Apple's done a pretty good job convincing the old media that the
iPad will save their industry, so we've taken our time trying out the launch titles in the App Store -- it's plain to see that different publishers have radically different ideas about how you're supposed to buy and consume their content, and everything from pricing to UI is currently up in the air. But while the apps we've seen so far are definitely intriguing, we haven't seen any silver bullets yet -- and to be perfectly honest, in several cases we wondered why an app was preferable to an iPad-optimized web site, or even (gasp) a paper subscription. Let's run down the launch lineup, shall we?
Update: We added in NPR and Zinio by popular request, check 'em out below!
The Wall Street Journal (free app, $3.99/week subscription required for full content) - This is one of the superstar halo launch apps for the iPad, but honestly, we have no idea why. Everything about it is a little confusing -- it's free, but it constantly reminds you that you need an expensive subscription to get anything more than what's available on the WSJ website. The interface is beautiful, but you navigate it with a set of gestures totally alien to the iPhone OS, like pinch-to-go-back -- a gesture that Fusion Garage actually took
out of the JooJoo because it was confusing. It's also the slowest app on our iPad: moving around it is seriously laggy, and there's a big delay between pushing a video play button and getting any feedback that the video's about to play. Yes, the WSJ app is a beautiful digital representation of a paper newspaper, but that doesn't make it a good app -- just swiping up and down to change sections is slow and unresponsive to the point of irritation. We'd much rather buy a cheaper paper sub to the WSJ with bundled online access to the videos and archives than play around with this noise. [
See in iTunes]
New York Times Editor's Choice (free) - The NYT's early entry into the iPad game hasn't gotten as much hype as the WSJ, but it's actually quite well-done. The content is an abbreviated edition of today's paper -- hence, "editor's choice" -- but it's all presented beautifully, and navigation is simple and intuitive. Sure, there's less content available than on even the iPhone app, and there's no font re-sizing, or video, or full-screen slideshows, but the app is extremely effective at just getting out of the way and letting you read -- in fact, we prefer it to the NYT's website. Could more be done here? Absolutely, yes, but in terms of using the iPad as a replacement for the morning newspaper, the NYT app is about as close as it gets. [
See in iTunes]
Associated Press (free) - Unlike several of the other publications, the AP didn't try and fake a newspaper layout with its iPad app -- it's gone with a bulletin board vibe instead. Navigation within each section is horizontal, rather than vertical, and individual stories pop over the main interface in a modal window with arrows at the top that let you click through the previous and next articles. The picture and video browsers are sparse, with thumbnails laid out horizontally as if on a table, and don't really tell you what you're looking at when you browse -- you have to tap each image for more info. The videos look good when played back full screen, but you can't expand the photos, which is odd. Overall, it's a nice app with room for improvement -- we love the customization options and offline reading capabilities, but the AP is just scratching the surface here. But hey -- it's free!
[
See in iTunes]
USA Today (free app, will require paid subscription after July 4) - The first app we managed to crash on the iPad! That's not a good sign. It's also, well, kind of ugly. Seriously -- we wouldn't hold up USA Today's web site as a paragon of design or beauty, but it blows the front page of the iPad app out of the water. Just look at all those broken paragraphs! Happily, things improve mightily once you click into an article, and the gestures used to navigate make sense -- down to read more, left / right to move between pieces. We're not seeing any video content, and you can't zoom in on article images, although there is a "Day in Pictures" slideshow. All in all, it's a totally passable free app, but we can't say it offers nearly enough on top of the website to justify whatever subscription fee will go into effect this summer. [
See in iTunes]
Thomson Reuters News Pro (free) - Our favorite news app so far. The Reuters app doesn't chase its tail trying to reinvent dead mediums -- it just fills the screen with high-quality content. Even better, it does it for free. Content is organized well and the UI is dead simple, although it could stand a little tweaking with gestures: swipes to move between articles instead of tiny little buttons would be nice in all views, instead of just the slide show view. Video plays well and can be made full screen, the stocks viewer offers a nicely multitouch price graph and customizable news results, and there's a constantly updated currency converter, for some reason. Is it better than the website, which offers the same content and is updated slightly faster? Not really, but we'd say the iPad-specific interface tweaks and speedier load times make it worth a download -- especially since it's free. [
See in iTunes]
BBC News (free) - Our third-favorite news app, only because there's no full-screen article view -- you're stuck reading in this two-pane view -- and you can't zoom in on photos. That said, it is a free app, there's plenty of video, and it streams BBC Radio live. As with all of these apps, there's some UI quirkiness here, but it's nothing terrible: you open articles from the news feed by locating and tapping an absolutely minuscule icon on the right, text zooming is done with two icons rather than a slider or pinching, and it's never quite clear when the radio will or won't play. Again, it's not so much better than the BBC website that it'd be worth paying for, but it's free, fast, and well-done, so it's hard to complain.
[
See in iTunes]
Le Monde ($.99 app, today's paper free, archive requires purchase) - It's not just the English rags that are trying to save themselves from obsolescence -- premier French paper Le Monde also has an iPad app out. We're not too up on our French, but we will say the app is much more pleasant than the paper's website -- the main interface is an extremely faithful rendition of the physical paper, and you can easily pop into several different iPad-specific layouts that are slightly easier to read. There's no full-screen photo viewer, nor are there any videos, but actually just getting around the paper is simple, intuitive, and attractive. Unfortunately, you have to download each day's content in full before you can browse it, a process which requires time and storage space -- and older editions cost either €.79 each or come along with the €15/mo subscription. It's not a bad riff on "freemium" if you read the paper every day, though -- especially since the app is so much better than the website. Take note, Rupert -- the WSJ just got totally shown up by the French
. [
See in iTunes]
Time ($4.99 per issue) - Oh, Time. This is another premier launch app, and it's equally baffling as to why -- especially since all this content -- and more! -- is available for free on the web, and a 56-issue paper subscription runs around $20. That means the presentation alone has to justify the insane $4.99 per issue, and while we won't deny the presentation is gorgeous, it's simply not functional or polished enough to make the case. You can't zoom in on photos, for example. When it downloads an issue the app is named "April 12, 2010" (or whatever) on the homescreen instead of "Time" -- and each issue requires a separate icon. Launching the app in portrait mode results in layout weirdness until you rotate it to landscape and back again to trigger the correct portrait layout. It's easy to accidentally swipe horizontally to the next article instead vertically for the next page -- and when you swipe back you've lost your place. There's no search. The portrait and landscape modes have different layouts, so there are
super embarrassing typos in some views that don't share the same typesetting. All in all, it feels like the developers and designers at Time have managed to build themselves a very nice demo of what a Time app could be
like -- it's going to take some serious polish and rethinking of pricing to make it into what a Time app should actually
be. [
See in iTunes]
Popular Science (free app, $4.99 per issue) - If Time is a very nice tech demo of a magazine app, than Popular Science is a drug-addled science fiction nightmare. As with Time, most of PopSci's content is available for free on the web, so the cost of each iPad issue has to be justified by presentation -- a challenge this app simply fails to meet. As with the WSJ app, the primary problem here is a totally unique set of navigation gestures that are unintuitive and oftentimes lead to strange results. Yes, primary navigation is done with swipes -- vertical for the next page, horizontal for the next article -- but after that it's some really weird stuff, like a two-finger "push" that only works in the lower middle of the display to bring up the contents and issue browser. Tapping on the left side of the display makes all the text invisible so you can see the images more clearly, but it doesn't actually make the images bigger -- and if there's no image on the page it just results in a blank white screen. The table of contents page in the magazine isn't clickable, so you can't navigate with it -- and if you try to tap on it, there's a good chance you'll hit the left side of the display and it'll disappear entirely. There's no pinch-to-zoom on the photos, and no search of the text. If you're wondering why anyone would pay $5 per issue for this experience when a full year's paper subscription costs $14 and all the content is easily accessible for free in Safari, well -- so are we. [
See in iTunes]
Zinio's an old standby in the digital magazine game, and it feels like the iPad is exactly the device the service has been waiting for. Zinio provides faithful digital versions of print magazines, with an added overlay of interactivity -- it's basically a PDF you can click. That means single page layouts look amazing on the iPad's screen, and two-pages layouts look even better turned horizontally, since there's no page fold. There are tons of titles, from Spin to OK! to Cycling, and pricing is basically the same as single issues off the newsstand or year-long subscriptions -- and subscriptions to arrive in the background. Sounds perfect, right? It would be, except actually browsing a magazine is frustratingly slow -- every page turn requires loading time, opening magazine issues requires more, and switching from portrait to landscape is a harrowing experience of flickering imagery and mutilated layouts. Don't get us wrong -- there's a lot of promise here, and it's worth downloading the free app and checking out some of the free content -- but without a significant performance boost the Zinio app simply can't compete with the dedicated magazine apps. [
See in iTunes]
NPR (free) - Considering how well done the NPR web site and iPhone app are, it's no surprise that the iPad app is also a pleasure to use, and here we are with smiles on our faces. Obviously the big feature here is streaming audio in addition to the articles, and it works like a charm, with easy-to-use playlist features and controls. Unfortunately, hitting play on an audio stream for the first time brings up a large advertising overlay, which slides over whatever you're looking at -- but if that's what it takes for free content, well, we can't complain too much. There's also some rudimentary Twitter and Facebook integration in addition to the share-by-email function, which is pretty fun. We just wish we could keep the app running in the background to keep listening while we do other things -- let's hope
iPhone OS 4.0 helps a very good NPR app experience become a great NPR app experience. [
See in iTunes]
posted April 5th 2010 4:30PM
You would have to be a total sucker to pay for a newspaper or magazine subscription.
None of the news any of these folks present is so hard to get that you NEED them in order to have it.
@LAY
or just open safari and browse to their site online...
@LAY I seriously don't get why they think a costly subscription using a dedicated app is going to work on a device with a good web browser. Most all the content they're offering is available for free, or, for some of them, cheaper for their own content on their website.
@LAY
"You would have to be a total sucker to pay for a newspaper or magazine subscription."
Well, this is the iPad...
@LAY
And, um..... $4.99 PER ISSUE?!?!!?
"It costs us almost nothing, compared to us having to print it and mail it to your door, but we're going to charge you 3 times as much for it!"
@LAY I think you're missing the point. The ultimate goal is to have all of the free content go away. Rupert Murdoch will be the first to make it happen but the rest of the media world fill follow suit. I guarantee the web will be littered with pay walls by September.
@Samurai Jack
I'm afraid your right.
Every time you go to a website in 2011, you will be prompted to download their reader app no mater what platform you're using.
@Samurai Jack
It's not as though it costs nothing to produce the news and these magazines. However, they can either be paid for by advertisements or by unique content (and no ads) via a subscription. Some people may be willing to pay for the video and other rich media, others not. The publishing industry is undergoing a radical change right now. The iPad (and its ilk) will either accelerate their demise or (the publishers hope) will usher in a new means of monetarizing this form of media. While many people have no interest in such publications, many more do (likewise for comic books, etc).
@warningabc Because the big news sites are flash based…. zing!
@LAY
I brought up Engadget in the iPad web browser, double-tapped on a summary paragraph, and it zoomed in so as to crop the ads off the right-hand side.
PERFECT! :)
@LAY
Yah, like the iphone most of the apps exist due to its lack of flash.
Also really? does it cost so much for news? most news i see is copy and pasted unless its something specific.
@LAY This is totally a plot by Steve Jobs feeding on the desperation of print media to stay relevant
@warningabc -- "or just open safari and browse to their site online..."
I'm holding an issue of Popular Photography in one hand... and I've got PopPhoto.com loaded in another tab.
While most the featured articles are on the website... there is so much other stuff that is missing... little one-paragraph reviews of upcoming products, informative sidebars of information, etc. It's just not the same.
Oh... and ads! I want the full-page ads in a photography magazine! Call me crazy... but ads in a trade magazine are actually informative.
That said... I don't think digital versions of magazines should cost the same as the paper version... especially since I can get 2 years of Popular Photography magazine delivered to my home for $1 an issue.
I want magazines on an iPad... I just think it's gonna be a while until they figure it all out.
@Samurai Jack Fortunately the BBC is paid for by the TV licence so that will always be free. Although the reporting is the more serious stuff not so much celebrity gossip and so on.
@warningabc:
Or, just open Safari on an iMac/MacBook or Firefox on a PC to access the newspaper/mag sites.
@petebob796
Indeed. That's the great thing about the Beeb - they instantly make any UK pay for view news service totally pointless.
@dan828
Simple... because all these media companies bought into Apple's "iPad will save your industry" line. Suckers!!
@Michael Scrip
You said: "While most the featured articles are on the website... there is so much other stuff that is missing." In that case, you might subscribe to just the paper edition for $1/copy. Why would you spend on an iPad and then on the app for that?
Bottom line: iPad is a solution looking for a problem.
@Sanjeev -- "In that case, you might subscribe to just the paper edition for $1/copy. Why would you spend on an iPad and then on the app for that?"
I should subscribe to the paper version. But I don't want all of that paper laying around. That's why I haven't.
I DO want digital versions of magazines... the full issue, ads and all. But not for $5 an issue.
Here's where I'm at right now with Popular Photography magazine:
$5 per issue newsstand price
$1 per issue subscription price
Free website... but missing stuff
No iPad version
If I could get the iPad version of that magazine for $1 they would have a subscriber for life. I WANT the digital magazine... just not for the price they are charging now for digital magazines.
@MarkAnderson
Hasn't stopped Murdoch with Sky News...
@Canucker I placed no value on the observation--whether it's good or bad is a matter of personal preference. It does cost money to provide the information. The providers can pay for it however they see fit. Just as I can choose to consume it or not. But I think the trend is clear, and the days of just advertising supported "free" content are numbered...
@Samurai Jack NPR FTW, but in room for improvement, I think they should allow their contributors to log in and skip the ads (I'm assuming they play).
Also, NPR is totally a listener program, though obviously they will put up the transcripts and run print news stories. Another compelling background app, this OS needs some form of multitasking!
@Samurai Jack - and they'll mostly be gone by following September. There is no risk in these guys trying to get you to pay, so you are right - they will all try it. But their problem will be that nobody is going to bite. Then they'll have to figure out something else or I guess they'll be gone.
@LAY The 2 paid apps, that I won't ever download is the NYT and WSJ apps... I mean, there are other ways to get news via the internet, right? Why spend 20 USD, to get it...
As for the ipad apps, I think it would be wise, to check your budget, before buying one. Some of it are really cool, but has a price ranging from 15-20 bucks. Wheu. Opinions for ipad Apps: http://bit.ly/best-apps-for-the-ipad-opinions
Check out "Digital Americana Magazine" on the iPad (all original content not found anywhere else) Only $1 per issue.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/digital-americana-a-literary/id364870011?mt=8
I want The New Yorker, and EGM. I know that EGM is coming and I can't wait.
@rchapoteau
EGM? Is that a dead magazine? How bout GI for goodness sake.
@cdf74dc9 Its making a comback. Check out EGMnow.com. They announced yesterday that there will be an Ipad version of the mag.
@rchapoteau
The iPad - taking something you do on the internet for free and charging you to do it in a slower more annoying way... Magic!
@nuck I agree, paying for things I can get for free would be stupid. Thats why I want The New Yorker which as far as I know you can't get for free (they have a paid website subscription), and EGM which currently doesn't exist, but will be back soon.
I also don't have to store these things anywhere physically which is my big problem with magazines. I want to go back to them sometimes for articles, but I don't want to store them. This is definitely a positive for me.
@rchapoteau
The digital edition of the New Yorker is available today for $40/yr: http://archives.newyorker.com/skins/realview/tny/subscribe.asp.
Why would you NEED an iPad for accessing that?
Why is it $4.99 per issue still? All that printing cost saved should help make these magazines cheaper. Are they without advertisements?
@ThreadAbort
I doubt they are without ads but I don't know for sure.
Why? Greed maybe?
@DoctarPeppar There are ads all over the place -- the NYT app even has interstitials.
@ThreadAbort
It is 4.99 per issue for now but I know that Pop sci is going to implement a subscription plan soon so I expect it be cheaper or the same as the print version.
@ThreadAbort
My guess is that they are trying to bid high and then come down over time. The market is untested and so what the market will bear is unclear. If they charged $1 per issue and then found that they had to raise the price then they might think that would create worse PR than starting high and then lowering the price. That way they have room to have further promotions of iPad edition, talking up that it is "New and Improved" AND the price is lower.
@harpy
It just seems strange when you can get the actual print magazine for $10/year! I guess they figure iPad users just like to spend money.
@ThreadAbort
the reason the issues are still $4.99, the same as it would cost if it were print, is because people expect that price. most people don't think about the cost of the magazine/newspaper when they're buying it, they're thinking about the content and information that they're getting out of it. By keeping it the same price, media outlets increase their profit margins, which helps with their current ailing position.
The disadvantage to digital content is that if for some reason you wanted to keep a magazine or newspaper for a specific article or cut it out and put it on your fridge (like i used to do with political cartoons sometimes, or poignant articles), you can't really do that. But to the average consumer who tosses their paper/magazine after they've read it, $5 is $5 whether they physically hold a piece of paper in their hands or read it off an ipad or other tablet or device. now instead of cutting out articles, if i find something interesting, i print it out off my computer and then put it on the fridge. apple should work on revolutionizing magnets for my fridge needs.
i'm actually rooting for digital papers/magazines to take off, or at least some form of paid content for journalists (not necessarily directly from the consumer). I want to get my future factual, researched news from those who know how to write and do it for a living, not amateur bloggers. The newspaper and magazines are a dying breed mainly because more and more people are getting their information from the internet, but the need for quality information is so much higher than before. The amount of information we consume is higher than before. newspaper outlets weren't greedy enough when the internet started to take off and thought they could offer their services for free, which is great for the consumer, bad for them. hopefully they find a way to keep net info free, while passing on the costs to other companies in some form.
@ThreadAbort
Yes and No to your comment. Yes, you CAN get a print subscription for pennies on the dollar, but DO you? I know of countless people who buy their car mags, Men's Health, etc every month at the 7-11. And sometimes they pick up another related rag just because it has something on the cover that piques their interest. I fail to realize WHY people don't get subscriptions, but I can tell you, many just buy every month.
Secondly, YES, they DO think the people at the Apple App store WILL just open their wallets. No doubt about that fact.
@Dank Dillweed -- "Yes, you CAN get a print subscription for pennies on the dollar, but DO you?"
I don't subscribe to magazines... but I should. Every month I grab a handful of magazines from the bookstore... at $5 in issue.
Or, I could get 24 issues of Popular Photography magazine delivered to my home for $24. Crazy huh.
I'd subscribe to a few paper magazines... I just don't want all that paper laying around.
So, I thought the iPad would solve my problems... but not at $5 an issue.
I'd subscribe to at least 6 magazines right now if they made iPad versions and I could get each issue for $1.
Do you hear me, publishers?
@Michael Scrip
"Or, I could get 24 issues of Popular Photography magazine delivered to my home for $24. Crazy huh."
You know you can use your frequent flier miles to purchase magazine/newspaper subscriptions or fill out online surveys to get corporate-sponsored ones. I haven't paid for subscriptions in at least 8-9 years.
@sharms -- "You know you can use your frequent flier miles to purchase magazine/newspaper subscriptions or fill out online surveys to get corporate-sponsored ones."
It's not the money.... I've got that :)
I just don't want a shelf full of paper magazines... non-searchable, analog magazines at that.
@Michael Scrip Not to point out the obvious but you probably have this thing called a 'recycling box'. When you've read a paper magazine, you put it in the box and when the box is full, you put it outside and somebody collects it. MOUNDS OF PAPER PROBLEM SOLVED! Amazing what new technology can bring.
(And with luck, the magazine has a full archive on its website for if you ever want to search it.)
I only subscribe to one magazine but get a few others with membership to various charities etc and I like 'em - they're easy to read anywhere, specifically while I'm eating. I don't have a portable computing device let alone an iPad but even if I did, I think I might be a bit hesitant to use it during meals (especially breakfast, I just got up, I'm not at my best, I might spill orange juice all over everything).
Of course, if I did ever switch to a tablet-based subscription I'd want it for the same price as my paper subscription, thanks.
@(Unverified)
It's not a recycling problem... it's an analog storage problem.
I love the content in magazines. I just don't want a collection of pages this month... then another collection of pages next month... etc.
I would like digital magazines to be sent to my iPad every month... and for the iPad to never get any larger or heavier. Imagine a year's worth of magazines in one iPad. That's what I want.
The old media needs to adopt the cable model: a global subscription fee that gives you access to all the content, supplemented by ads.
@Peter Church
except you're forgetting the historical context of cable (subscription) tv. it originated as commercial/advertisement free programming in fact because we were paying for it. over time it's all spiraled into the ad hungry mess that it is today with a few premium services (notably HBO) which again offers commercial free programming but with an added cost.
@Peter Church Yeah, that's just what I want! /S. I guess you're a happy TV subscriber? In the minority. Too much money, for too many channels you don't need. Yes, I'm sure you are thinking there might be a supplemental all you can eat, to the a la carte, but the distributors and their clients will go where the money is (in this case, where Apple tells just about all of them to go, as they are in control of this ecosystem).
"Apple's done a pretty good job convincing the old media that the iPad will save their industry"
Of course, so they can stick with the same obsolete content delivery model where they tell you what you should be watching \ reading \ listening to instead of you finding what you want yourself and watching it on your own terms and on any device that you want (hence why there's no flash support).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125561844
Good story -- their "Gated Community" kind of reminds me of how AOL was back in the day with their "Walled Garden" web content.
It was a bad idea then, and it's still a bad idea now.
@DoctarPeppar what the idiots in the old media still do not realize is that people quit reading them because of their biased content passed off as fair. Unless they change that, they will fail and no ipad is going to save them. NEW MEDIA FOR THE WIN!!!
What? They want to kill pdf too?