The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 23, 2019, 11:06:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Apple deal with Conde Nast among others looks great...  (Read 5225 times)
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« on: November 24, 2009, 10:01:26 AM »

There have been lots of rumor circulating, but it's starting to sound serious. IMO, if Wired comes across a tablet and it's better, cooler and portable, print is dead to young people. (It arguably is already, but this would be the accelerant to drive the final change.)

Quote from: multiple sources
The joint company will make more than 50 popular magazines -- including The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Time, People and Sports Illustrated...

The company would make up one of the biggest alliances among rival publishers ever formed in print media, with Time Inc., Condé Nast and Hearst all expected to join, houses that together publish more than 50 magazines, including The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Time, People, Sports Illustrated, Esquire and O, The Oprah Magazine.

Conde Nast said it will have 18 publications tablet ready by the middle of next year. (Ed: Conde Nast is the publisher of Wired)

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/11/24/rival_publishers_rumored_to_align_for_itunes_like_magazine_store.html

http://www.cultofmac.com/publishers-group-to-sell-digital-magazines-for-apples-itablet-others/21923?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cultofmac%2FbFow+%28Cult+of+Mac%29

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/24/magazine-publishers-teaming-up-for-digital-publishing/

« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 10:08:46 AM by perkiset » Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2009, 02:09:19 AM »

Nice... dead companies joining forces. How about instead of fighting over who gets to sell magazines to youngsters you could innovate new way of convey that knowledge & information your journalists provide. It's just so pathetic when people fight for current position and not over the future position. And no, selling magazines in digital format thru some sort of reading device isn't future. Everything is going to change, whether you accept it or not.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2009, 07:14:18 AM »

An interesting assertion. So, if delivering content digitally is equally dead, where is the future then?
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2009, 07:53:27 AM »

An interesting assertion. So, if delivering content digitally is equally dead, where is the future then?
Delivering content digitally isn't dead but the vehicle called magazine is dead. People don't read magazines anymore, they consume & seek information based on their need. In the last century that information was in form of magazines & books.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
KaptainKrayola
Keeper of Pie
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 994



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2009, 08:51:05 AM »

ome people find a certain amount of leisure in sitting and reading a magazine and sometimes even find other useful information that maybe they weren't directly looking for.  I know I have personally gotten some really interesting ideas when researching or reading something totally unrelated.

So what would you say IS the future, just out of curiosity?
Logged

We can't stop here, this is bat country.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2009, 10:01:56 AM »

So what would you say IS the future, just out of curiosity?
I don't know what the future is but I have my hopes. One of my hopes is that I don't have to read 1000 words to get 2 pieces of interesting information. I also hope that journalists focus on making new information understandable for common people instead of writing about the same old shit like they do now. We are living a society of information overload. To me journalists job is to combine this information in to quick information bite. There just isn't any need for traditional magazine style of information delivery anymore.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2009, 02:35:30 PM »

I have to disagree Kurdt. IMV, if you're not a magazine or newspaper person then you're just not. I agree with Kaps - there is a time for leisurely browsing content I was not looking for, and times for acquiring things I need. I love magazines and have a rather large set of subscriptions. I am really looking forward to being able to get these things digitally so I can have them anywhere with less bulk.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the brains at content providers like Wired come up with for me. I think it will be like Christmas.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2009, 03:05:47 PM »

LOL I'm siding with kurdt on this one!  Well perhaps not with the same vigor and certainty about the death of magazines altogether.  But the death of magazines as we once knew them to be is a foregone conclusion.  Here's the deal IMO, magazines will never leave completely nor will fiction novels.  But the previous span of usefulness is already gone forever.  The scope of the print industry has been radically transformed yet current generations still prefer this medium of knowledge transfer.

Quote
people find a certain amount of leisure in sitting and reading a magazine

Bingo.  Operative word IMO: leisure.  Seriously key difference between relaxing with a magazine, book, or an ice cream cone staring at the sun and attempting to learn anything intentionally.  True I'm one who loves magazines and also one who deeply appreciates collateral content I happen to stumble across in the leisure reading process.  But who's kidding who about using anything close to a magazine when you have specific information gathering needs at hand?  Perhaps a cover story grabs your eye since you've been thinking about outsourcing, for example.

Well kurdt is 100% correct about this one.  You get your cover story and 98% crap that you don't want at all!  We lose, the trees lose, or your reading device's operational lifespan loses.  So the transformation has been from beginning your learning process about something specific in a magazine to a chance occurrence of something perhaps interesting to know.

Remember this one: we now live in the "unbundled age."

Kids know this intuitively but we have a heck of a time wrapping our minds around this concept.  Sure we all choose various ways to get our info., including that which kids today enjoy as well.  But our basic come from is radically different so we have a blind spot to overcome.  This is also true with our running IP conversations, though kurdt and I are at deep opposite ends of the spectrum on that one.  It's senseless to try to force old-world thinking and practices on new realities that are here to stay.

The future of content?  Unbundled wins the day.  Therefore each element has to stand on its own as useful, desirable and worth clicking on.  This presents a terrible challenge which magazines don't face.  The profitability picture skews information nowadays towards the most lucrative ad placing articles.

An article on depression sporting an ad for Paxil is far more profitable than any long-winded treatise on geopolitical concerns.  Welcome idiocracy if we continue to allow massive conglomerates to dictate what we "should" be interested in since this invariably makes us mere consumers of profitable information 
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 04:12:35 PM by isthisthingon » Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2009, 04:17:30 PM »

This is also true with our running IP conversations, though kurdt and I are at deep opposite ends of the spectrum on that one.  It's senseless to try to force old-world thinking and practices on new realities that are here to stay.
I don't think we are in opposite ends. I want people to have control over what they have created. That is my core belief. I don't believe that anybody has any right to anything that's mine. This is why I defend Apple's position in Psystar argument. It's Apple's and to me there's no other arguments. There's no fair usage or some justification for Psystar's actions. This is also the reason I despise Google and Facebook. However here's the important part: It's up to you what you do with your idea and how much you try to control it. If you want to share it, it's ok. If you want to try and be the sole owner, it might be stupid in the long run but that's ok too.

And trust me, when I get ok from my lawyer, I'm going to release something that's going to make your wheels spin, a lot.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2009, 03:15:22 PM »

LOL. My point is not about paper, or the print industry at all, as you should be able to get from my above post.

The magazine industry in and of itself, provided it adapts to a new way of delivering content is the point. People like reading about things they did not expect. They like reading about interesting things that they'd never just search out to find. This is the benefit and value that the newspapers and magazines have provided. Irrespective of the media, that desire will not go away, nor, in some cataclysmic global catharsis will they be eliminated as Kurdt seems to hint.

Paper print, in general, will go the way of the Dodo, certainly - as did cave drawings and oral history. As capabilities change, so will the storage of knowledge. But I disagree utterly, if your assertion is that, because print is dead, the magazine industry is dead.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2009, 04:22:06 PM »

Quote
But I disagree utterly, if your assertion is that, because print is dead, the magazine industry is dead.

I think you're referring to me in this one so I'll just respond as if you are.  I'm not talking about anything medium specific so magazines on tape falls into the same category as print and digital.  And I totally agree with your point and believe it completely.  There will never be a time when human beings completely reject content that they didn't specifically select.  In fact this is the point of books, magazines, etc. and it has a foundation in something that I believe is inherent in human nature.  People will always want to be fed information they didn't specifically select. 

However, this has become the primary reason for reading magazines (in various formats).  This is what's changed forever and nostalgia won't make a difference: magazines, books and other forms of "bundled" content no longer exist as our primary source of learning.  Bundled content will always exist in various forms.  But compared to the tools available today, bundled content is completely impotent in terms of targeted educational endeavors. 

Therefore, magazines as they once were are dead, gone forever, and will never return.  Of course, my point exists within nuance so I'm not very confident about its survival Smiley

Magazines have been reduced to vehicles of optional leisure reading.  Optional leisure reading will never go away.  But magazines use to be a whole lot more than optional leisure reading.  They were one of the most important tools in the toolbox of a professional.  This is what will never return.  Well to be fair, it will return the same day people stop researching online and drive to the public library to fumble through the dewy decimal system that "organizes" some outdated paper hive of usually missing information (it's already checked out sir, but it "should" return in 45-60 days ROFLMAO).

Regardless if we agree to disagree, I hope you now understand where I'm coming from.  "Magazines" will remain on the planet as long as we have eyeballs to experience them with.  But magazines as primary tools of targeted information gathering are almost gone forever.  This function has the same expiration date as the lifespan of people who continue this antiquated approach to research, imho Smiley

Welcome back perk!
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2009, 04:58:59 PM »

Thanks @ welcome back - I'd love to say I was truly gone, but between my ISP having troubles and a logging daemon that went wild and killt this machine, I was never too far away.  Undecided

If we can agree that, in many ways, blogs and podcasts are some of the new magazines of today then we are on track. The notion that reading/absorption will be all targeted (ie., I need to learn (x) so I'll get an article about it) is limited in the extreme to me. The sheer volume of blogs, podcasts, RSS feeds, forums and such definitely tell us that people crave what you might call "leisure reading" but in fact, enrich us in the ways we choose.

Conde Nast, publisher of Wired, is only in danger (IMO) if they rest on paper and ink. If they truly get that people want to absorb what they (the magazines' editors) have collected for them, just like Popular Science or Make 2.0 and such, then adapt their presentation style to the mediums of the day (some paper, but blogs, sites, and soon to be tablets and such) then they will not only succeed, but they will prosper.

IMO, the steady decline we've seen in readership of paper magazines is not for dislike of the content: it is the inconvenience of the medium. Mags are heavy. They sag. They're un-green. Forget one on a business trip and you're pissed off. Convert that to cloudy distribution of content on demand and I'm one happy camper. And I believe that all the people in the world that enjoy their daily newspaper, or magazines will be *right there* when the new content distribution mechanisms take hold. And they will be happy to pay for it, because it will better, available all the time (so long as you have your device) and won't get your fingers all inky.

I think that if we try to lop the word "research" on to magazines this whole debate is funky. That content was never (or at least not much) the point of such publications. It could be called leisure, but again I'd call it enrichment. There are plenty articles in Wired that do not entice me. Plenty things in Popular Science that don't grab my attention. A couple items in Penthouse that don't hold my attention (most notably the cigarette ads, but that's really about it). I don't begrudge publications because they do not have a batting average of 1000 - it's just not going to happen. But on average, there is more that I like and am surprised by than dislike, so I continue my subscriptions. If they can make monthly surprise Christmas present of content better then I'm all for it - and I believe that this will take them successfully into the next paradigm.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2009, 06:26:05 PM »

Quote
IMO, the steady decline we've seen in readership of paper magazines is not for dislike of the content: it is the inconvenience of the medium. Mags are heavy. They sag. They're un-green. Forget one on a business trip and you're pissed off. Convert that to cloudy distribution of content on demand and I'm one happy camper.

This is where we partially disagree.  Yes, the medium is a large factor.  However, the fact that something is "bundled" is more to the point - or at least my point.  It's not some brilliant prediction.  It's a pragmatic assessment of realistic human behavior.  If I can find something I'm interested in by "Googling" it, I'm far less likely to buy mounds of paper/digital content that "may" have what I'm looking for. 

Quote
could be called leisure, but again I'd call it enrichment. There are plenty articles in Wired that do not entice me. Plenty things in Popular Science that don't grab my attention. A couple items in Penthouse that don't hold my attention (most notably the cigarette ads, but that's really about it). I don't begrudge publications because they do not have a batting average of 1000 - it's just not going to happen. But on average, there is more that I like and am surprised by than dislike, so I continue my subscriptions.

>Enrichment - totally agree. 

Here's the deal about the age we are now truly, actually living in.  It's called the Unbundled Age.  It deserves deep consideration because the ramifications of the age we are now living in are completely lost to those who can't handle nuance.  I know you handle nuance like a champ.  But unfortunately this is not the case for the masses.  But what is it about our Unbundled Age that we're now living in that distinguishes itself from our previous, bundled age?  It's simple.  We now have a choice.  Since we choose to consume information in ways never before realized, we are no longer subjected to being "bundled" against our will.  All you have to do is look at the bundled advertising trends to realize this truth.  People are no longer captive to your sales pitch.  They choose to hear it or they instantly tune out.  If your sales pitch lacks any form of intrinsic value, such as humor or "free" offerings, it's worthless 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2009, 08:01:39 PM »

I get your point, but I think you are overly optimistic about the level of intellect and/or curiosity of the average Joe.

Bundling exists not just for marketing purposes, but because it's the only way the majority can consume. Sure, there's the classic stories (an ocean of them) of the single-hit-album of yesteryear... and here I agree. But IMO, the masses need to be fed because they are not curious enough to find. They will Google, they will Wikipedia and the second tier will have RSS feeds in their emails. But IMO the majority of moms & pops will still prefer to be handed their new knowledge. Some will follow Jennifer Aniston on Twitter (I have no f'ing idea if she's actually there, this is just to make a point) but others will still want to walk in the store and see that she's about to have some new and odious operation.

Research, or even interest and curiosity takes energy. We've proven time and time again that we are a country that immensely prefers to be handed what we should know, whether it's true or not, than actually think. I don't have to move 3mm to prove this with the headlines I read of Sarah Palin's "Star Power." FFS.

I think your point is well taken for a segment of society: I will prefer *some* of my content to be unbundled. Some I want to be surprised with - thrilled or intrigued, much like reading The Hound of the Baskervilles, yet again, and ITCHING to turn the page. I don't want to know what I want to know (when I'm in that mood). I want to be handed a variety show ... a bouquet of possibilities ... a magazine. Granted, most magazines will not make this cut, since most magazines are essentially a teensy bit of verbiage tenderloin to support a metric fuckton of advertising kimchee. Die they should, and will. And here I absolutely agree with you. But IMO, there will be a new way that the same unfolding flower of "things I didn't even know I wanted to know" will come about. If I was to put money on an entity (for lack of a better term than "magazine") that has an excellent shot at surviving this round of extinctions, it would be Wired, PopSci and the like. Simply because the kind of person reading that sort of material is subtly different.

But then, that really brings up an entirely different notion. Do you really think that Field and Stream will become extinct? I'm suddenly having a hard time with that, because of 2 reasons: A) the person that reads it is not (probably) going to be into a tablet and, more importantly, B) it's their porno. Sure, they can Google pictures of deer, or pull an RSS for shots of the kill... but more likely, they want to be presented with new images of their hobby regularly. They also love the surprise of new shots of things they like. It's like Christmas, every month.

So wrapping up, although I think that, to a certain segment of the population, you are *spot on* , I think there's a large portion of society that you and Kurdt are flat wrong about. Perhaps not eternally wrong, but wrong right now. And for those folks (the Field & Stream 12 steppers) I don't know what the future looks like. It's going to be different.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 08:04:51 PM by perkiset » Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2009, 11:53:25 PM »

Quote
Do you really think that Field and Stream will become extinct?

Ha!  Nice point perks.  No - Field and Stream will never go away, as is the case with every other flavor of pornography.  In fact, my belief is that all forms of picture-based entertainment ranging from kiddie porn to snufftastic will always have a place on the shelf next to Trojan and Gas-ex.  I agree that the things that have more value when they're new, fun to look at and worthy of mention in most ice fishing forms of dialogue will probably be magazined till Armageddon.  But these things fall squarely within the bucket of leisure, not research or other forms of educational endeavors.

Barely legal?  Timeless.  Popular Mechanics?  Optional.  Fun read for those so inclined but entirely optional.  Barely Legal is mandatory in every respect ROFLMAO

I think we're splitting hairs since I totally agree with your logic.  But I think emerging generations will have far less interest in actually paying for anything that's 98% fluff and 2% milk 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!