Five Visions of the Magazine App

The Guardian on Friday had a convenient round up of some of the YouTube demos of magazine or newspaper concept apps. There were five demos, here they are (with a few comments):

1. Adobe Wired demo. This is a concept, but it has substance. Adobe and Wired have done some real work to realise the concept. The problem is that it is predicated on Adobe Air technology which certainly will not be a reliable way to deploy apps on the iPad/iPhone. Of this demo John Battelle has the sour observation: "Except the truth is, the app was developed by Adobe and Wired engineers using InDesign and Air, which run on operating systems that are open and allow anyone to play as long as the code compiles correctly (this is true for Windows, Mac, Linux…but not the iPhone or iPad)." John is sour at Apple, not complaining about Adobe or Wired.
2. BERG and Bonnier demo (a bit long, 8 mins) Another design concept working at a high level of abstraction. They have some strong ideas, but there would be a huge overhead needed to shift magazines into this form of distribution. Berg envisage apps which will support two different methods of reading (roughly 'immersive' and 'picture-driven'). The presenter also makes the very interesting claim that "successful digital reading experiences" (blogs, email, Instapaper which suggest that) "scrolling systems are more appropriate for what we are dealing with". So Berg advocate vertical rather than horizontal navigation for the article, but horizontal navigation for moving through the magazine's separate stories. In effect we have a matrix model where the story runs down the screen and the separate parts of the magazine are laid out along the horizontal dimension. I find it truly bizarre that designers are now suggesting that the iPad requires horizontal and vertical navigation. Just when we have a screen large enough that we dont actually need to scroll a single page in both axes!
   
3. iPad Demo. This is the one that matters! But it is too short to be very informative. There is a very brief glimpse of the New York Times demo for an iPad app as showcased at the iPad launch. It will be interesting to see if there is a complete New York Times solution available in early April when the device reaches consumers. It will be very interesting to see what other newspaper or magazine apps are available on the intro system.
4. Sports Illustrated Demo. This one I like, and much of it is realistically do-able. But I have the horrible feeling that the designers and programmers who worked on this project were assuming that they would be able to deliver Flash-based apps. That is not going to happen. They should also forget about their swimsuit edition. That can be second phase (other producers can do that stuff better, and probably raunchier, than sports journalists).
5. De Telegraaf -- the Dutch newspaper. As the Guardian journalist (Mercedes Bunzl) notes this is "the most realistic approach for most publishers in terms of work flow." Because it is really a re-packaging of the web site. Precisely: there is the rub, if you are merely re-packaging your free web site for the iPad, it will not be possible to sell an app. The iPad will be very good for browsing the web.

What conclusions can we draw from these 'demo's'? The first conclusion is that Apple has succeeded in raising enormous expectations for the iPad for magazines and newspapers, and it seems unlikely that any of these 'demo's' except the official Apple ones will be running on the iPad in the early months. Apple has raised extraordinary expectations so there had better be some good examples of what can be achieved. The big magazine and newspaper companies will find it very difficult to leverage their work-flow and their tight creative deadlines to create timely offerings for a revolutionary platform. The second conclusion that I draw is that the designers and technologists who work for these media companies are thinking too much about how the revolution will change their 'product' (Scott Dadich, Creative Director of Wired focuses on the fact that the "technology will enable us to view and consume media in an entirely different way"). Maybe. But another way of looking at this revolution is this: the revolution will enable us to read and consume print media in much the same way, but to use books and magazines in a new way. It is really quite dangerous to tell designers that the iPad gives them a completely fresh opportunity to re-think what the magazine/the book is. The designers who want to take advantage of the revolution should not be trying to redesign the product, they should be thinking about how we can use the product in a completely fresh way. Think not about the book or the magazine in isolation, but about the network in which it will be digitally embedded. That is what will make it different and very useful.

One more point. We have an interest to declare. We think that digital editions can be delivered which do not in the slightest disrupt the publishers complex work-flow. Exact Editions already has several apps running on the iPhone and they will be running on the iPad (even better). They also all offer in-app purchasing for subscriptions. Any publisher who wants to sell magazines or newspapers in the iTunes eco-system has to offer in-app purchasing. It works and it is very easy. Try the Congleton Chronicle, The Spectator, Athletics Weekly or Standpoint if you want to get a sense of how a newspaper or magazine can work as a digital resource, in its exact entirety as an app. Since it is a freemium offering, Standpoint would be a good first choice

Government and Innovation

Why does this Guardian article about the Government putting aside £1 Billion to fund technology startups give me a gloomy feeling?

Somehow one knows that if the government does this, the bureaucracy will kill or at least stifle too many of the innovative companies that go with it. When we started in 2005/6 we wasted too much time (not a great deal thank heavens) talking to and negotiating with VCs and getting a small firms loan guarantee. That was a particularly dispiriting experience because we found out in the end that although our bank pretended to be part of the scheme, it really was not. It turned us down because it had done hardly any such guarantees in the previous two years but remained officially 'part of' the scheme because the government expected the scheme to have the support of the main banks. We managed our start up funding by keeping our commitments very low and at least we do not have to worry about VCs and second or third rounds of lending/funding.

Here is a really good blog by Paul Graham (who is behind the very early stage and light-weight investor Y combinator) on why innovators in information technology now dont need VCs. Here is his argument:

......many Internet startups don't need VC-scale investments anymore. For many startups, VC funding has, in the language of VCs, gone from a must-have to a nice-to-have.

This change happened while no one was looking, and its effects have been largely masked so far. It was during the trough after the Internet Bubble that it became trivially cheap to start a startup, but few realized it because startups were so out of fashion. ......VCs and founders are like two components that used to be bolted together. Around 2000 the bolt was removed. Because the components have so far been subjected to the same forces, they still seem to be joined together, but really one is just resting on the other. A sharp impact would make them fly apart. And the present recession could be that impact.

If the UK Government wants to give a real impetus to IT innovation it should emulate Barak Obama's commitment to 100% broadband availability so that all American kids have access to state-of-the-art broadband. The UK Government could make that happen next year. In schools, colleges, libraries and the streets next year that would make a real difference to thousands of innovators, inventors and startups, a much bigger difference than scores of subsidised VC-style startups, that would only get going in 2010 (if you haven't negotiated with them you have no idea how slow VC's can be, even when they are moving).

iPhones and Projectors

The iPhone is a surprisingly good reading platform. The touch interface works wonderfully, both in sliding digital pages and in shrinking or enlarging them; and the brilliance of the Apple design means that no one needs a user manual. Even with its very small screen area, broadsheet digital editions are easily read. The main snag holding us back from awarding Apple the universal digital reading device accolade is its limited battery life. iPhone users get used to coaxing and feeding the machine but it would be nice not to be aware of this.

Yes the screen is certainly small, but I am now used to peaking at my iPhone and to reading solid text off it; however it would be good to be able to project a sharp image on to the wall. How about this?




According to Engadget the Optoma PK-101 will cost about $500, weighs 120g and it throws a sharp and bright 60" image (can't be too sharp if its 480x320 pixels?). But I can see this becoming a must have add-on to the iPhone. If the Vodafone 3G connection in London were just a little bit faster, a little bit more predictable, I would feel happy about projecting live demos from my iPhone when we visit partners. That would be a wee bit cooler than the usual PowerPoint.

The iPhone Ocarina

A YouTube is worth 1,000 words




The video clip shows you how it works, and its great fun to play with. Costs 79 euro cents. Very easy to get started with little breaths.

Perhaps the cleverest aspect of this invention is the way Smule have made the toy viral. The app also lets you see any other ocarina players out there. There is a navigable 'earth' interface that allows you to zoom in and select named ocarina players. The app politely invites you to switch 'location services' on when you launch it.

Its a beautiful toy, a brilliant design, a very sweet application. It also leads me to wonder how inventors are going to start thinking about the social interactions we have with literary objects, books, magazines and documents when we access them from mobile devices as smooth and seductive as the iPhone.

On Being Positive in August

Vint Cerf, who is one of the internet's founding fathers had a nice positive piece in last Sunday's Observer If you thought the internet was cool, wait until it goes space age

It's amazing how quickly those of us with internet access have come to take for granted the remarkable amounts of information we have at our disposal, but we're only seeing the beginnings. The bulk of human knowledge remains offline. As more of us get access to the internet, more of the world's information will find its way online.

Cerf is right. We havent seen the middle of the beginning, merely the beginning of the beginning. There is a lot of knowledge to be shifted in the next ten years. Virtualised. Objective Knowledge, which has been printed in books is now being dumped in the cloud.

The publishing industry too often has a depressing air of worry about digital technologies. Sometimes Amazon fear. Sometimes Google gloom. Too many possibilities. New technology can, after all, be a bit challenging to an established industry.

But, who can doubt that digital publishing will be a golden age for publishers and authors? Even staid old Television (which relies on mid-2oth Century technology, not on our Renaissance invention of moveable type) can, according to Mark Cuban, be rejuvenated by the application of a new technology. Boring 73", High Definition, flat panel TVs which have led to audience surges for the Olympics.

I dont have a flat panel TV. If I did, since its a digital device, I would want it to bring me the daily newspaper (all of them), magazines and books by the truckload. And why not?

Publishers need to consider the possibility that anything that can be published, will certainly be published digitally, and will, in principle, be available anywhere from many devices. That does not mean that it all will be free (why should it mean that?). But it does mean that it will either be available for free (sponsored by advertising) or because someone wants to buy, give, or rent it. That is a medium term horizon. Cerf should live long enough to see the end of the beginning.

Hearst: First E-Ink and now DigitalPaper?

Paid Content has a story about a Hearst financed venture called FirstPaper, which has big ambitions. It is operating in stealth mode, and little is being said about what is up: but here is a glimpse from one of the recruitment ads:

A startup company which is well-funded by a huge media conglomerate located near Columbus Circle is looking for highly skilled, professional C# developers to help build software services around an innovative hardware product which will revolutionize the media publishing industry.

This is truly an exciting opportunity to get into a well-funded startup and help define the next generation of media products....

Most of the big magazine and newspaper publishing companies have been somnolent in their attitude towards web innovations. What little they have done generally has not worked too well. Hearst would seem to be an exception, early investments in E-Ink and now FirstPaper.

I like the name, I wonder what it will do? It does sound as though it might be a new kind of digital reading system (Hearst/First, E-Ink and now E-Paper), a competitor for the Kindle perhaps (noticed via the Read20 list).

Intelligent Life and Bright Paper

The Economist -- which may be the most valuable and interesting magazine on the planet -- is about to launch a new magazine called Intelligent Life.

I am such a fan of The Economist that I will be pleased to be proved wrong, but the announcement gives me a sinking feeling. There is surely some hubris in launching a magazine with this title. The web site gives nothing a way (that is not a good sign -- the web site for a magazine which is going to be launched in less than a month should give a lot away).

The current edition of the parent magazine has a fascinating piece on how a cellulose, paper-like, substance can store electricity as a capacitor and as a battery. If you need to know more, I refer you to Professor Ajayan's web page. He has done the research. Who knows, in a few years time we may be reading newspapers and books on a paperlike substance, like a large pocket handkerchief, which holds its own electricity and navigates us to any web page. By then the web will be a superset of all printed literature.

Since the alarms of last week, Skype has returned in a reliable form. In fact, it seems to be a lot clearer. No background muzziness. Have we been palmed off with a phony explanation. Were Skype surreptitiously improving their network software whilst appearing to heal a bug?...... I am also relieved to hear that its not Microsoft's fault. Though the first Skype explanation did sound a little bit as though it was.... ("those dunderheads in Redmond with their routine patches" did appear to be the subtext).

Copyrights and layers of creativity

John Naughton wrote one of the best introductions to the internet, a kind of hymn to the web: A Brief History of the Future. He blogs regularly, and elegantly, and is also a sage columnist for The Observer (which hides out on the Guardian Unlimited service, since the Guardian does not publish on Sunday). His piece today is excellent. Sir Arthur Sullivan, Tom Lehrer and now a new work by Mike Stanfill. The chances are that you have heard the Lehrer Elements song, it ends

These are the only ones of which news has come to Harvard,
And there may be many others but they have not been discovard.

But you will get a new take on the song from Mike Stanfill's Flash implementation which is a great commentary upon, and new kind of performance of the recording. I can not believe that the Lehrer estate is going to sue Mike Stanfill, as one very much hopes that the Sullivan estate did not try to extract royalties from Tom Lehrer; but such marvellous examples of layered copyrightable, creativity, need to be encouraged not prevented by the regulatory framework. Did any lawyer think to question the cubists for using labels of wine and absinthe bottles in their collages (not only copyright but trade-mark protected)?

Digital technologies facilitate collages, parodies, commentaries, mash-ups and emulations that are not simple knock-offs. Media convergence creates the new possibility of copyright convergence. So copyright should be loose enough to accommodate invention. It will have to be. Another Lehrer song reinforces the point: genius may be close to plagiarism.