... geeks "like us" who only care about iOS and are willing to pay for content. Just to be accurate.
Not that there's anything wrong with paying for content. Every time you're confronted by an ad that you didn't volunteer to look at, you're paying for content.
But iOS-only seems like quite a limitation, and seems to contradict "for geeks like us" as the headline appears in HN.
I don't have a problem paying for content, but I do have a problem with IOS-only. Even though I own an iPad, I like to have access to my reading material in multiple places. I spend a bunch more time looking at my Kindle, for example, and prefer the reading experience there to the iPad.
A decade ago, something like this published in the closed formats of the time (MS Word, maybe) would have met with a huge backlash. Today, it seems like Apple have convinced the market that 'closed' is OK, because it's well-designed and a little bit shiny. I think it's a real step backward, especially given the great open standards that are available (like HTML5) and other tools which give similar control with more accessibility (like PDF).
It's certainly iOS-first, but I don't see any indication that it's iOS-only. Given the iPad's position in the tablet market, it will be a while before magazine style publications (which are natural for the form-factor) give equal priority to Android.
It doesn't surprise me that it takes an AAA iOS developer to finally make a good iOS magazine. It always struck me that Newsstand was a wasted potential: full of good publications trying to squeeze their paper format into an app instead of releasing the same content in a better format.
Does anybody know of "good" Newsstand apps? This might be the first.
I personally think Apple should release a more aggressive Newsstand API and a best practices guide: e.g. by all means customise your design and experience but that doesn't mean you should release an app crammed full of pngs that weighs half a gig. Newsstand apps should be low bandwidth and text-centric. Why can't I search all my magazines from a central location? Why can't I see a central list of articles I've favourited from a variety of publications? As it stands, the only way to do this is with an RSS reader or Instapaper. I'd be happy to pay for quality journalism if it was in a format that's convenient and sensible.
Not all of us magazine makers are coders. For a lot of us, its all about the words, not the format. My little iPad-only travel magazine isn't even in Newsstand because I have no idea how to code it, but our articles have won awards. The technology is not as important as the content. I wish I could do all those things you mentioned, but the fact is I have no idea how. A big magazine might be able to do them, but it requires a total revamp of business practices and a restructuring of workflow. And that's hard when a magazine is staffed by people who will lose their jobs when digital magazines take off.
The New Yorker is pretty good now. It's available in Retina from a certain issue a few months back, too. What bothers me is that I don't have any way to make annotations, but that's what happens when you don't see a more universal framework for Newsstand magazines.
Interesting. First of all it's very nicely designed and after reading the introduction I like the philosophy behind it. Taking the Instapaper approach of focussing on text is interesting. While images and graphics can often enhance content having nice, plain text on a device the size of the iPhone makes much more sense. So first impressions of it are good. Hopefully the content is just as good.
Update:
After reading a couple of the articles it seems pretty high quality and justifies the price. It's also only the second good Newsstand app I've used (The New York Times is the other). I've tried several others and they are just 100's of space consuming images, difficult to read especially on the iPhone.
Agree. It's refreshing to see something simple and focused on the content: no images, no videos, no fancy infographics, and none of the 'bloatware' that permeates the magazine industry.
Each issue of Wired is now 500+ MB (due to the Retina displays). If you're on 3G or at a public WiFi, it probably takes more time to download than to read the 2-3 articles you're interested.
In hindsight, you wouldn't expect anything different from Marco. Really hope he succeeds.
I'd love to see this as a webapp. I'm one of those folks that just doesn't use apps or even sign in to my apple account. I'm sure more of my kind exist.
EDIT: Whoops I see this has paid in-app purchases. I wonder if there's something out there that can offer as seamless an experience as iTunes in-app purchases for webapps.
Yeah, it's pretty depressing when the only reason a magazine is iOS only is because it uses Apple payments.
I guess that was Apple's end goal, but it's just a sad state of affairs. And even if they wanted to use some other option... Apple would block it on iOS.
It seems like I am the target audience for this. I listen to his podcast, follow his blog, and read tons of other Apple & tech blogs. And use Instapaper.
But I really have no desire to pay a monthly fee for more articles. So I guess I'm opting out of this one.
I'd really like to give this a shot but am only interested in trying it on my iPad which can't get iOS6, so unfortunately, rather than passing on this, I am being left behind.
It's worth sending that feedback to Marco. He has said in Build and Analyze that the iOS 5 version is written (just disabled currently) and he is curious whether he should release support for it in a version rev or if he can abandon it.
It's worth trying on your iPhone (if you have one). It uses the text-only approach of Instapaper so screen-size doesn't affect usability the way it does in standard magazine apps.
This mostly seems to be a magazine for Apple afficionados. And thats a terrible thing, because there is nothing geeky about that company or even company worship.
[+] [-] lutusp|13 years ago|reply
... geeks "like us" who only care about iOS and are willing to pay for content. Just to be accurate.
Not that there's anything wrong with paying for content. Every time you're confronted by an ad that you didn't volunteer to look at, you're paying for content.
But iOS-only seems like quite a limitation, and seems to contradict "for geeks like us" as the headline appears in HN.
[+] [-] mjb|13 years ago|reply
A decade ago, something like this published in the closed formats of the time (MS Word, maybe) would have met with a huge backlash. Today, it seems like Apple have convinced the market that 'closed' is OK, because it's well-designed and a little bit shiny. I think it's a real step backward, especially given the great open standards that are available (like HTML5) and other tools which give similar control with more accessibility (like PDF).
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Osmium|13 years ago|reply
Does anybody know of "good" Newsstand apps? This might be the first.
I personally think Apple should release a more aggressive Newsstand API and a best practices guide: e.g. by all means customise your design and experience but that doesn't mean you should release an app crammed full of pngs that weighs half a gig. Newsstand apps should be low bandwidth and text-centric. Why can't I search all my magazines from a central location? Why can't I see a central list of articles I've favourited from a variety of publications? As it stands, the only way to do this is with an RSS reader or Instapaper. I'd be happy to pay for quality journalism if it was in a format that's convenient and sensible.
[+] [-] tstegart|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kmfrk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicholassmith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|13 years ago|reply
Update:
After reading a couple of the articles it seems pretty high quality and justifies the price. It's also only the second good Newsstand app I've used (The New York Times is the other). I've tried several others and they are just 100's of space consuming images, difficult to read especially on the iPhone.
[+] [-] guiambros|13 years ago|reply
Each issue of Wired is now 500+ MB (due to the Retina displays). If you're on 3G or at a public WiFi, it probably takes more time to download than to read the 2-3 articles you're interested.
In hindsight, you wouldn't expect anything different from Marco. Really hope he succeeds.
[+] [-] andycroll|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] navs|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: Whoops I see this has paid in-app purchases. I wonder if there's something out there that can offer as seamless an experience as iTunes in-app purchases for webapps.
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
I guess that was Apple's end goal, but it's just a sad state of affairs. And even if they wanted to use some other option... Apple would block it on iOS.
[+] [-] tjohns|13 years ago|reply
Docs: https://developers.google.com/in-app-payments/
Demos: https://developers.google.com/in-app-payments/docs/samples
[+] [-] jasonlbaptiste|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonlbaptiste|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] squarecat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffehobbs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shortformblog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n0nick|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|13 years ago|reply
But I really have no desire to pay a monthly fee for more articles. So I guess I'm opting out of this one.
[+] [-] ZanderEarth32|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owenfi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janfoeh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ynniv|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noirman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirtes|13 years ago|reply
I wonder how much evil it would be to create an RSS feed for it.
[+] [-] ThomasQue|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revelation|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 89a|13 years ago|reply
ugh!