saving ink

In today’s news: News Corp confirms tablet publication is close

Ok, I probably wasn’t the first human on the planet to come up with the idea for an application-only publication (though I think it’s premature to limit the app just to tablets right now), but I think what pisses me off the most is the fact that it’s News Corp that’s the first big media company to jump on it.

Why? Because if they screw it up (and knowing Rupert Murdoch’s cluelessness in new media, there’s a good chance they will), it will set back app publication development as a whole.

So this puts me in the uncomfortable position of actually cheering for News Corp, a fact that brings about a nausea similar to the one brought about by the thought of Murdoch’s creepy old man hands all over a shiny new iPad.

Thoughts?

I hate to resort to LOLspeak, but it’s true, New Yorker.

In case you haven’t heard, Condé Nast, parent company of The New Yorker, released an iPad-only app of the esteemed magazine. The app may be beautiful and functional, but as I wrote last week, the world is not quite ready for an app-based publication.

First of all, as the above commentators point out so eloquently, there is no subscription model in place. Second, print subscribers are (justifiably) infuriated that they have to pay twice for the same product - which also exists online for free. Not only does this highlight an absurdity, but it illustrates something that the decision-makers at Condé Nast have obviously failed to realize: it’s the content, stupid. The content is what matters, and the delivery system, whether print or app, only exists to facilitate access to that content. When people buy magazines, they’re not paying for the dead tree parts in their hands, they’re paying for the content - the same principle applies to apps (and should have applied to the Internet from the start).

What the New Yorker should have done is to hold off on the app until the time was right: until tablets and iOS devices became truly ubiquitous, at least in the US, and until their print subscriptions had dropped down to the point of non-sustainability. That’s the tipping point, and that’s when you make the switch.

But the switch cannot be made half-assed. Once you decide to go app, you must kill the print, and discontinue the system of offering the same content for free online. In fact, just stop offering magazine content online! No one wants to read that in a browser when they can experience it in an app, even if that means they have to pay. Because if the product is good, they will.

Will it piss people off? Of course. But revolutions always piss some people off. Hell, revolutions piss most people off. I’m sure when Gutenberg was extolling the virtues of his dandy new machine, there were plenty of detractors predicting the end of civilization behind his back. And yet, there will always be those few people who embrace change and usher in a new, better system, years before everyone else catches up. The history books will call them visionaries. But are they visionaries? Maybe. Or maybe they’re just fairly smart people not crippled by the fear of change.

NOTE: I wrote this in September 2010, right after the launch of the iPad, long before the iPad 2, Galaxy Tab, Kindle Fire, etc. had made this prediction a reality. Um, I told you so?

The dominant trend for mainstream news and magazines has overwhelmingly been paper —> website —> app (or occasionally website —> app for newer media organizations) for the past few years. The problem with this model, other than the obvious lack of ability for these organizations to find a way to generate revenue online, is that rather than eliminating a previous platform when making the switch to something newer, the content is simply replicated across the different platforms. Worst of all, one or two of the platforms charge for access to the content, while the other one or two offer the exact same content for free.

But what if we got rid of those first two steps, and simply began a media source* as an app?

A media entity that starts as an app is unencumbered by the burden of “free”. It was never free to begin with, so there is no initial gut aversion from the public. But more importantly, it ends the disconnect between customer and content, because when readers pay for what they’re reading, there is no longer room or need for advertisers to worm their way into that relationship; the editors and writers once again work to please readers, not corporate overlords.

The concept of in-app purchases is becoming accepted as a way to pay a fair price for new or additional content to an existing product. In fact, there are already whole categories of apps (comic book companies, for one) where this is the norm. A couple of media outlets (McSweeny’s is the first that comes to mind) are doing this already. So why can’t media apps work this way, in which they are initially bought for free or for a very low price, and every day or week or month a new “issue” of content is available to pay for and download within the app. It could be tied to an email system that informs subscribers that a new issue is ready for download, or entices casual readers to purchase the issue by giving a small preview of what’s inside.

The beauty of this system is that it would eliminate the need for both print and online versions.

Granted, for this to become reality, several things must happen:

1. iPads and similar devices must become ubiquitous.
2. App development must become either easy enough for a non-developer to handle, or app development apps, if you will, must become ubiquitous.
3. Apps must be made cross-platform by default, just as websites can be opened in a variety of browsers and most programs are made for several operating systems. OS limits can only harm media apps.
4. Our concept of “app” needs to change completely, from being a pretty icon on a phone screen with limited use to being part of an overall system. iOS4’s folder organization is definitely a step in that direction.

My guess is that it will be at least five years before these conditions are met - or at least enough of these conditions are in place so that slowly but surely media organizations can once again see a profit. But with any luck, the iPad and whatever devices follow will allow for a renaissance of quality journalism.

Hey, a girl can dream.

*I’m hesitant to use the words “magazine” or “newspaper”, even though that’s still the closest approximation. Perhaps a fifth condition should be the invention of a new word to describe these new forms of media.

The other day, I stumbled upon a website that initially induced feelings of aesthetic nausea, but after a few clicks, brought back what can only be described as a warm, if uneasy, nostalgia. It was a website chronicling old HTML sites from the early days of web 1.0, when oversized T-shirts were the rage, along with oversized <marquee> tags. A virtual graveyard of Geocities and AOL addresses.

And I remembered my own foray into programming. Like all of my friends, when I was 14 I had built my own HTML website, full of animated GIFs, scrolling text, and JPGs of Fox Mulder (future husband) and UFOs. And it had a guestbook, which had a wealth of inside jokes made by silly high school freshmen.

As far as I know, that site is gone, or at least gone from my eyes. I don’t have the original address, and I don’t even remember for sure whether it was on Geocities or another service. I tried some unsuccessful googling of former AIM screennames and my original Hotmail account, but it seems that my Internet infancy, like baby pictures lost in a fire, is gone forever.

But imagine if I were 14 today. As soon as I made my website, which, while lacking the obvious appeal of flashing GIFs and unstoppable MIDI theme songs, would undoubtedly be much more stylish, I would post it on Facebook, link to it from Twitter, and Gmail it to all of my friends. Then, years and years into the future, assuming I was spared in the robot apocalypse, I would just have to search my Gmail account for that original link and a part of my childhood would return.

So what I really, really don’t understand is the people who bemoan our times. Yes, everything is recorded. Yes, there might be a disturbing lack of privacy. But the Internet as a whole is a living record of each individual life, and the greatest storehouse of memories man has ever invented.

Each blog is a diary that your mom didn’t accidentally throw away. Each email from a lover is a letter that didn’t get lost in the move. And each personal website that’s created is a snapshot of the individual behind it during the span of its existence.

I realize that during every revolution, a majority of those living through it end up yearning for the “good old days”, even when those days aren’t that old and in hindsight turn out to not have been that good in the first place. But those who are in their 20s now or younger, those with at least the smallest ounce of tech savviness, should realize that we’re living in amazing times, and instead of hindering the revolution - or worse, whining about it - we should take full advantage, and leave our marks for generations to come.