability - have had my iPhone since opening weekend. It has seen more than it fair share of knocks. None that have made me go out and need to buy a replacement. Those knocks were due to the smaller size and some of the cases I did or not use. An iPad would not be subjected to the same abuse/use IMO as an iPhone.

One of the things you might have noticed or seen as of yet - is that major newspapers are moving away from reporter and photojournalist teams (at least with the Washington Post) - instead sending out a reporter with a camcorder do both jobs. But in the end it means that both content can be used online or via the new model being talked about.

The iPhone was a little different. In this case, the smart phone was well established for years. Here the problem really was the interface. No doubt people have been very productive using smart phones. But in my experience, more people than not that actually had smart phones didn't really know how to use them. The interface required a geek to really get anything out of it. The mainstream would rarely, if ever, for example, attempt to browse the web for information. Here Jobs hit on the obvious "People hate their phones", yep. The interfaces suxed and the best one could say about another was/is that it was not as bad as ....... The technology was out there, but no one really built the phone with the consumer in mind. The other part of this was overall user experience. The carriers control/restriction of what a phone could and could not do. Apple did after approach Verizon first - but anyone that has had Verizon knows that they, more than others, crippled the features of their phones to force you to use up your minutes or buy their content at ridiculous prices. Apple understood that in addition to consumers wanting to carrier their own content on their phones, the experience would have to be simple. Hence, a fixed data plan - you buy an iPhone you get the content - unlimited data plans. So again, Apple didn't invent the smart phone, they just built a product and designed a user experience that worked.

So a tablet. No, Apple didn't invent the tablet......

No Apple did not invent the smart phone - they just made it better IMO. Years ago I was with Sprint and and had a Treo for work. It was the best option for me at the time. Never really liked it - truly! But it was the only game in town really. Till I saw the iPhone on opening weekend. Was committed to Sprint up till that point since I could use the Verizon network with no roaming charges. But I used the Treo seldom for other then phone calls really; and used it for work stuff under duress. Being a dot Mac member I get full use of what I need with no issues.

If the iPad kills off free content, yes I will be sad. But the possibilities out weighs that for me in the end. I see my iPhone as being able to get updates on the fly and the iPad being able to let me read the larger story between the updates.

Before the iPhone there were blackberry, and many other cell phones which seemed to do things fairly well for everyone.

There's things out there like the kindle, nook, and many other e-readers of today.

Apple doesn't participate in price-wars nor competitor timelines. Apple stays focused on their products, their timelines, and their vision for products. This is what separates them from the others. They have vision, they're not just trying to make money. They would rather keep a product in development for year after year and get it right rather then put it out because their worried about the competitor's products.

Apple's approach to making money is way riskier and extremely arrogant. But yet, I believe that a majority of the people on this forum are glad that there is at least one company out there willing to risk everything to get things as close to "right" as they believe things should be.

I believe the AppleTV could have redefined the industry as well. I believe that the greed of the current distributions are reluctant to give Apple the contracts for the content as they do with netflix and Hulu, etc. If Apple could get the contracts for the content, the AppleTV would have taken over as well.

About the Blackberry - never owned one or used one - but I looked at it as a different Treo which I did own. Never found it friendly as I do with the iPhone as I use it now.

Apple's vision for the way things should work is what has helped them in the end. The rumored iPad is a case in point with the SI video. In the end the Si video shows the case for Apple holding back on the iPad maybe.
to charge
As to AppleTV I totally agree! I have become a Hulu addict of late being able to watch the shows I like (with commercials) and catch up on shows I should have watched in the beginning - but did not (like Reaper). I do have a concern that with the iPad that such sites like Hulu and "print" media may n ot end up free as they are now.

I have resisted the iTunes TV offerings so far because of the cost. I would be willing maybe to 25 cents to view an episode of a TV show I missed without commercials - with an option to download the episode to my HDD if I really wanted to save it. Apple and their partners need to get a grip on what is out there. Right now I am willing to sit though the commercials and not being able to save on Hulu - then pay what iTunes wants to charge. Most of what I watch is really only good for the one viewing in the end really.

Remember seeing a news article that the music industry in down of late. Could be that with iTunes we no longer need to buy the album in order to get the tunes that we really wanted. Outside of the likes of Queen and Billy Joel perhaps - most albums are single tracks that we love or hate - not stuff that had a common theme that "draws" us in to buy the complete album.

 

[dmjossel]

You seriously can't come up with any reason why you wouldn't want a "single monolithic point of distribution" for your products?? Whatever the product happens to be?

I did not even attempt to address that issue in my post. It was alleged that Apple was technically incapable of putting themselves in a position in other content industries similar to the position they have created for themselves in the music industry.

I replied that I think it is not only possible, it is feasible and perhaps even likely.

Whether it is desirable-- and for whom-- is an entirely separate question. I eagerly acknowledge the value of competition. On the other hand, the iTunes store has, for me personally, proven to be a good outlet, and I would say it behooves content producers to find a way to set up credible competitors to it. It's not my responsibility

Nothing, Apple can do whatever product it wants. The major content producers just are not eager to sign in. What they want is an platform for which several companies can produce hardware and where several points of distribution can exist.

Many of them are not particularly eager to be in iTunes. Yet they are there. Some left iTunes, and later came back. Mobile operators were, at first, reluctant to agree to Apple's proposed terms for carrying the iPhone, which went a great deal further than normal handset subsidization practices.

Content producers can want whatever they like; and while single points of failure (or control) are sometimes bad, they are not always so. I would say the current performance of the Windows Mobile and Plays 4 Sure ecosystems to date illustrate that, compared to Apple's model, there are some disadvantages to multiple content sources/multiple hardware manufacturers model. Consumer choice is a positive attribute, but it is not the only attribute, nor does it necessarily override all other desirable attributes, such as: ease of use, design, pricing.

 

[TheSlush]

Not perfect yet, perhaps, but this interface demo really captures some of the great possibilities for enhanced periodical content on a tablet.

We will be witnessing the Apple-enabled rescue/redefinition of the publishing industry, people.

 

[Byrnes3969]

Wow

Oh my gosh that tablet looks awesome! Very Apple-like.

 

[firewood]

I haven't read one person on any one website/forum that can describe what the difference this tablet will provide that we don't already get for free on websites.

You're not trying hard enough. There are still millions of people buying billions of dollars worth of physical books, magazines and newspapers. And they don't have to sit at a desk or be near wifi to read. There are also millions of people buying apps for their tablet iPod Touches, instead of browsing similar content with Safari. Paying customers ready to go.

 

[hiimamac]

What the publishers ate trying to make sure happens that devices like apple, kindle, msft courier all play the content. Hearst will see to it that apple doesn't lock it up in a way that you have to buy Apple hardware to view these magazines.

All they have to donis look at iTunes and see that you can't share it. The iPhone offers no flash. The DVR still is a sent from apple tv and example, you can watch ABC LOST ALL SEASONS in HD for free wheras All thing apple want you to pay between $1.99-$2.99 per episode, yet it's already free thus the lack if dvr or flash in some apple devices. This is one area I think the publishers have learned from iTunes that they want apple to make sure it's not all locked into apple hardware, regardless of past success. While Apple can claim victory in a sales term, one can also make the argument for free content online, DVRs, but torrents, tomatoe, limewire, seriakbix and the millions watch this content free right now and in some countries where we used to be #3 in terms of high speed, have now dropped to #28/29 globally, and in these other countries, they watch this content on their phones, Live TV and all. Ours is still streamed.


Cmon Obam get that Internet infrastructure bill passed. This country needs more speed,noylpo?)@$8@@@@89@8

Oh yeah, because I was forgetting that the tablet hasn't been invented already



How is it even comparable? Apple can't publish magazines without the aid of the publishers like they can with music. On the flip side, the publishers will have to agree to whatever Apple offer, whether Apple makes the excuse that it won't be compatible (with their uniform designs or code) or otherwise.

Thirdly, there's more to this than meets the eye. How can they design for a new platform release they have no information about, don't even know what resolution it is or even how it will be programmed and what functionality will be supported?

 

[SactoGuy18]

A few comments from all those posts here:

1) Given Time, Inc. demonstrated with the new highly-interactive version of Sports Illustrated designed for a tablet computer or laptop computer with touchscreen capabilities, there's actually hope for the MSM for a change. You end up with stories in a highly interactive form complete with a lot more pictures than you get in a "dead tree" version and also multimedia playback, too.

2) I expect Apple's tablet to be a hot seller, mostly because with Steve Jobs still at the helm, expect the tablet distill a lot of ideas about how a tablet computer should be used and turn it into a highly-innovative device. (After all, Apple didn't invent the portable media player that plays MP3-encoded audio files, but Apple's innovations make it far easier to use than most other portable media players out there.)

3) I'm still wondering is Apple trying to decide if they will use an ARM type CPU based on the PA Semiconductor patents or use Intel's new dual-core Atom N450 CPU for their tablet computer.

4) Apple may aim for a pretty high resolution for the display, since the device may end up being a competitor against the Amazon Kindle and other e-book readers.

 

[blackpond]

I haven't read one person on any one website/forum that can describe what the difference this tablet will provide that we don't already get for free on websites.

Websites, depending on how well someone produces it, can provide rich and immersive data/content. Question: So how is a tablet different?

Content producers such as magazines and newspapers have been struggling to survive not because people don't want their material but because, as you say, they have been offering it for free on websites.

What a tablet device offers is added "perception" of value, largely based on its portability and touch screen interface. Novelty features or not, it might be just the edge that print content producers need to separate free content from paid content.

As well, don't forget who is posting the free content on those free websites. If I had two ways to monetize on original content, you better believe I would choose the one that would allow me to grow my business out of a rut. In other words, free content will be reduced to teaser trailers for the paid content.