OT: Apple Tablet Tomorrow - Mgraw-Hill CEO soon to be dead

[dbdynsty25]

http://www.jeffhendricksondesign.com/th ... nst-flash/
http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/blue_boxes

What do either one of those articles have to do with what I wrote?

The fact stands iPhones account for about 2% of platforms that view our sites. HTML5 can't do everything flash can do. Companies will not pull down existing tools that work to support such a small install base.

Yeah, I was confused about those links too.

The fact is, Apple doesn't like flash...but the rest of the world uses it. They are just trying to justify their decision not to use it. Whether it was for monetary reasons or if they really think they can rid all of the world's websites of flash...the fact remains that it's used a TON and it will continue to be used for years, if not decades and your precious iPad and iPhone will not be able to render those sites and that's a damn shame.

[pk500]

Reminds me of the thinking of Macheads when they say, "Our Macs don't get viruses like Windows."

No question Windows has security holes. But if you're a hacker looking to inflict the most damage, are you going to target an operating system that had approximately 91 percent of the market share in October 2009 or the one that had less than 10 percent?

The Mac OS can't topple Windows, so what makes Jobs think he can singlehandedly take down Flash, which probably has a market share similar to that of Windows?

Is HTML5 really that prevalent, or is it to Flash what Linux and Mac are to Windows?

[wco81]

They don't necessarily expect to topple anything, just supporting a technology which is preferable to some.

IE has a big market share edge but it doesn't stop people from using other browsers, even if a lot of sites are optimized for IE, even IE6.

Other mobile devices will support Flash and if they start losing a lot of sales because of it, they'll probably change their stance.

[pk500]

They don't necessarily expect to topple anything, just supporting a technology which is preferable to some.

Jobs' quote from the Apple Town Hall Meeting late last week:

“Adobe is lazy. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5.”

Does that sound like the words of a man who simply wants to support alternative technology, especially when market share numbers show the last sentence isn't true?

Maybe Jobs thinks the Mac world doesn't want Flash. That's fine. But it's pretty apparent the other 90 percent of the computer world does.

[dbdynsty25]

“Adobe is lazy. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5.”

Apparently Apple engineers aren't smart enough to figure out why.

[Rodster]

I thought Macs don't crash? Thanks Steve for confirming what I already knew.

[wco81]

He talks a lot of trash.

Said people would never watch video on portable devices when iPods didn't support video while some other devices did.

Now they make plenty of video devices.

That arrogance and brashness hasn't alienated enough people yet.

If some killer apps. develop which have to use flash, then he'll change his tune. But right now, you have all kinds of companies like banks and stores putting out iPhone apps. so the significance of the browser is less on mobile devices.

One analyst said this could be why Google is giving Android OSes away. Because these mobile apps. become useful enough that people have fewer reasons to open up the mobile browser and search on Google, which generates ad revenue with search.

It's very small now but as more people get smart phones, there's more of a chance of people using phones than computers primarily.

[pk500]

All good points, WCO.

[JRod]

David Pogue from the NYT has a good take on this:

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/ ... pressions/

My main message to fanboys is this: it’s too early to draw any conclusions. Apple hasn’t given the thing to any reviewers yet, there are no iPad-only apps yet (there will be), the e-bookstore hasn’t gone online yet, and so on. So hyperventilating is not yet the appropriate reaction.

At the same time, the bashers should be careful, too. As we enter Phase 2, remember how silly you all looked when you all predicted the iPhone’s demise in that period before it went on sale.

Like the iPhone, the iPad is really a vessel, a tool, a 1.5-pound sack of potential. It may become many things. It may change an industry or two, or it may not. It may introduce a new category — something between phone and laptop — or it may not. And anyone who claims to know what will happen will wind up looking like a fool.

[dbdynsty25]

Way to straddle the fence Pogue.

[Murph]

Shows how little I know. I always thought game apps ran on Flash, but obviously, that's not the case. What do they use, JAVA?

A game like Mafia Wars runs on Flash on Facebook. What does the iPhone version of Mafia Wars run on?

[Diablo25]

I'm still on the fence on whether I'm going to get this thing. I really like the interface and want an E-Reading device. I'm not as critical as most on the device. It pretty much does what I expected and its not as pricey as I was expecting. I guess it all depends what kind of feedback the iBook app gets...ie. is it tough on the eyes, etc. One of my students is definitely getting one so I'll probably wait and get some feedback from him. If I don't get the iPad I'll definitely be getting a Nook or Kindle. It also goes without saying I'll be looking for some input from anyone here that pulls the trigger.

[wco81]

Shows how little I know. I always thought game apps ran on Flash, but obviously, that's not the case. What do they use, JAVA?

A game like Mafia Wars runs on Flash on Facebook. What does the iPhone version of Mafia Wars run on?

Native code, Cocoa and Objective C probably.

iPhone supports Open GL ES from iPhone 3 GS on.

Most iPhone games aren't using the most advanced 3D effects because the original model and the 3G don't have the same graphics capabilities that the GS and iPad have.

Someone remarked that a game like Starcraft with multitouch control may sell a lot of iPads. RTS games in general might be interesting.


On the reading capabilities, it's expected that heavy-duty readers will go for the standalones like Kindle, because of E-Ink among other reasons.

But others may trade off "good enough" eBooks experience for other features like playing video, games and surfing, running all the various apps. (which Amazon is trying to encourage for the Kindle).

[kevinpars]

After an initial fan boy appreciation of the IPad, I am starting to see it for what it is - a closed system Apple product that has a deceptively low price point.

When you look at what the IPod doesn't have, such as a USB port or an SD Memory card slot, it appears that Apple wants a closed system. Or for you to purchase additional hardware for the IPad. Without a USB port or a SD card slot, it will be difficult to get your photos on the device. It will be hard to get your music on the device. It will be hard to get your library of books on the device. Apple wants you to take advantage of the ITunes Store to get your music and your books and your video. And spend more money.

I guess it if had a USB or SD card slot you could use external storage and not have to worry about having the 16 Gig entry model. Or you could control your own entertainment library and not be tied at the hip to Apple.

And I am also still steaming at the way the publishers are using the IPad announcement to raise ebook prices. That makes perfect sense - publishers see Steve Jobs - the man who stated "It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore" - is the savior of publishing. Because millions of IPad owners will be spending all kinds of money to buy ebooks at 14.99 a pop. Hell, for 9.99 you can buy IWork and write your own book. Or download a game or rent a movie. I am going to enjoy watching publishers go the way of the daily newspaper.

Ultimately, what do you get for 499? Not enough hard drive space, no SD, no USB, no protective case and no content until you buy some. Buying an IPad and thinking that the wallet can now be put back in the pocket is like buying an XBox Arcade unit and thinking you can sit down and start gaming in beautiful high definition. It is a closed system that is designed to get the user to spend more money.

[Brando70]

And I am also still steaming at the way the publishers are using the IPad announcement to raise ebook prices. That makes perfect sense - publishers see Steve Jobs - the man who stated "It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore" - is the savior of publishing. Because millions of IPad owners will be spending all kinds of money to buy ebooks at 14.99 a pop. Hell, for 9.99 you can buy IWork and write your own book. Or download a game or rent a movie. I am going to enjoy watching publishers go the way of the daily newspaper.

For one thing, people who buy e-readers tend to be avid readers. I also don't see an issue with the price point. E-books are priced about the cost of new DVDs, and your entertainment/hour ratio is much higher with a book than with a two-hour movie. Amazon is deliberately underselling to promote Kindle adoption -- $9.99 is not a sustainable price point.

Second, why would anyone want to see either newspapers or publishers go out of business? Not that they are perfect industries by any stretch, but they provide valuable services. If anything, I think e-readers could help save newspapers in particular.

[Diablo25]

Second, why would anyone want to see either newspapers or publishers go out of business? Not that they are perfect industries by any stretch, but they provide valuable services. If anything, I think e-readers could help save newspapers in particular.

Totally agree here. Many newspapers/columnists/editors are probably hoping the iPad, and other devices like it, take off so they have a medium for their product. Otherwise many people are out of work.

[wco81]

It's not a standalone device. It's meant to sync to iTunes running on a computer.

People may hate iTunes but it's proved popular, arguably the reason iPod was successful over other players and now, the Apps. store is popular with users and developers. Yes it's controlled by Apple but it makes distribution of content easier for developers.

Of course the flip side is that you can't access multiple stores and get price competition. If games went that way, where most games are downloaded instead of bought on discs, then the distribution would be controlled by XBL or PSN and while there could be sales, it might not be the same thing as retail chains putting items on sale to drive traffic to the stores.

But while console-makers make their profits on games, Apple makes profits on hardware and pretty much pass on the content with a minimal cut (30% seems a lot but developers think it's a fair cut for hosting, distributing content). Publishers are hoping for the same reach that iTunes gave music companies but they get to set the price instead of the standard iTunes pricing for music.

I don't think iPad or other tablets will save newspapers. NY Times demo looked okay but people won't pay for it any more than they did the newspaper web sites. Fact is, people aren't reading papers, instead reading some blogs, catching snippets of news on TV, or not bothering to follow the news at all.

[pk500]

Fact is, people aren't reading papers, instead reading some blogs, catching snippets of news on TV, or not bothering to follow the news at all.

Bull's-eye.

The more I think about it, the more I realize the iPad isn't going to save papers. What is more portable than a newspaper, especially one that's tabloid-sized? What's in the electronic edition of the New York Times that you're not already getting through blogs or other Web sites, other than local news?

People aren't reading papers for the reasons WCO mentioned above and also because we're living in a niche world driven by the Internet. People can access tons of information and opinion about individual niches that matter to them on a variety of existing devices. The iPad isn't providing us with any access we don't already have; it's just another vessel.

My Google Reader is loaded with blogs and podcasts about boxing, racing, hockey, bargain hunting, music and Libertarian politics. Those are all niches that matter to me, and I get MUCH more info. on them than I ever could get in a daily paper.

Newspapers, on the other hand, cover a wide spectrum but are masters of nothing. That doesn't work in a niche world.

Daily papers are good for only one thing: Local news, sports and opinion. Otherwise, newspapers' relevance is disappearing into the vanishing point of the rear-view mirror. As a former print journalist, that saddens me. But it's a fact.

[pk500]

One more reason why papers are dead: The 24-hour news cycle.

Cable TV news networks started the 24-hour news cycle 30 years ago when CNN first launched. But the Internet put that cycle into overdrive because it offers more detailed niche information and often more in-depth information about both niche and general issues than TV.

Cable news networks survive through a steady diet of high-volume, hot-air partisan talking head shows, a niche that the Internet doesn't fulfill yet. But papers can't offer that type of content, either.

So the morning paper becomes even less relevant when it's filled with national and world news that you read on your laptop or iPhone 18 hours ago.

USA Today will survive because it's still popular with travelers and because it recognized the future of news well ahead of the Internet phenomenon. Everybody in media snickered when USA Today debuted in 1982 with short, tight stories, an emphasis on entertainment news and a sports section packed with stats. Fast-forward to 2010, and USA Today was pretty damn prescient.

About the only way other general daily papers can survive is through long-form, interpretive and analytical pieces. But therein lies the Catch-22: Nobody wants to take the time to read those kinds of pieces these days in the world of McNews and infotainment.

The Internet is the perfect medium for the way people want their news served today: Fresh, hot, fast.

[JRod]

Cable news networks survive through a steady diet of high-volume, hot-air partisan talking head shows, a niche that the Internet doesn't fulfill yet. But papers can't offer that type of content, either.

Not to argue but the conservative and liberal blogs probably do more and hit the "other" side harder and more frequently than O'Reilly or Olberman.

The problem with papers is their model not with the news. For year's they made money through advertisements and classified ads where subscription prices were really to cover distribution costs. Craig's List and Ebay took that classified revenue stream. And the papers failed to adapt.

Now some are charging for access to content. Which will fail because you can't charge for something that you can get free somewhere else.

Now the iPad could help newspapers in this way, by giving the newspapers a new medium and a new readership. Where the newspapers have to adapt is not to put some RSS feed or some iPad designed website but to create a virtual newspaper like in promo videos that SI made about a magazines for a slate device.

Remember the TV didn't kill off radio, radio just changed the content it offered. The internet won't kill off newspapers, it will just kill off the ones that fail to adapt to it. Apple has given these newspapers a medium to adapt to the new market, we'll see just how far they'll go.

[JRod]

So the morning paper becomes even less relevant when it's filled with national and world news that you read on your laptop or iPhone 18 hours ago.

USA Today will survive because it's still popular with travelers and because it recognized the future of news well ahead of the Internet phenomenon. Everybody in media snickered when USA Today debuted in 1982 with short, tight stories, an emphasis on entertainment news and a sports section packed with stats. Fast-forward to 2010, and USA Today was pretty damn prescient.

About the only way other general daily papers can survive is through long-form, interpretive and analytical pieces. But therein lies the Catch-22: Nobody wants to take the time to read those kinds of pieces these days in the world of McNews and infotainment.

The Internet is the perfect medium for the way people want their news served today: Fresh, hot, fast.

I still think there's a new news model that can work. And the paper or magazine the discovers it will make a boatload of money for themselves.

Like you said newspapers can't compete with national well-known stories. When they print the news, most online can go to Google News and find an update story. I think how newspapers save themselves is to cover local stories more in-depthly, not in a New Yorker 5000 word piece but dropping reprinted AP stories. And replacing them with how "National Story X" will affect our Mainstreet. Not in a man-on-the-street interviews but getting back to real reporting and investigative journalism. Newspapers do this but are scared to commit the resources necessary to adequately cover local or regional issues. And local TV affiliates are worthless because rarely do they put anything more information than sports scores and weather.

Newspapers can offer fresh content, fast but they need to determine what content they should offer. Right now they haven't learned anything from all the layoffs and cutbacks. News in changing but the newspapers aren't.

[pk500]

Like you said newspapers can't compete with national well-known stories. When they print the news, most online can go to Google News and find an update story. I think how newspapers save themselves is to cover local stories more in-depthly, not in a New Yorker 5000 word piece but dropping reprinted AP stories. And replacing them with how "National Story X" will affect our Mainstreet. Not in a man-on-the-street interviews but getting back to real reporting and investigative journalism. Newspapers do this but are scared to commit the resources necessary to adequately cover local or regional issues.

That idea won't work because papers don't have resources to commit, for the reasons you listed above: Plummeting advertising revenue. Real reporting and investigative journalism require more reporters and editors, and those cost money.

[Teal]

I'd give my opinion about why some major news publications are dying, but it falls into the [banned topic] arena, so...

[JRod]

Like you said newspapers can't compete with national well-known stories. When they print the news, most online can go to Google News and find an update story. I think how newspapers save themselves is to cover local stories more in-depthly, not in a New Yorker 5000 word piece but dropping reprinted AP stories. And replacing them with how "National Story X" will affect our Mainstreet. Not in a man-on-the-street interviews but getting back to real reporting and investigative journalism. Newspapers do this but are scared to commit the resources necessary to adequately cover local or regional issues.

That idea won't work because papers don't have resources to commit, for the reasons you listed above: Plummeting advertising revenue. Real reporting and investigative journalism require more reporters and editors, and those cost money.

I read a story about I think the Houston Chronicle about how they committed resources to investigative journalism when others were shying away from it. They broke some huge stories and increased readership because of it.

If you want people to read your newspaper you have to make it so people want to read it. Now some papers may take the TV news lead and offer focused opinion-news with a bias towards specific targeting towards a section of the population. That model has worked on TV, and it was the model of newspapers through out time. In communities there might have been numerous papers covering different slants and focusing on different populations. That type of newspaper will appeal to a certain type of person but I don't know if that's the future of the market.

If newspapers do the same thing and expect that will success, that's a plan to fail. I don't know what the solution is, but newspapers were a medium to get news to the people. That model was broken apart by the internet and the news organizations only have themselves to blame for not adapting.

For news, I think the iPad is the best thing that could happen to a devastated industry. It offers the POTENTIAL for news to do something innovative.

[wco81]

The Internet is the perfect medium for the way people want their news served today: Fresh, hot, fast.

Well, those aren't the adjectives I'd use. But in this new world of diminished resources for newspapers, can Woodward and Bernstein happen again?

Bloggers will dog politicians, including those in power. But they do so for ideological reasons and exposing wrongdoing is the means they use.

Investigative journalism at its best was about exposing wrongdoing as the end goal.

Maybe one or two newspapers will have the resources to do investigative journalism. But in the wake of Watergate, every newspaper got into it and the Pulitzer prizes spread around the country.