cullmanndesign blog

Apple’s iPad has been out for a few months and there is still quite a bit of excitement as publications begin to experiment with this new platform. Both Popular Mechanics and WIRED had been quick to release 2 very impressive “App” versions of their publication. Both of these pieces are very engaging and mirror content found in their print publication. The interactive versions include some dynamic enhancements including video content, interactive 3D models and social media integration. Of course, there are also video-based ads and dramatically animated advertisements. These pieces, and a number of other publications that have been released in the AppStore, are showcases for what can be implemented on these platforms.

Despite how impressive these applications are, they are not the future of publishing. In fact, these publications offer none of the benefits of what an “App” can offer at all. The WIRED application as well as PM and many other newly launched periodicals available in the AppStore are merely screenshots of the print publications they are replacing. There is interactivity and user engagement not found in the pulp-versions, but there is no evidence of what is really driving people to online media: Real-time, always on information. One of the most attractive qualities of the web is the ability to retrieve information as it becomes available: RSS, cross-linking, related posts, comments. These are all data-points flowing into one another as a real-time conversation. The “new publication” model utilizes few, if any of these differentiators.

What I am especially discouraged by is how closely the new “publication as app” model resembles the CD-ROM boom of the early 90’s. Very much like the iPad publication hype, CD-ROMs where supposed to change the way that media was distributed. CD-ROMs fell from popularity because they where proprietary, not easily shared, difficult to update and did little to further user engagement beyond what was already being offered in the market. I don’t want to come across as an Apple hater or someone who doesn’t think the iPad is a paradigm shift. My issue is with publishers who believe that porting their print materials to a screen and accompanying a few interactive elements is going to save or reinvent their industry.

Equally as offensive to the “interactive” arrangement of JPG and PNG files is the cost model that is being provided for subscribers. Although the cover price is similar to what is found on the traditional newsstand, the development costs don’t seem to warrant the $4.99 app costs that need to be paid every-month for an issue. One hope I had for the new publication model is that without the cost for printing and shipping, that the hyper-engaged advertising opportunity would provide a reduced subscription cost. Instead, users are downloading 400, 500 and even 600MB+ files into their devices to deliver advertising (a issue still pending is how metered bandwidth will affect this model as over-the-air download of these applications is not available via AT&T). Even with the proliferation of broadband, the “web” as a rule is still very lean and content can be provided over a range of bandwidths while maintaining a decent user experience.

The iPad offers so many opportunities for developers and content creators. The massive selection of useful applications is a testament to that. Taking the WIRED and PM samples to task, the solution that should have been implemented is one that provides a subscription “stub” on the device with a framework for the publisher to populate daily or over the course of the month as opposed to a traditional release cycle. This would provide a benefit beyond traditional content delivery and make user engagement more meaningful. This would also lessen the storage footprint and make the application more serviceable to those who have purchased devices with smaller amounts of memory. Advertising would be downloaded on a cycle so that the ad-model itself would apply as it does now. Interactive ads could pull “on-demand” with smaller portions of the ads cached and delivered under a “no-charge” bandwidth model-perhaps the Apple iAd service. I think an offering like this is more valuable and more inline with what the iPad’s benefit is to it’s users: Always-on content delivery that is up-to-the minute.