Entelligence: Wired or tired?
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted June 13th 2010 5:30PM
posted June 13th 2010 5:30PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
Wired's efforts, like the CD-ROM efforts of the past, by has some cool features. A video clip of Toy Story 3 graces the cover and there are various interactive features, but more than anything else, it feels like a scanned in copy of the paper mag. Although navigation is better than most iPad magazines, it's still never clear when a screen should be scrolled down or just swiped horizontally.
The real problems are twofold. First, even though the content is digital, the reader loses most of digital content's benefits. I can go to the Wired website, link to articles there on my blog, share them via email or Twitter and use the power of the web to share and opine. The iPad edition offers none of that flexibility -- and it doesn't offer any of the flexibility of paper either. I can annotate my paper version of Wired, clip out articles, or even pass the entire magazine on to you and you can in turn pass it on to others. I can't do any of those things with the iPad edition.
It's ironic that Editor-in-chief Chris Anderson famously wrote a book called "Free" -- the Wired iPad app is the perfect case to try out some of those business models. |
Even worse, the price point is hard to swallow. Charging the full cover price for a digital magazine makes no sense when I can subscribe to the paper edition of Wired for a year at a much lower cost per issue -- especially given that there's no paper, ink, shipping or distribution charges. Given the lack of flexibility, I'd assume there would at least be some incentive to get me to make the digital purchase, and even more so in light of the fact that the bulk of the content is already available online at Wired's website for free. It's ironic that Editor-in-chief Chris Anderson famously wrote a book called "Free" -- the Wired iPad app is the perfect case to try out some of those business models.
Tablet devices and content consumption are two things that should just go naturally hand in hand. The iPad and similar devices offer a unique opportunity for content providers to offer differentiated content and new business models to monetize, but recreating CD-ROM media of the 90s on a tablet does not publishing revolution make. Show me the power of digital content with the flexibility of paper and the web. Give me reasonable costs and a simple subscription model and I'll gladly buy. Right now, this Wired experiment is looking tired -- it's time for someone else to step up to the plate and give it a try.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
@marook really do you need to know where to scroll and when not to? Its not that hard folks. I think you miss the point of the app and the device to a certain degree. The point when they made the app the way they did was to force you to explore it, it comes with this whole touch screen digital magazine territory. The app is /italics/ Interactive /italics/
Its no different than when website designers push the boundaries and make brand new websites with sometimes funky navigation.
Again its a non issue. The price however is bullshit.
as far as sharing it. Whats to stop you from going to the public library and borrowing movies, ripping, digitalizing them and not deleting?
@N900 There's a difference between right and legal, I'm not trying to defeat your point on semantics. I'm just saying that what's "right" is when companies deal with their customers as their partners and give them limited sharing rights, perhaps that's what your saying with legal MP3 (a term I'm unfamiliar with, not sure how common that term is).
What's wrong, is not jailbreaking/sharing then, it might be illegal but that doesn't make it wrong. Wrong would be sharing with the intent to make a profit or to perhaps circumvent another client who would otherwise pay for the content. Surely, it isn't wrong to give someone a taste or sample of something that in every other format existing you can get a taste or sample of first. Online - free. Print - open it in the store (it's "wrong" to read the whole thing there.) Digital - whadda joke, another place where consumers are getting more "screwed" in the digital age.
I'm sure there will be more than one person who thinks, and perhaps responds, that it's the content owners property and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. Yes, and I do agree that you are correct, however, I'm not talking about rights here, I'm talking about what is "right". If you discover the fix for world hunger, you own it and you can do whatever you want with it, but that doesn't make it "right" to keep it to yourself. It wouldn't make it right to sell it to 5 governments, then have the countries that want it but were waiting to hear the reviews from the richer countries. Then it turned out that the reviews were disappointing, still you go on tell them "Well, you see, you have to buy it, we can't just give you a sample...Yes, we understand that in the old system, that country could give you their leftover food, however, this food is more special than that..." When in reality it's not really special, the only thing that is special is the new way they've found to give the consumers more rope to hang themselves with.
I know, TLTR.
@juanvaldez
I read that 3 times over. Closed my eyes and read it once more. I honestly don't understand the point you're making or what you're trying to say. Can we have a punchline? So... it's okay to share? I'm confused. :(
@Lord Dark Helmet
1) I've never read a magazine where you had to scroll to read one page. Scrolling down is a fail and yet web designers still can't figure this out.
2) Wired in the 90's was wired but even by the late 90's it was tired, lost the edge and become an advert riddled non source of information.
3) funny that the cost/value complaints have only really started with e-mags, audio and video are already destroyed with less quality for more cost. Did no one notice we are paying more for less?
I used to be a paper subscriber, stopped. I used to read the wired website, stopped years ago. Nothing there.
@Almo
Basically, if they're gonna screw us over with DRM and overly high pricing then we should screw them over by sharing our files.
That's what I read anyway.
@Lord Dark Helmet
Inconsistent navigation is an issue. It might not be for only a few pages but when you're going through a 50 pager or 100 pager magazine (or the equivilent of it as navigation), it can get confusing and after a certain point, near unusable. Consistent navigation is a must and while there are plenty of convoluted websites out there, they are badly designed.
Design is equal parts usability and aethetics. We fail when we favor one over the other.
@Lord Dark Helmet
How about scanning a barcode on your already-owned Wired magazine to scoop it up into your iPad? That would be a fun, interesting way to (copy android) get your magazine in your iPad, no extra cash necessary!
@Almo Illegal doesn't make something "wrong", legal doesn't make something "right"
"...and you know what DRM is? getting fucked" Tony Montana
At the moment content providers are still in their infancy stage when it comes to pay media on tablets. Obviously as time goes on more media interaction will happen ie instead of a few photos of a widget the media distributor has an app that allows 3D virtual user interactive representation of said widget. Competition will force many media providers to forget the static none-interactive paper/picture model, some will stick to it and die a slow death or quickly adapt to the new medium. I can say today media channels will be producing lack luster options for consumers but they better learn quickly to adapt or they will die. My personal spin is that advertisers will want interactive media advertising not just static images and this will force the old paper media companies to adapt or go broke.
Neither wired or tired - just commercially hired, following the money!
When it is concerning money, people's true greediness will bypass all the principles they hang on the lips everyday.
What they need to do is put Wired contend behind a paywall.
@Son Goku Well that would certainly help boost their competitors' numbers!
This was honestly one of the things that made me consider getting an iPad. I love this magazine and the iPad version they showed off looked really slick. Hearing the price and that it doesn't really change anything makes me happy I ended up not getting an iPad. It's a shame Wired, I would really like to subscribe to you on an iPad.
I have to say... i was skeptical about the iPad but I bought one recently and I LOVE IT. haters really need to get one first before hating
@pitnefor
You paying for it? Because I'm sure as hell not.
@pitnefor
There are only 2 places I know of where you must spend money before you're entitled to an opinion: Congress, and the iTunes App Store.
It's things like the Wired app, that I decided to keep the Letter to Jane magazine ipad app clean and simple so that people didn't confused, while I'm here working on finding a better way to present a native iPad magazine instead of torturing people with confusing navigation.
Its pointless but they know apple hipsters have money to waste so why not?
Its just as easy to go to the website
@Hydra I have a lot of apple gear, but when I bought the iPad, I had to sell really rare records to get it. Am I an Apple Hipster? I also have the Wired app.
WP7 solved the problem of not knowing where to advance in the user interface
Wired had a great tablet app built with Adobe AIR, but then Apple banned Adobe products.
@Maj Somebody queue Alanis Morissette....
@Ducman69 For more things that aren't ironic?
'Wired's efforts, like the CD-ROM efforts of the past, by has some cool features"
I feel better knowing that I'm not the only one that doesn't read these articles, but come on.
It is growing pains of the digital age. Apparently publishers can't get past the columns approach to publishing. They seem to avoid anything which can potentially reflow their publication, which makes sense since they are paying people thousands of dollars to make that layout just as it is. However, digital medium needs changing.. you want to avoid horizontal scrolling at every expense. You want to give people more then you can afford in print, more photos (gallery), embedded links to the source of the article if there are any. Tablets do offer a great medium for consuming print. However you can't cut corners if you expect people to pay.. and you have to consider that after they paid the first time, you want to keep them coming back.
@sys3175
Print people don't seem to understand the difference between print and digital content.
But keep in mind, we are still in the early stages. The iPad is essentially the first color tablet which can be used for reading magazines, and it has only been out a few months. Come back in 5 years and things will be completely different.
You want the answer Mr. Gartenberg? Despite what Wired and other media producers want you to think, these companies cannot gain control of new media because they have too much at stake in conventional media not failing. Basically, the tools are slowly coming that will allow the death of traditional media production. HTML5/improved browsers will likely end magazines, starting with the ones aimed at younger readers. After that, sites like vimeo and youtube will cannibalize cable, not by stealing content but enabling talented people to get product out that, Google just needs to make youtube hits translate to profits (essentially, advertisers by keywords/showtimes during known shows on youtube, money goes back to content producers). This will all happen, and traditional media won't know what hit them, because suddenly a sitcom only takes 20k-100k and some students to be produced.
@nickyP Eh, I think that future is to far out to predict. As much as I love PhillyD, CommunityChannel, and ShayCarl there is no way they are ever going to replace Lost and the Office. Media might start making a turn towards that stuff, but there are always going to be people willing to throw lots of money at sure hits (most of the time sure hits).
@nickyP
And computers will replace books! Oh, wait...
all magazines should be on the iPad, for free thanks. Completely supported by ads.
@Groggle
Wow ,did you know that you contradicted yourself like waaay big.
How the hell do you say that article should be on the ipad for free and then say they should be supported by ads? Huh?
These last few Gartenberg articles have actually made sense. Thank goodness xD
I loved the old Wired but now, the new wired it is not only flooded with ads but even the articles are mediocre at best.
And the worst, the quality is still degrading, adding more space for ads and decreasing the quality of the articles.
Frankly, currently i don't get a clue what is the wired thematic. Over 50% of the pages are full page ads, the rest partial ads, plus content, and inside the content you also can find ads-in-disguise, astroturfing content and such.
Wired died years ago.
Honestly, the engadget app acts as my magazine of choice at the moment. The features offered make it very mag like. Video and pictures need to work better on mobile devices though.
@abdonjr
What endgadget app?
@DrDr look it up man. Better than sliced bread.
It's the price, stupid.
Thanks for your opinion. How bout you add something new to the discussion. What would you like to see?
Lower the price to $1.99 an issue or $12-$14 for a year and I'll buy it. Considering the costs of printing and distribution are ZERO, its insane to charge so much. I bought the first issue just to see it. I suspect most did the same. It will tank in sales over the next couple months as people refuse to pay so much for it. Hopefully they figure it out.
"Even worse, the price point is hard to swallow. Charging the full cover price for a digital magazine makes no sense when I can subscribe to the paper edition of Wired for a year at a much lower cost per issue -- especially given that there's no paper, ink, shipping or distribution charges. "
Dumb enough to buy an ipad, dumb enough to pay for subs like this.
- What some number cruncher at wired thought.
Yes I actually was able to read the article earlier before they remembered the bagel crap, not a good article mind you
this is a bullshit article and you fools are feeding into it. Some of you seem to lack common sense and some just rant on about nothing just to hear yourself talk. STFU!!!!!
@pspitts
Nobody liked you as cherryboom and nobody likes you now. GTFO
I think the Wired iPad app is a shoddy piece of work, especially with the opportunities that a digital magazine should be able to offer. Simply transposing print publications into verbatim copies in a digital world leaves much to be desired. I found this recent Information Architects article that highlights many of the flaws that I seem to have found when using the magazine, and shows how sloppy a job Wired did with releasing its app without optimising it for a tablet medium.
http://j.mp/bK5HiZ
Heck, Engadget itself is a far closer idea of what a 'digital magazine' should look like than what Wired currently has out there - after all, it's interactive, the editors can read article feedback almost instantaneously and make necessary corrections if they make mistakes (which, as we all know, is often), it can be consumed whether I'm at my computer or on my phone if I'm on the move, and I'm guessing that an iPad version of their app can't be too far away. Plus, branching out with things like live podcasts and The Engadget Show make it a somewhat reciprocal experience.
Perhaps I'm starting to sound like an Engadget fanboy, but I'm just appalled at the shoddy job that Wired did with their first attempt at a digital magazine, and think that they could learn a few lessons from gadget blogs and online-only news sources.
wired wants to be somehow important in a culture where hipsters are not finding a confortable place to be. good luck with that.
Tablets. Tablets everywhere!
You all seen the new Time magazine iPad edition concept? Really nice looking and I feel goes further than mere CD-Rom interactivity.
However, I wrote a long reply on Giz about it and there are certain hurdles that simply cannot be overcome by such a model and this applies to whatever future model Wired tries as well.
After a certain point, to make it viable, your whole business HAS to be digital (with devices as your focus and not as support) and you can no longer be a mere "magazine" or "online mag". You either completely ramp up to be a digital media publisher or don't. But that comes will all manners of complications such as how do you transition your advertisers over (especially when so many still see brick n mortar mags as their target market)? Obviously it'll be easier for a magazine like Wired to transition advertisers over as their targets exist over the web as well, but others won't be so easy.
It requires starting from scratch and as such I think the successful digital magazines for portable devices will be new players; the ones who can start from the beginning. The existing players may not be able or willing to do such a transition.
The things we see from Time magazine, I've costed it out (as a designer) and the production schedule and resources required for something of that magnitude and ambition is simply not sustainable. My comparison being that it'd be far easier (and cost effective) to completely rebuild a new full-featured website per issue of a magazine than it is to maintain the device versions (if they are to be more than just CD-rom content).
Now, they might actually try it at a loss to themselves but it's just money down the drain for no real reason. It's a case of ambition exceeding the practical.
There is ONE solution that could work.... outsource all digital production to India, Philippines and/or China; although our Pinoy and Chinese brothers are getting more expensive by the quarter.
There is nothing wrong with a magazine filled with ads charging $5 an issue. If you're on a flight you'll fork that much over without a second thought for an issue of a magazine. The difference is, you have a tangible, transferable, material product in exchange for your efforts. Digital media is virtual, non-physical, non-tangible, and that fundamentally alters the value of the product - something that Steve Jobs realizes when he says, "we encourage content providers to price for quantity sales and lower margins". I think the ideal model for Wired would be to set to pricing models - single issue, impulse "newstand model" pricing and long term subscription models that offer tremendous discounts. If I could have bought a year subscription to digital Wired for $10 - I would have - but I won't pay $5 for a single issue. Selling me on "value-added digital content" isn't going to work, either - because it is still *virtual* content - not material, not tangible. So it remains to be seen if the cost of making digital magazines is justified.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that Wired still have a paper-based design team overseeing an interactive medium. You just aren't thinking in interactive terms if you're using InDesign. That's not being elitist or a design snob, its me talking as someone fluent in print and interactive design (emphasis on the latter). There aren't a lot of print designers I've come across who can think in terms of user interface. Reproducing a magazine and making some ads spin around and pictures turn into movies does not mean you've produced a well-thought-out user experience. Add to that the pricing structures many commenters have mentioned and you still have an old-guard mindset on a new-guard device. Not gonna work in the long run.