"New" iPad 2? F U APPLE FOR SILENTLY UPDATING AN OUTGOING MODEL!!!11 I actually don't think with my luck that I got the new iPad 2.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The new iPad |OT|
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
"New" iPad 2? F U APPLE FOR SILENTLY UPDATING AN OUTGOING MODEL!!!11 I actually don't think with my luck that I got the new iPad 2.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
You ever just want to vnc into your iPhone from your iPad? I don't want to go get my phone from upstairs.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
Has anyone's smart cover fucked up their iPad? It's scratched the shit out of mine 
RedAssedApe
Banned
Its still luck of the draw. I'm sure "new" and "old" ipad 2s are mixed together and you can't tell which one you have unless you open it anyways.
The edge app or through zinio? Mine (edge app) updated yesterday
Why Publishers Don't Like Apps
The future of media on mobile devices isn't with applications but with the Web.
By the time Apple released the iPad in April of 2010, just four months after Steve Jobs first announced his "magical and revolutionary" new machines in San Francisco, traditional publishers had been overtaken by a collective delusion. They believed that mobile computers with large, colorful screens, such as the iPad, iPhone, and similar devices using Google's Android software, would allow them to unwind their unhappy histories with the Internet.
For publishers whose businesses evolved during the long day of print newspapers and magazines, the expansion of the Internet was tremendously disorienting. The Internet taught readers they might read stories whenever they liked without charge, and it offered companies more efficient ways to advertise. Both parties spent less.Tablets and smart phones seemed to promise a return to simpler days. Digital replicas of print newspapers and magazines (which could be read inside Web browsers or proprietary software like Adobe PDF readers) had never been popular with readers; but publishers reasoned that replicas were unpleasant to read on desktop computers and laptops.
The forms of tablets and smart phones were a little like a magazine or newspaper. Couldn't publishers delight readers by delivering something similar to existing digital replicas, suitably enhanced with interactive features, which would run in applications on tablets and smart phones? They argued that the new digital replicas would be better because applications run "natively" on the operating system of mobile devices, such as Apple's iOS, and can therefore have the functions of true software. (By contrast, a website is merely a series of HTML pages and scripts of computer code that run inside a browser, itself the real application. The Web's architects had meant sites to be more limited than apps.)
For traditional publishers, the scheme was alluring. They lost their heads. One symptom of the industry's euphoria was a brief-lived literary genre, the announcement of the iPad edition. A touching example of the form is this 2010 letter by the editors of the New Yorker, published by Condé Nast, dashed off in a style that was uncharacteristically breathless: "This latest technology ... provides the most material at the most advanced stage of digital speed and capacity. It has everything that is in the print edition and more: extra cartoons, extra photographs, videos, audio of writers and poets reading their work. This week's inaugural tablet issue features an animated version of David Hockney's cover, which he drew on an iPad."
Publishers believed that because they were once again delivering a unique, discrete product, analogous to a newspaper or magazine, they could charge readers for single-copy sales and even subscriptions, reëducating audiences that publications were goods for which they must pay. They allowed themselves to be convinced that producing editorial content for the apps and developing the apps themselves would be simple. Software vendors like Adobe promised that publishers could easily transfer editorial created on print copy management systems like Adobe InDesign and InCopy directly to the apps. As for software development ... well, how hard was that? Most publishers had Web development departments: let the nerds build the apps.
Publishers hoped that the old print advertising economy could be revived. The Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), the industry organization that audits circulation and audience information for magazines and newspapers around the world, promised it would consider the replicas inside apps in calculating "rate base," the measure of publications' total circulation, including subscription and newsstand sales. Rate base had been the metric for setting advertising rates in publishing before the emergence of keyword and banner advertising, which measures click-throughs and ad impressions. Advertising is the real business of media, but traditional publishers couldn't compete with Google and new-media companies for selling digital ads. Apps would interrupt that decline, returning media to its proper, historical structure: publishers could sell digital versions of the same ads that appeared in their print publications (perhaps with a markup if they had interactive elements), valued with the old measurement of rate base.
Expressed like this, the delusion is clear enough, but I succumbed myselfat least a little. I never believed that apps would unwind my industry's disruption; but I felt some readers would want a beautifully designed digital replica of Technology Review on their mobile devices, and I bet that our developers could create a better mobile experience within applications. So we created iOS and Android apps that were free for use; anyone could read our daily news and watch our videos, and people could pay to see digital replicas of the magazine. We launched the platforms in January of 2011. Complimenting myself on my conservative accounting, I budgeted less than $125,000 in revenue in the first year. That meant fewer than 5,000 subscriptions and a handful of single-issue sales. Easy, I thought.
Like almost all publishers, I was badly disappointed. What went wrong? Everything.
Apple demanded a 30 percent vigorish on all single-copy sales through its iTunes store. Profit margins in single-copy sales are thinner than 30 percent; publishers were thus paying Apple to move issues. Many responded by not selling single copies of their magazines. Then, for a year after the launch of the iPad, Apple could not figure out how to sell subscriptions through iTunes in a way that satisfied ABC, which requires publishers to record "fulfillment" information about subscribers. When Apple finally solved the problem of iPad subscriptions in iTunes, it again claimed its 30 percent share. From June of last year, Apple did permit publishers to fulfill subscriptions through their own Web pages (a handful of publishers, including Technology Review, enjoyed the privilege earlier); but the mechanism couldn't match iTunes for ease of use, and most readers couldn't be bothered to understand it. And while Google was more reasonable in its terms, Android never emerged as an alternative to the iPad: today, most tablet computers are Apple machines.
There were other difficulties. It wasn't simple, it turned out, to adapt print publications to apps. A large part of the problem was the ratio of the tablets: they possessed both a "portrait" (vertical) and "landscape" (horizontal) view, depending on how the user held the device. Then, too, the screens of smart phones were much smaller than those of tablets. Absurdly, many publishers ended up producing six different versions of their editorial product: a print publication, a conventional digital replica for Web browsers and proprietary software, a digital replica for landscape viewing on tablets, something that was not quite a digital replica for portrait viewing on tablets, a kind of hack for smart phones, and ordinary HTML pages for their websites. Software development of apps was much harder than publishers had anticipated, because they had hired Web developers who knew technologies like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Publishers were astonished to learn that iPad apps were real, if small, applications, mostly written in a language called Objective C, which no one in their WebDev departments knew. Publishers reacted by outsourcing app development, which was expensive, time-consuming, and unbudgeted.
But the real problem with apps was more profound. When people read news and features on electronic media, they expect stories to possess the linky-ness of the Web, but stories in apps didn't really link. The apps were, in the jargon of information technology, "walled gardens," and although sometimes beautiful, they were small, stifling gardens. For readers, none of that beauty overcame the weirdness and frustration of reading digital media closed off from other digital media.
Without subscribers or many single-copy buyers, and with no audiences to sell to advertisers, there were no revenues to offset the incremental costs of app development. With a couple of exceptions, publishers therefore soured on apps. The most commonly cited exception is Condé Nast, which saw its digital sales increase by 268 percent last year after Apple introduced an iPad app called Newsstand that promoted the New York publisher's iPad editions. Still, even 268 percent growth may not be saying much in total numbers. Digital is a small business for Condé Nast. For instance, Wired, the most digital of Condé Nast's titles, has 33,237 digital replica subscriptions, representing just 4.1 percent of total circulation, and 7,004 digital single-copy sales, which is 0.8 percent of paid circulation, according to ABC.
Today, most owners of mobile devices read news and features on publishers' websites, which have often been coded to detect and adapt themselves to smaller screens; or, if they do use apps, the apps are glorified RSS readers such as Amazon Kindle, Google Reader, Flipboard, and the apps of newspapers like the Guardian, which grab editorial from the publishers' sites. A recent Nielsen study reported that while 33 percent of tablet and smart-phone users had downloaded news apps in the previous 30 days, just 19 percent of users had paid for any of them. The paid, expensively developed publishers' app, with its extravagantly produced digital replica, is dead.
Here, the recent history of the Financial Times is instructive. Last June, the company pulled its iPad and iPhone app from iTunes and launched a new version of its website written in HTML5, which can optimize the site for the device a reader is using and provide many features and functions that are applike. For a few months, the FT continued to support the app, but on May 1 the paper chose to kill it altogether.
And Technology Review? We sold 353 subscriptions through the iPad. We never discovered how to avoid the necessity of designing both landscape and portrait versions of the magazine for the app. We wasted $124,000 on outsourced software development. We fought amongst ourselves, and people left the company. There was untold expense of spirit. I hated every moment of our experiment with apps, because it tried to impose something closed, old, and printlike on something open, new, and digital.
Last fall, we moved all the editorial in our apps, including the magazine, into a simple RSS feed in a river of news. We dumped the digital replica. Now we're redesigning Technologyreview.com, which we made entirely free for use, and we'll follow the Financial Times in using HTML5, so that a reader will see Web pages optimized for any device, whether a desktop or laptop computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. Then we'll kill our apps, too.
Jason Pontin is the editor in chief and publisher of Technology Review.
The future of media on mobile devices isn't with applications but with the Web.
By the time Apple released the iPad in April of 2010, just four months after Steve Jobs first announced his "magical and revolutionary" new machines in San Francisco, traditional publishers had been overtaken by a collective delusion. They believed that mobile computers with large, colorful screens, such as the iPad, iPhone, and similar devices using Google's Android software, would allow them to unwind their unhappy histories with the Internet.
For publishers whose businesses evolved during the long day of print newspapers and magazines, the expansion of the Internet was tremendously disorienting. The Internet taught readers they might read stories whenever they liked without charge, and it offered companies more efficient ways to advertise. Both parties spent less.Tablets and smart phones seemed to promise a return to simpler days. Digital replicas of print newspapers and magazines (which could be read inside Web browsers or proprietary software like Adobe PDF readers) had never been popular with readers; but publishers reasoned that replicas were unpleasant to read on desktop computers and laptops.
The forms of tablets and smart phones were a little like a magazine or newspaper. Couldn't publishers delight readers by delivering something similar to existing digital replicas, suitably enhanced with interactive features, which would run in applications on tablets and smart phones? They argued that the new digital replicas would be better because applications run "natively" on the operating system of mobile devices, such as Apple's iOS, and can therefore have the functions of true software. (By contrast, a website is merely a series of HTML pages and scripts of computer code that run inside a browser, itself the real application. The Web's architects had meant sites to be more limited than apps.)
For traditional publishers, the scheme was alluring. They lost their heads. One symptom of the industry's euphoria was a brief-lived literary genre, the announcement of the iPad edition. A touching example of the form is this 2010 letter by the editors of the New Yorker, published by Condé Nast, dashed off in a style that was uncharacteristically breathless: "This latest technology ... provides the most material at the most advanced stage of digital speed and capacity. It has everything that is in the print edition and more: extra cartoons, extra photographs, videos, audio of writers and poets reading their work. This week's inaugural tablet issue features an animated version of David Hockney's cover, which he drew on an iPad."
Publishers believed that because they were once again delivering a unique, discrete product, analogous to a newspaper or magazine, they could charge readers for single-copy sales and even subscriptions, reëducating audiences that publications were goods for which they must pay. They allowed themselves to be convinced that producing editorial content for the apps and developing the apps themselves would be simple. Software vendors like Adobe promised that publishers could easily transfer editorial created on print copy management systems like Adobe InDesign and InCopy directly to the apps. As for software development ... well, how hard was that? Most publishers had Web development departments: let the nerds build the apps.
Publishers hoped that the old print advertising economy could be revived. The Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), the industry organization that audits circulation and audience information for magazines and newspapers around the world, promised it would consider the replicas inside apps in calculating "rate base," the measure of publications' total circulation, including subscription and newsstand sales. Rate base had been the metric for setting advertising rates in publishing before the emergence of keyword and banner advertising, which measures click-throughs and ad impressions. Advertising is the real business of media, but traditional publishers couldn't compete with Google and new-media companies for selling digital ads. Apps would interrupt that decline, returning media to its proper, historical structure: publishers could sell digital versions of the same ads that appeared in their print publications (perhaps with a markup if they had interactive elements), valued with the old measurement of rate base.
Expressed like this, the delusion is clear enough, but I succumbed myselfat least a little. I never believed that apps would unwind my industry's disruption; but I felt some readers would want a beautifully designed digital replica of Technology Review on their mobile devices, and I bet that our developers could create a better mobile experience within applications. So we created iOS and Android apps that were free for use; anyone could read our daily news and watch our videos, and people could pay to see digital replicas of the magazine. We launched the platforms in January of 2011. Complimenting myself on my conservative accounting, I budgeted less than $125,000 in revenue in the first year. That meant fewer than 5,000 subscriptions and a handful of single-issue sales. Easy, I thought.
Like almost all publishers, I was badly disappointed. What went wrong? Everything.
Apple demanded a 30 percent vigorish on all single-copy sales through its iTunes store. Profit margins in single-copy sales are thinner than 30 percent; publishers were thus paying Apple to move issues. Many responded by not selling single copies of their magazines. Then, for a year after the launch of the iPad, Apple could not figure out how to sell subscriptions through iTunes in a way that satisfied ABC, which requires publishers to record "fulfillment" information about subscribers. When Apple finally solved the problem of iPad subscriptions in iTunes, it again claimed its 30 percent share. From June of last year, Apple did permit publishers to fulfill subscriptions through their own Web pages (a handful of publishers, including Technology Review, enjoyed the privilege earlier); but the mechanism couldn't match iTunes for ease of use, and most readers couldn't be bothered to understand it. And while Google was more reasonable in its terms, Android never emerged as an alternative to the iPad: today, most tablet computers are Apple machines.
There were other difficulties. It wasn't simple, it turned out, to adapt print publications to apps. A large part of the problem was the ratio of the tablets: they possessed both a "portrait" (vertical) and "landscape" (horizontal) view, depending on how the user held the device. Then, too, the screens of smart phones were much smaller than those of tablets. Absurdly, many publishers ended up producing six different versions of their editorial product: a print publication, a conventional digital replica for Web browsers and proprietary software, a digital replica for landscape viewing on tablets, something that was not quite a digital replica for portrait viewing on tablets, a kind of hack for smart phones, and ordinary HTML pages for their websites. Software development of apps was much harder than publishers had anticipated, because they had hired Web developers who knew technologies like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Publishers were astonished to learn that iPad apps were real, if small, applications, mostly written in a language called Objective C, which no one in their WebDev departments knew. Publishers reacted by outsourcing app development, which was expensive, time-consuming, and unbudgeted.
But the real problem with apps was more profound. When people read news and features on electronic media, they expect stories to possess the linky-ness of the Web, but stories in apps didn't really link. The apps were, in the jargon of information technology, "walled gardens," and although sometimes beautiful, they were small, stifling gardens. For readers, none of that beauty overcame the weirdness and frustration of reading digital media closed off from other digital media.
Without subscribers or many single-copy buyers, and with no audiences to sell to advertisers, there were no revenues to offset the incremental costs of app development. With a couple of exceptions, publishers therefore soured on apps. The most commonly cited exception is Condé Nast, which saw its digital sales increase by 268 percent last year after Apple introduced an iPad app called Newsstand that promoted the New York publisher's iPad editions. Still, even 268 percent growth may not be saying much in total numbers. Digital is a small business for Condé Nast. For instance, Wired, the most digital of Condé Nast's titles, has 33,237 digital replica subscriptions, representing just 4.1 percent of total circulation, and 7,004 digital single-copy sales, which is 0.8 percent of paid circulation, according to ABC.
Today, most owners of mobile devices read news and features on publishers' websites, which have often been coded to detect and adapt themselves to smaller screens; or, if they do use apps, the apps are glorified RSS readers such as Amazon Kindle, Google Reader, Flipboard, and the apps of newspapers like the Guardian, which grab editorial from the publishers' sites. A recent Nielsen study reported that while 33 percent of tablet and smart-phone users had downloaded news apps in the previous 30 days, just 19 percent of users had paid for any of them. The paid, expensively developed publishers' app, with its extravagantly produced digital replica, is dead.
Here, the recent history of the Financial Times is instructive. Last June, the company pulled its iPad and iPhone app from iTunes and launched a new version of its website written in HTML5, which can optimize the site for the device a reader is using and provide many features and functions that are applike. For a few months, the FT continued to support the app, but on May 1 the paper chose to kill it altogether.
And Technology Review? We sold 353 subscriptions through the iPad. We never discovered how to avoid the necessity of designing both landscape and portrait versions of the magazine for the app. We wasted $124,000 on outsourced software development. We fought amongst ourselves, and people left the company. There was untold expense of spirit. I hated every moment of our experiment with apps, because it tried to impose something closed, old, and printlike on something open, new, and digital.
Last fall, we moved all the editorial in our apps, including the magazine, into a simple RSS feed in a river of news. We dumped the digital replica. Now we're redesigning Technologyreview.com, which we made entirely free for use, and we'll follow the Financial Times in using HTML5, so that a reader will see Web pages optimized for any device, whether a desktop or laptop computer, a tablet, or a smart phone. Then we'll kill our apps, too.
Spiritreaver
Member
Kinda an iPad question, but more iOS. Is there any way to control an iOS device with a PC or other iOS device? I would really like to be bale to control my stereo's iPod with other devices. (I really don't know why Spotify doesn't let you do this already).
No.
Yes if the iOS device is jailbroken
If you're only interested in music playback on the iPod then a bluetooth remote control should work, no?
Spiritreaver
Member
Well, my stereo remote works fine as far as navigating songs. It just becomes a hassle when I think of, or find, a song I would like to hear. If I could just send it through from Spotify that'd be great, but I have to manually type in the search. Even just being able to type from my keyboard or iPad would be more convenient.
I'll look into other means...
Crazymoogle
Member
It's interesting, but also a bit of a sob story on attacking problems with money.
1. Over-obsessed with landscape problem
2. Using web engineers to attack C#
3. Attacking digital publishing before Apple was ready
4. Misrepresenting digital suscriptions vs. total circulation
I won't disagree that HTML5 makes the most sense for periodicals, but they simultaneously made the mistake of assuming a) they could basically just sell the print mag digitally with success and b) that HTML 5 will somehow make them money. HTML5 isn't a transition strategy; it's just a way to save money by unifying their app strategy with their website. Money they probably wouldn't have lost had they waited on NewsStand vs. going for an elaborate app approach.
This might help:
I'm not sure if you'll be able to change focus to the search field with only the keyboard though...
Another method you could look into is using the iPod as an airplay receiver and sending the songs from Your Mac.
Rocket786
Member
So I noticed my iPad was dropping WiFi connection consistently at my apartment while my iPhone 4S never had an issue what so ever. I think I have one of the faulty iPad's. I made a genius appointment today. Will they replace it? I bought it at launch and it's in perfect condition.
Crazymoogle
Member
Step 1: Have you updated iOS to the recently released latest
Rocket786
Member
I was on 5.1, but I just plugged it in and said that there was a 5.1.1 update available. Updating it now. In the update list, it didn't list any updates to WiFi issues though. Would this update still maybe fix the problem?
Ken Masters
Banned
The app through iTunes newsstand, is it worth it? I'm thinking of subscribing for the year
well, on the new ipad, text is finally legible without zooming in 1.5 or 2X. I'm still not a fan of re-using the exact same print layout on the ipad since it's not made for the screen size, but it does work better now than with the older ipad resolution.
Ken Masters
Banned
So you would recommend it? Also what other gaming mags are worth it on iPad? I only saw OXM and some PC mag which I'm not interested in
Ken Masters
Banned
The new Yorker looks great but not at $60, and edge at $40 is double the price of other game mags, it's a digital copy so I don't understand why price is so high
Crazymoogle
Member
No idea but I guarantee they would check for this and perform the update before investigating anything else about your WiFi issues. Doing it yourself and verifying if there's still a problem is cutting that possibility out before it takes control of your appointment.
Because they think the content is worth it and they don't want to devalue the print editions, where they still make most of their money.
I'd say EDGE is worth it if you really like their features and opinion pieces. if you value them, then I would get the ipad version instead of the print one (I hate things cluttering up my place) I'd never bother paying for a magazine just for previews and reviews.
If its in bad shape. Apple products hold their value.
Ken Masters
Banned
Went ahead with the subscription, would like to have another mag but the user reviews seems really negative for a lot of these newsstand mags
Is anyone else having problems with the Grazing browser on the iPad3? It freezes sometimes (this isn't just the grazing app though) and is very slow to rotate when changing orientation. It doesn't behave like this on the iPad2 but I'm reluctant to switch.
That characterization is a bit unfair, no? Besides whether they decide to tackle the problem with new designs, innovative business models etc they would still be tossing money to come up with the solution.
1. That landscape problem is a real issue. Apple faced the same problem when creating the iBooks textbook format (and they copped out on providing a proper solution).
2. They got real iOS developers but that didn't help.
4. ... Not sure what you mean here.
There has been recent chatter that web apps are a shortcut and provide poor app experiences. Technology Review argues instead that publisher native apps are the shortcut and HTML5 apps can provide a better user experience (besides the cost savings and so). Take the lack of linky-ness for example. While the publishers could certainly do better in making the text of the magazine apps copyable and markable, the simple truth is that content in iOS apps just aren't as easily shareable as content on the web (this is another area where it's a damn shame that Android apps aren't more popular as Google has provided good solutions. Even the fossilized text in Adobe Indesign created apps can be gotten at with nifty Android OCR utilities). HTML5 apps aren't solely a cost cutting measure.
but I'm reluctant to switch.That characterization is a bit unfair, no? Besides whether they decide to tackle the problem with new designs, innovative business models etc they would still be tossing money to come up with the solution.
1. That landscape problem is a real issue. Apple faced the same problem when creating the iBooks textbook format (and they copped out on providing a proper solution).
2. They got real iOS developers but that didn't help.
3. Oh c'mon. Apple gave the New York Times early acces to the first iPad and invited them on stage to demo the app. Apple featured the Wired app prominently in the AppStore after launch. How were publishers supposed to know that they were to ignore all that promotion and instead wait for the unannounced Newsstand to be made available? If they had decided to wait then they would have been fucked over by Apple with newly enforced rules about linking to website subscriptions. Those early to the AppStore at least got a chance to attract subscriptions in-app without paying the Apple tax. Newsstand isn't the solution to the publishers' problems.
4. ... Not sure what you mean here.
There has been recent chatter that web apps are a shortcut and provide poor app experiences. Technology Review argues instead that publisher native apps are the shortcut and HTML5 apps can provide a better user experience (besides the cost savings and so). Take the lack of linky-ness for example. While the publishers could certainly do better in making the text of the magazine apps copyable and markable, the simple truth is that content in iOS apps just aren't as easily shareable as content on the web (this is another area where it's a damn shame that Android apps aren't more popular as Google has provided good solutions. Even the fossilized text in Adobe Indesign created apps can be gotten at with nifty Android OCR utilities). HTML5 apps aren't solely a cost cutting measure.
No
Oh ok, I was checking out Craigslist and wanted to get an idea of what would be a good price. Anything much more than $300 and I should just get a refurb from Apple.
There already is a thread on the Technology Review article.Is anyone else having problems with the Grazing browser on the iPad3? It freezes sometimes (this isn't just the grazing app though) and is very slow to rotate when changing orientation. It doesn't behave like this on the iPad2
That characterization is a bit unfair, no? Besides whether they decide to tackle the problem with new designs, innovative business models etc they would still be tossing money to come up with the solution.
1. That landscape problem is a real issue. Apple faced the same problem when creating the iBooks textbook format (and they copped out on providing a proper solution).
2. They got real iOS developers but that didn't help.
3. Oh c'mon. Apple gave the New York Times early acces to the first iPad and invited them on stage to demo the app. Apple featured the Wired app prominently in the AppStore after launch. How were publishers supposed to know that they were to ignore all that promotion and instead wait for the unannounced Newsstand to be made available? If they had decided to wait then they would have been fucked over by Apple with newly enforced rules about linking to website subscriptions. Those early to the AppStore at least got a chance to attract subscriptions in-app without paying the Apple tax. Newsstand isn't the solution to the publishers' problems.
4. ... Not sure what you mean here.
There has been recent chatter that web apps are a shortcut and provide poor app experiences. Technology Review argues instead that publisher native apps are the shortcut and HTML5 apps can provide a better user experience (besides the cost savings and so). Take the lack of linky-ness for example. While the publishers could certainly do better in making the text of the magazine apps copyable and markable, the simple truth is that content in iOS apps just aren't as easily shareable as content on the web (this is another area where it's a damn shame that Android apps aren't more popular as Google has provided good solutions. Even the fossilized text in Adobe Indesign created apps can be gotten at with nifty Android OCR utilities). HTML5 apps aren't solely a cost cutting measure.
No
Their app looks like a blown-up iPhone app, with very poor organization, looking like a stream of blog posts instead of a magazine.
They offered the content for free inside their app while also offering a digital subscription option through their website (not through iTunes ecosystem, especially Newsstand). You will always be able to see the newest issue inside the app. The only benefit that a subscription provides is looking at past issues. Switching to HTML5 isn't going to magically lead to more revenue. They can make an app that is basically a webview with HTML5 if they think they can't cut it with actual native design. That still won't solve their revenue problem if it's designed poorly, or everything is offered for free in-app already.
The fact that Wired has 33,000 subscriptions and Conde Naste has 250k in total, when the magazines offer the same content for free through their websites, probably is still a plus for publishers. The Economist offers each issue for free on its website also, but has seen many subscriptions by including extra features.
Rocket786
Member
I had it updated to 5.1.1, but the "genius" didn't know exactly what was included in the update. My iPad works fine when it's close to my modem but in my living room it drops connection every few minutes. Meanwhile, my iPhone, PS3, and whatever other WiFi devices work with no problems in the living room.
The "genius" told me to move the modem or change the channel on the modem (have no idea how to do this) since we couldn't re-create the problem in the Apple Store. I don't know if it was because their modems or WiFi spots were fairly close for my iPad to catch, or there really isn't a problem. I asked him if I can compare my iPad 3 to my old iPad 1 and see if it connects properly in my living room, and the "genius" said that each version of the iPad or iPhones catch WiFi differently, and so changing it out for a different iPad 3 won't help. I'm not sure what to say now... Hopefully the 5.1.1 update resolved whatever issue I was having. If not, then WTF Apple!
From the article:
Even with lower revenue with HTML5 sites, technology review would have a better margin on the product. Selling single issues on Newsstand at a loss after Apple takes their 30% isn't sustainable.
And yeah the NYT app was demoed at the iPad unveiling:
10:41AM "So Steve showed you the Times website, it's beautiful. Why did we come out here to develop a new app for the iPad? Our iPhone app has been downloaded 3m times. We wanted to create something special for the iPad."
10:42AM "We think we've captured the essence of reading the newspaper. A superior experience in a native application." Wow, the layout is just like a standard paper, and again we've got those dropdown context menus. You can resize text with a pinch.
Yes. Get the refurb from Apple. If you have a Microcenter nearby, I got mine there for $339 + tax.
Have you seen their app? That shouldn't cost $124,000. That can be done with HTML5 today.
It's not sustainable because nobody is buying digital subscriptions from them at all. They offer the latest magazine for free and you have access to the latest half year of issues. Nobody is going to buy a subscription under that model. Add on top the poor design. Nobody would buy a subscription to what is essentially a webview of their website (they don't even offer offline viewing).
For Conde Naste, it's a one-time cost to make their system accomodate publishing Newsstand issues, and they get paid money for stuff they already offer free on the website, but not free in the app. The New Yorker app is the highest grossing iPad app. Their content is free on newyorker.com. New York Times, New York Post (content free on web) and The Daily (content free on web, if you can get the permalink) are also in the top 20 highest grossing iPad apps.
Outside of a few sites like Financial Times, WSJ, and NYT, nobody wants to pay for website access to news or periodicals. Google shutdown their One Pass program for people to pay web publishers. Switching to HTML5 isn't going to solve that revenue problem. Switching to apps also isn't going to solve it for niche magazines with very poor app design that give away all the latest content (let alone the latest half-year's worth of content) before asking for payment, either.
You're comparing apps only to website while The article is also comparing apps to the print sales.
Free HTML5 apps will also make money via ads. Lower cost, lower revenue via sticker price sale but more revenue via ads.
Ken Masters
Banned
By most reviews, the New Yorker is a very well done iPad mag so people will buy it, companies complain about poor sales with shit apps don't get sympathy
And wtf is up with Edge? Every page has to render individually, even you go back to the page you were just viewing you have to wait for the image to render, they better fix this nonsense
I don't think you should be comparing print circulation to app circulation.
They can easily make an app that is essentially an HTML5 webview without breaking the bank on app designers.
Most of those apps are done with just running Adobe Digital Publishing Suite through their content that was already laid out with Adobe software.
Web ads have not provided the revenue that publishers need. You can also put ads in Newsstand issues. It's just a separate revenue stream that may or may not work for you depending on how popular you are, and how well your app is designed (a low barrier, but certainly something better than Technology Review's app, would suffice). The New Yorker and New York Post are in the top 20 highest grossing apps, offering content that is already free on their websites.
Crazymoogle
Member
You can change channels in your router's settings. If you have a lot of crosstalk (lots of wifi devices, possibly devices from other apartments, or even worse, something that actively interferes like a Microwave, it's definitely possible that switching to other channels may clear up your problems. Are you running your iPad through .N or .G? Do you run a B network as well? Or have multiple nearby accesspoints?
That being said, if you want to be sure that it's your iPad, I would definitely try it in alternate environments and see if you can reproduce the problem. Forget your home; try any coffee shop or whatever that has free WiFi. If it's dropping constantly in a coffee shop while your phone is okay, then there's your definitive evidence.
The genius is right in that the iPad has a different antenna array than your other devices, but since he/she doesn't have the kind of engineering devices needed to do some full wifi frequency workout of your device he/she is pretty poorly equipped to handle your specific problem, apart from point out all of the popular solutions.
Greyface said:
I don't think I hurt TR's feelings, it being a company and publication and all.
There was no standard periodicals ecosystem. Hell, for a long time you could buy things like manga in individual "chapter apps". Investing a lot of engineering money into building a subscription app before the marketplace is ready for it is really damn risky, period; they basically tried and failed to make Flipbook. It didn't take a business major to expect that Apple would close income loopholes or unify the periodicals marketplace if they gave it some time.
Apple was never going to "save" periodicals. The idea is not something to take seriously. Today's touchscreen periodical is literally just a page scan. All of the ad buys, page layouts, articles...everything is for the print edition. What they've done, however, is provide an even playing field for everyone to contribute as they like, with a clear understanding of what costs what.
HTML5 is fine. Long term you'll see most news sources use it for dynamic content delivery. But you'll probably still see Newsstand offerings because at the end of the day it's a lot easier to convince somebody to click the buy button on the Newsstand store than it is to convince them to go through the winding process of registering for an account on my website.
What's in danger here is not the digital format, but the print format, and companies such as this one are struggling to figure out how they can replicate those old revenue streams without losing their business entirely. The article reads like they thought Apple would save them, but they didn't quite figure out that putting yourself in the middle of a billion app marketplace is no guarantee of a subscription revenue stream.
Oh, and my last point was merely that they were comparing iDevice subs to general circulation, as opposed to their own subscription rate. The number might have made more sense if they had compared downloads or something instead, although all that would have done was give some idea of their stature within the App Store (previous) and I suppose now Newsstand?
Ken Masters
Banned
As a consumer I wish every mag was on the newsstand because of how convienent it is.
So, I am trying to decide if I should buy iPad 2 or new iPad. Wifi version.
iPad 2 is about 110 cheaper, better battery life, little lighter and smaller. A bit cooler. Apps are not as big and therefore there is room for more.
New iPad has better resolution. Don´t care about better camera or even better graphics since I won´t play advanced games on an iPad.
What I will use iPad for:
I will read magazines, surf the web, play around with apps, watch video and play simple games.
For the things I want to do with iPad, I get the feeling that new iPad is what I should go for as it has better resolution.
BUT, I just realized something that I wanted to check with you guys that knows this better than me. Will a 480p video look better on iPad 2 than the new iPad? Considering the video will need to be stretched more on new iPad due to higher resolution. Is the difference huge or very small?
This is an important factor for me as I was hoping to watch some live TV, which won´t always have HD quality.
iPad 2 is about 110 cheaper, better battery life, little lighter and smaller. A bit cooler. Apps are not as big and therefore there is room for more.
New iPad has better resolution. Don´t care about better camera or even better graphics since I won´t play advanced games on an iPad.
What I will use iPad for:
I will read magazines, surf the web, play around with apps, watch video and play simple games.
For the things I want to do with iPad, I get the feeling that new iPad is what I should go for as it has better resolution.
BUT, I just realized something that I wanted to check with you guys that knows this better than me. Will a 480p video look better on iPad 2 than the new iPad? Considering the video will need to be stretched more on new iPad due to higher resolution. Is the difference huge or very small?
This is an important factor for me as I was hoping to watch some live TV, which won´t always have HD quality.
You're right. I think I've always been accessing content through paywall loopholes without knowing it.
Ken Masters
Banned
Apps are going to be the same size
Crazymoogle
Member
As Ken said, iPad app packages are universal (at least, for iPads) so you're still getting the bigger app even if you don't have an iPad 3.
Screen resolution is literally just a 2x jump so 480p should look about as bad as before
I think it's clearly a difference-maker for reading. But if you're just going to casually use it, I don't think there's anything wrong with an iPad 2.
Screen resolution is literally just a 2x jump so 480p should look about as bad as before
I think it's clearly a difference-maker for reading. But if you're just going to casually use it, I don't think there's anything wrong with an iPad 2.
RubxQub
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎÎ³Î»Î¿Ï Ïον καί ÏÎµÏ Î´Î¿Î»Ïγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
Anyone try those portable power station things like the Mophie Powerstation with the new iPad? It looks like nothing can really satisfy this things energy needs sufficiently!
Luckily the battery lasts forever and I'm constantly near power, but it'd be nice to have a proper backup if it was required.
Luckily the battery lasts forever and I'm constantly near power, but it'd be nice to have a proper backup if it was required.
Ok, thanks for the input. I think I will go with the new iPad, as I am planning on reading more than casual. Plus I like new stuff
Did I link this yet?
The Wirecutter reviews cases:
Not-Horrible iPad Cases
Best iPad Keyboard Case
Yeah that rendering in the Edge app is especially bad on the iPad 3. The Zinio app is a bit better.
Apple was never going to "save" periodicals but Steve Jobs sure sold it that way. Can't blame the publishers too much for getting trapped in his distortion field. I was right there myself buying the first iPad and the launch issues of all those app mags.
The Wirecutter reviews cases:
Not-Horrible iPad Cases
Best iPad Keyboard Case
eh? most people are ambivalent about the new yorker app. They like the content but the app itself leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah that rendering in the Edge app is especially bad on the iPad 3. The Zinio app is a bit better.
hmmm... you do have a good points. We'll see how it shakes out.
The marketplace was ready for subscriptionApple wasn't ready.
Apple was never going to "save" periodicals but Steve Jobs sure sold it that way. Can't blame the publishers too much for getting trapped in his distortion field. I was right there myself buying the first iPad and the launch issues of all those app mags.
I have a hyper juice which I originally got to run a MBA 11". It charges the iPad (but annealing doesn't charge many of my android devices *sigh*) but the iPad charges so damn slow that it's not worth keeping the iPad tethered to the battery.
Have the Anker Astro2. Seemed to be among the best reviewed in my research but I haven't used it yet.
foomfoom415
Member
Not sure if this is in regards to anything specific or just general use preferences, but I absolutely HATE it when an app makes me use landscape. Portrait 4 lyfe.