Talking New Media

The evolution of the mobile app: Southwest adds important new features to its iPhone app

2012-01-27T09:34:00.000-05:00

Sometimes one forgets that third party mobile apps basically didn't exist on any mass scale until Apple opened up the iPhone to apps in 2008, one year after the phone's introduction. Until then, the only way new apps appeared on your iPhone was when Apple issued an OS update and included something new.

Some of the most useful apps created are the ones we don't use every day, apps for travel, for instance. All the big airlines have had their own branded apps for a while now. This morning, for instance, I downloaded the iPhone app from Aegean Airlines, it will come in handy this summer (don't get jealous!).

In many ways the evolution of the mobile app in business reminds me very much of the evolution of the web. At first only a few companies built their own websites, and often companies partnered with media companies to be included in their offerings.

That was the premise behind much of the sales pitch from VerticalNet: the B2B web pioneer, and flame out, originally pitched mini sites to customers who could showcase their products on a VerticalNet industry website. The seemed to make sense for a while – what an easy way for a company to get some sort of web presence – but the idea made less sense when companies realized that they really needed to build their own websites, not rely on some company they had never heard of.

Today Southwest Airlines issued an update to its existing iPhone app that adds in many familiar features available to web users: early check-in, flight status notifications, etc. It is a natural evolution for the app, one that travelers will certainly appreciate. Some of these features are merely minor variations on existing services. For instance, airlines have allowed their customers to register for notifications of flight delays for a while now. Typically, once you have signed up for the service, you get a phone call whenever you flight has been delayed. Getting a notification on your iPhone is the same concept, but possibly more convenient.

But it is important to remember that it took a decade for companies to start to use their websites in this way, the evolution of their mobile apps is happening much faster.

That brings me to media apps: they seem to be evolving at a much slower pace. The reason for this, I believe, is two-fold: first, at many companies, the mobile and tablet initiatives are being managed by the editorial departments, leaving out sales and other departments from the process; and second, the outsourcing of apps means that their creation and updating are handled as projects – once completed the relationship is all but over until a new project is initiated.

For a newspaper or magazine, most publishers or editors have seen the purpose of a mobile app as furthering the reach of the editorial content. That's nice, but it is very limiting. Few newspapers, for instance, have their own classified advertising apps, or have created retail shopping apps.

In those cases where a publication has created secondary apps, such as Food & Wine's Eat and Drink, or DEPARTURES Ultimate City Guides, both from American Express Publishing, the products are still really just extensions of the editorial content.

The second thing that holds back mobile app evolution for media companies is the way they have looked at anything digital for the past decade. Web design is often outsourced so that any minor changes become a major headache. Imagine if every time an editor wanted a new looking editorial page for their magazine they had to call in a company and initiate a new contract. That is they way many magazine websites are handled today. This model has been adopted for mobile and tablet publishing, as well.

Time Inc. accomplishes goal of creating tablet editions for all 21 U.S. titles; using Woodwing as partner

2012-01-26T12:01:00.001-05:00

Although they have no new app to promote, Woodwing passed along a press release reminding everyone that Time Inc. has fulfilled its promise to bring all 21 of its U.S. titles to the iPad (as well as Android, Kindle, etc.). I think it is certainly worth taking note of the accomplishment.

All the apps have been in the Apple App Store for awhile now, with FORTUNE Magazine's app being the latest to get an update (very minor).

“With the availability of our entire portfolio of U.S. titles, we put ourselves in a great position to take advantage of these opportunities," said Mitch Klaif, CIO of Time Inc. "We also use WoodWing's solutions to help us produce our print editions, and WoodWing´s Digital Publishing Solution enables us to integrate our tablet publishing activities into our existing workflows. Working with WoodWing to make Time Inc. the number one publisher of digital magazines has been a great experience.”

“We would like to congratulate Time Inc. on this important milestone. At the same time, being able to bring such a large number of titles to various tablet platforms in such a short time frame is proof that our solution is perfectly capable of dealing with today’s publisher demands,” said Erik Schut, President of WoodWing Software.

OK, it is a lot of PR talk, but let's give credit where credit is due – they committed to creating iPad editions and have succeeded in that effort.

What Time Inc. hasn't accomplished, however, is coming to terms with Apple. All their apps remain outside of Newsstand, and they do continue to not offer digital subscriptions. As a result, the iPad editions prove to be a great addition for existing print subscribers, as well as a great way to access single issues for that long plane ride. But it is not a good way to subscribe.

Taking FORTUNE, for instance, a reader can go online and sign up for a 20-issue subscription for only $19.99. Like many publishers, they are taking a loss in order to maintain their circulation levels. I would think that getting 30 percent less than this for the digital edition, but saving the production costs would be worth it – but that is their position for now.

These editions are using Adobe's solutions, or course, as well as Woodwing Software Enterprise. Reader comments inside the App Store continue to be positive as a result, bearing in mind the occasional bug complaint. But Time Inc. continues to issue frequent app updates to address any of these issues as they arise.

Baltimore Magazine gets updated tablet edition, but no icon; app requires that the reader register to subscribe

2012-01-26T09:34:00.000-05:00

One wonders how some apps make it through Apple's approval process. While apps have been unfairly rejected, others get in without app icons, and with a subscription process that stretches the App Store rules.

Baltimore Magazine, published by Rosebud Entertainment, has had their iPad updated this morning. You can find it pretty easily in the App Store, it is the app without an icon.

The app is listed under Thumb Media Group, a company currently owned by National Publisher Services, Inc. and Fry Communications, Inc., and not the publisher. This is probably just as well as I wouldn't want my name on this app either.

The free app opens to the library page where readers can buy individual issues, log into their print accounts, or sign up for a subscription. The problem is that the subscription price is not listed – instead a registration form appears that one has to fill out before you can buy a subscription. Some might be led to believe that all one needs to do is register and they will be a subscriber. No, upon completing the form one is then told a subscription is $9.99 for a year (the annual subscription price is clearly explained in the app description, though).

If one chooses not to subscribe there is no way to get back that registration information, of course – one feels like they have just had their pockets picked.

Oops, something is missing on your app, like an icon?

The issues download fairly quickly, but takes a long time to be processed, for some reason. Once you have your issue what you get is a typical replica edition – a PDF-like duplicate of the magazine that is not very enjoyable to read.

The app does have a text feature: if you tap a story up pops a text-only version of the article, making the app more like a Kindle Edition (sans any graphics) rather than a true tablet edition.

It is hard to understand why the publisher would have signed up for this. Their January issue looks pretty damn successful with tons of ads at the front of the magazine – so many that the Publisher's Note doesn't appear until page 28. So why let some vendor do this to your magazine?

But things get worse. Start reading the issue and a banner ad pops up on every page: Medical Malpractice Attorney! The ad even appears on top of full page ads! Yes, and even the cover! Lovely.

There is a button that allows you to close the ad, but it reappears after a few pages.

I've always said that publishers were the easiest people to sell to, they are as gullible as they come. This certainly proves it.

Left: the subscription page makes you register, before presenting you with the annual subscription price; Middle: a banner ad on top of a full-page ad; Right: replica editions remain difficult to read, being designed for print not tablets.

Forecasting the growth of digital: declines in print won't adversely effect every publisher, but it will kill off some

2012-01-25T11:00:00.000-05:00

For many publishing company the migration of ad dollars to digital continues to make their executives lose sleep – even the ones that are still doing relatively well.

The reason for this is that the conversation at many industry conferences is about general trends. And the general trend shows that print is in decline, while digital continues to grow.

But the problem with general trends is that, well, they are rather general.

I see two problems with current analysis being done in this area: 1) the assumption is that a decline in print will effect all publishers equally, and 2) that "digital" is a format, when it is really many formats.

When we talk of print magazines one gets a pretty good idea what these look like: standard sized publications with editorial content and ads. A decade or so ago one could have argued that print was such a diverse platform that it would be silly to talk about "print" as any one thing. But the rise of the web has significantly hurt product tabloids so much that few see this format as growing in the future.

If print was a diverse platform in the past, digital is quickly becoming more and more varied. Digital no longer means just the web, not when mobile and tablets are growing at such an incredible pace.

That's why anyone who thinks digital won't grow even faster in the future may be missing the message contained in Apple quarterly earnings blow out. Apple launched the iPhone in 2007 and now sales are continuing to grow. But it also launched the iPad in 2010 – a related product, but a different line item on its P&L. The combination of the two products, neither of which existed five years today, made their sales explode.

If Apple had mirrored the publishing industry, it would have launched one new product and then simply watched as they enjoyed incremental gains in one area.

It is easy to say that "as an industry" digital will grow 10+ percent over the next five years, while print declines by a certain percentage. But this is not how things will play out for the actual publishers experiencing this.

Let's say you are the publisher of a B2B print magazine, and you "know" that your advertisers will be spending five to ten percent less in print each of the next five years. How will this effect you?

I would say that for the number one book in the industry it won't effect them at all. Advertisers rarely cut across the board – they know that they must maintain a certain level of presence in any book they advertise in or else their ads won't be effective. More likely, an advertiser cutting back on print, especially in the B2B area, will reduce the total number of books they appear in, shifting those dollars saved by cutting the number of magazines they book to new digital products.

For some publishers, the shift to digital means a chance to grab some new dollars, while at the same time maintaining their print schedules. For others, it means going from "in the schedule" to "out".

This is why any level of decline in ad dollars devoted to print can have a devastating effect on an individual publisher.

The lesson: if your magazine is not currently the number one or two magazine in its field it is seriously vulnerable to shifts in ad dollars.

The problem with forecasting is that it rarely takes into account new technology. Most publishers see technology as an outside force that can effect their business. But in modern publishing technology is, in many ways, central to their business. Any publisher that does not also see themselves in some way as a technology company is at a major disadvantage.

This might not mean that every publishing company of any size must become a developer, but it does mean that they had better think very hard about the partners they have in this area.

As a magazine publisher I never lost a night of sleep worry about whether RR Donnelley and print technology. But if I were depending on many of the third party vendors currently creating mobile and tablet apps I might never sleep again, such is the quality of much of the products being introduced into Apple App Store and Google's Android Market.

But for those publishers with print products that are currently not the number one book in their industries, this moment is a golden opportunity. The shift to digital, though a threat, could be their chance.

Note: Right now, at this minute, inside Apple's iTunes App Store, the publications being promoted are GQ, Better Homes and Gardens, and other familiar titles. But also being promoted is Project Magazine and The Daily, new digital-only publications. Also being promoted is Newsweek, which has been on its death bed for years.

Apple total sales for the iPad reaches 55 million

2012-01-25T09:15:00.000-05:00

One of the questions I am asked most often by publishers and other media executives is what is the total number of iPads in the market – many in Europe want to know what the penetration of the iPad is in their country, a much harder question to answer.

Well, for those keeping score, Apple has now reached the 55 million mark.

Apple began selling (or more accurately, shipping the iPad since they accept pre-orders) in April of 2010. April represents the first month of Apple's third quarter.

Apple managed to sell 3.2 million iPads that first quarter, a number that shocked a lot of people. But this is the lowest month for sales the iPad has experienced. Here are the numbers according to Apple's own earnings reports:

2010 Q3 3,270,000
2010 Q4 4,188,000
2011 Q1 7,331,000
2011 Q2 4,694,000
2011 Q3 9,246,000
2011 Q4 11,123,000
2012 Q1 15,434,000

Total units = 55,286,000

One can expect that sale for the iPad will dip sharply in Apple Q2 of 2012 – this is the first quarter of 2012, after holiday sales and before the introduction of the iPad 3. This occurred last year, as well.

The only thing that would boost sales would be an early introduction of the new iPad, and I would be surprised if Apple would do this. But one can expect that Apple will reach the 60 million mark in Q2 and will be able to announce that they have reached the 100 million mark by this time next year.

The iPad revenue, which includes according to Apple includes "revenue from sales of iPad, iPad services, and Apple-branded and third-party iPad accessories," reached 9.15 billion in this quarter, which is about 28 percent more than the total revenue the company generated from Mac sales. When you combine this with the iPhone and iPod, you see that Apple's iOS business now is 80 percent of Apple's hardware business.

The biggest question on the minds of publishers concerning the iPad has always been "at what point is the market big enough that I should invest in a tablet edition?" These numbers should calrify things for quite a number of them.

Another blowout quarter for Apple, but what did you expect? More than 15 million iPads sold in Apple's Q1

2012-01-24T17:51:00.000-05:00

The numbers Apple reported today for its fiscal 2012 first quarter were so good that not even Business Insider, that has predicted doom and gloom for the tech giant could say anything negative.

Most observers pointed out that Apple's profit, $13.87 million was more than Google's revenue for the quarter. But Apple, one must remember, sells things (you know – laptops, desktops, phones – oh forget it).

"We're thrilled with our outstanding results and record-breaking sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs," said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO in the company's press release. "Apple's momentum is incredibly strong, and we have some amazing new products in the pipeline."

For the media world, the numbers really aren't that important so much for the huge revenue and profit gains, as they are in that they confirm that the company's iOS remains the most important platform for digital publishing.

While Apple sold 37.04 million iPhones (an amazing number, isn't it?) the iPad sales number of 15.43 million units was the one that caught my attention.

Just think, one day even Jeff Jarvis might buy an iPad again, though I doubt it. That would have made it 15,430,001 iPads, but who is counting?

Today again I read on a forum that the future of magazines is not iPad apps but something else, which I've forgotten. The point was that the future is still print. Few would agree with this, but the sentiment that one shouldn't develop for the iPad still is out there. I doubt even 15 million new iPad owners won't convince some people that their businesses depend on reaching these readers. We'll miss them when they fold, or maybe we won't.

Here are the numbers from the earnings call:

Revenue: $46.33 billion
Profit: $13.06 billion ($13.87 per diluted share)
iPhone sales: 37.07 million
iPad sales: 15.43 million
Mac sales (remember them?): 5.4 million
Cash on hand: more than most countries

B2B magazines become increasing irrelevant to their industries as they eliminate audits, let lists deteriorate; MacFadden still investing in great BPA audit reports

2012-01-24T12:01:00.001-05:00

Two events in the past 24 hours has me wondering why anyone would want to in the B2B media business in the U.S. anymore: the continue involvement of PE firms and the continued decline of B2B publications themselves.

The second reason came to mind when I read a tweet from a B2B industry publication promoting its iPad app. I found it strange that the industry trade publication would be promoting its app because my memories of it were that it was an unreadable mess created by one of those replica app makers. I decided to check it out again inside the App Store to see if they have updated it.

No, the app was still the same one as originally released. Based on its lack of reviews, and the fact that its last update was a year ago, I wondered why they would think it important enough to promote. Whatever.

Still, it saddened me to realize that the publishing industry's main trade journals are so backward and completely obvious to the changes occurring in the industry they are supposed to be covering. Instead of leading their industries, they are merely mirroring them – not what a trade journal should be doing, in my mind.

I looked at a few more new and updated apps inside Newsstand and noticed a few more B2B publications, as well. Although each were also replica edition apps, what caught my attention was that one of them was for a publication I had never heard of, despite being fairly familiar with the publications inside that industry. Who were these guys, and why hadn't I heard of the magazine?

I checked out the publication's website to get more information and quickly found the media kit. I shook my head knowingly as I saw that it was one of those consolidated kits, created (theoretically) to promote magazines inside the same family of industries.

I guess I am more than a little cynical about these things, having experienced modern B2B publishing firsthand. While most publishers justify consolidated media kits based on similar subjects, the truth is often that one kit for multiple magazines is simply cheaper than producing multiple kits. Further, it was obvious that the same person was acting as publisher of all the magazines. Again, one publisher is cheaper than two, or three.

As I continued to explore these publications I noticed that "BPA" was mentioned once, but not consistently. In other words, the magazine I had not heard of was not audited – no surprise, less and less B2B magazines are being audited.

There are more than a few reasons media executives give for not auditing their publications, but cost seems the only real reason to being considered**. Some people on the outside of the industry might think that the cost to audit a magazine – that is, the cost paid to the audit firm – is the reason they are being dropped. But the cost of conducting a BPA audit is fairly minor compared to the cost of keeping a subscription list in shape to be audited.

Looking at P&Ls of some B2B, the single biggest circulation expense is the telephone qualification costs. These costs keep rising year after year, even as other costs, such a printing, have remained fairly stable. If a publisher kills off their audit, the next cost - and far bigger cost – that is reduced (or eliminated) is telemarketing.

Of course, soon the reader list for the magazine becomes stale. But looking at several recent BPA audits from magazines still committed to the report, it quickly becomes apparent that the quality of the existing audits are, in some case, being seriously compromised. For instance, the audit of a sister publication of the one not audited shows that less than 25 percent of the circulation is first year written qualified – meaning that this percent of readers actually completed a qualification form or telephone call in the last year. The rest of the circulation is made up of names off of lists, and two and three year qualified names.

Few BPA audits look as good as the audit for MacFadden Communication's audit for Grocery Headquarters. That audit, the latest being from June 2011, shows that over 73 percent of the readership are one year direct request – the number is over 80 percent when you include other forms of one year direct request (other than lists). That, my friends, is a good looking audit.

Do advertisers really care anymore about things like audits? Yes, some do. But most are also concerned with editorial content, the professionalism of the sales staff, the publisher's involvement with the industry, etc. It is amazing how often these things also are declining as the audits are being cut back on.

Despite the declining condition of many B2B publications, PE firms continue to invest in B2B media firms. The reason is simple: the PE game has nothing to do with building businesses and everything to do with bring profits to investors. This article in The New Yorker by James Surowiecki gives readers a good primer on the private equity business. One thing not mentioned in the article is that while PE firms often bring in their own chief executives to manage a firm once it is invested in, at other times the existing executive might stay on. But in those cases, the CEO knows, or soon discovers, that they are no longer in charge of a business, they are in charge of an investment. That is why most chief executives that stay on after a PE gets involved, gets a piece of the pie in an eventual divestiture. That carrot is always there to remind them that the endzone is the eventual divestment by the PE, not the growth or profits of the company. PE's don't need their companies to be profitable, as the article smartly points out.

** One good reason to not audit a publication is when the reader list is made up of a targeted group of readers such as top executives. Getting these readers to complete the qualification process is next to impossible. But in that scenario, reader studies would have to support the claim that these "subscribers" are actually reading the publication.

Short takes: Romney tax returns show that it's good to be rich; Eurozone finance ministers want Greek bondholders to settle for rates below 4%; U.K debt at record levels

2012-01-24T08:20:00.000-05:00

My it's good to be rich and unemployed. Mitt Romney, who is both, finally released his tax returns which revealed that the an makes big dollars off his investments, but pays very little in taxes compared to the average working stiff.

Bowing to pressure from his primary opponents, and hoping to diffuse a potential big issue in the fall, Romney released his tax returns for the past couple of years. It shows that he earned over $21 million on his investments. But because of the current U.S. tax laws, he only paid a tax rate of around 14 percent, lower than most Americans, and much lower than most middle class workers.

Romney's returns show what many suspected: the leading candidate for the GOP nomination has not earned a salary in years, yet is raking in big dollars due to his wealth. But because his earnings come from investments, rather than a paycheck, he pays less in taxes on that money.

"You'll see my income, how much taxes I've paid, how much I've paid to charity," Romney said during Monday night's debate, according to the NY Daily News story. "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for President who pays more taxes than he owes."

European finance ministers demanded that private bondholders must accept a deal to be paid interest rates on Greek debt at a rate below 4 percent. The chief negotiator for the private bondholders, Charles Dallara, walked out of talks on Saturday when an agreement seemed to be in place to pay 4.25 percent, but then was informed that Euro leaders wanted the rate below the 4 percent level.

While the NYT report headlined Permanent Rescue Fund Seems Nearer in Europe, the view from Europe is that the rejection of the deal "sets the stage for a Greek default when a 14.4bn euro matures on March 20", said the Athens News.

If your national debt is large the way to reduce it is to cut spending, right? But if one is in recession, and the lack of tax income is reducing revenue, then cutting spending threatens to make the debt level even higher, right?

Well, that second question is at the heart of the battle between opposing economic philosophies. Keynesians such as Paul Krugman have argued that one can not promote austerity at a time of great recession without making the situation worse, and actually growing one's debt. Austerity proponents, who are in charge in most European nations, and here in the U.S., say that one must cut spending first.

In the U.K. the theory is being put to the test.

Today the Guardian reported that Britain's national debt has risen above £1 trillion for the first time ever, despite austerity measures instituted by the conservative government - a government that shows no signs of backing away from its austerity programs.

"[This] shows the unsustainable level of spending this country built up over the past few years, and shows why it is critical for our nation's future that we deal decisively with the deficit," a Treasury spokesman said, the Guardian reported.

Despite the austerity measures, and the rising debt levels, a recent Guardian/ICM poll shows that the government of David Cameron is actually more popular now, with 40 percent support versus 35 percent for the Labour Party.

Price break! Newsweek updates its iPad edition, lowers its subscription rates to $1.99 per month or $19.99 per year

2012-01-23T08:32:00.000-05:00

Struggling news weekly Newsweek has updated its iPad app, bringing the news weekly into Newsstand, lowering its subscription prices, and upgrading its digital design.

Whether this Newsweek can ever entice readers to return to the new weekly format it an open question, but the team at Newsweek now has one of the best tablet editions out there, so no one can say they have fallen down in that regard.

The Newsweek app was updated last night and brings the news weekly into Apple's Newsstand. It also lowers its subscription prices to $1.99 per month, or $19.99 for a year.

In November of 2010 Newsweek began offering subscriptions at $9.99 for a three month subscription, or $14.99 for six months. When first released (see original post on its launch here) in May of 2010 the app simply charged $2.99 per issue without any subscription offer.

While the lower subscription prices will be well received by readers, it is the native tablet design that will wow readers (I'll leave content out of the equation for now). The updated Newsweek app works in both portrait and landscape, but despite this the latest issue weighs in at under 140 MB. It does this by not stressing multimedia so much as good tablet layouts, with articles that scroll, and with embedded text boxes on some articles that do the same.

Although the update has only been available for a short while, readers are already commenting in the App Store, with the majority of reviews very positive. Some readers, however, are having trouble accessing their issues through the log-in mechanism for print subscribers – this accounts for the half-dozen or so negative reviews.

"Fantastic," wrote one reviewer. "Such an easy to use and beautiful app. Definitely a must have. Thank you Newsweek." (spelling corrected)

Left: the subscription and issue download page; Right: Table of Contents.

Apple's new iBooks Author: a potential game changer for many small and independent publishers

2012-01-20T09:35:00.003-05:00

Alert: Senator Harry Reid has announced that he would delay a vote on ~~SOPA~~ PIPA – though the key word is "delayed" rather than killed. Here is the report from the Washington Post.

Most new software packages have a steep learning curve attached to them. I must admit that I am still not much of an InDesign expert after learning desktop publishing using Quark. But iBooks Author, Apple's new free tool for creating digital books, is about as easy a program as you will come across for producing rudimentary interactive books.

Rudimentary usually means simple; interactive usually equates to hard. But with iBooks Author anyone with a Mac, and at least some skills at creating documents, can produce a finished digital book quickly. Those capable of producing more complex java and html5 elements will make their finished product more than rudimentary – but for most projects, someone with iBooks Author can produce satisfactory results.

Early yesterday evening, while making dinner (roast pork loin – it was delicious, of course) I spent ten to fifteen minutes playing around with iBooks Author. Because my time was extremely limited (lest I burn the roast) I quickly grabbed some copy from the TNM website, along with the photos used.

The idea for the test book was a Year at Talking New Media so that each chapter would be easy – they would simply be individual months, while the copy would be some posts that appeared that month.

I opened iBooks Author, chose my "theme" (which was "Contemporary") and began to work. I copied and pasted the content which was then automatically formatted. Although the Apple demo makes it seem like additional formatting won't be necessary you would be naive to believe that you won't have to review the results and make adjustments.

I then added in the photos, made adjustments and found that my book at 90 percent complete. Yikes.

I quickly checked the time and realized I had five more minutes before the fire alarm would go off due to the roast, so I very quickly created a cover and added a photo to the chapter intro pages (grabbing photos off the web – more on that subject later).

I plugged in my iPad, pressed preview, and within 30 seconds I had a book (though one that needed lots of work, of course).

Andy Ihnatko, who writes for the Sun-Times and other outlets, spent more time playing around with iBooks Author and not surprisingly produced better results than I did. He tweeted about his work and provided a download link.

But, frankly, Ihnatko's finished product isn't that much better than mine, which shows you how quickly one can produce decent results using iBooks Author.

You might conclude that anyone could now become a book publisher – any independent, small or mid-sized company could now become the publisher of digital books. But as I mentioned in yesterday's look at iBooks 2, I know of more than a few publishers that have decimated their own production capabilities by outsourcing, downsizing or making their staffers independent contractors.

In a world where creating digital products can be accomplished without expensive outside vendors, the difference between the haves and the have-nots will be resources, not necessarily the size of the company. A small publisher committed to developing in-house, to keeping production in-house, will find themselves able to create new digital products on the fly. Meanwhile, those without in-house resources will be always one step behind. In a strange turn of circumstances, the downsizers will find their costs higher if they want to join the rest of their industry in new digital ventures.

iBooks Author, as others have suggested, will probably prove to be a useful tool for products other than digital books, but it is still limited. One can not, for instance, design a magazine using iBooks Author and submit it for Newsstand directly. But iBooks Author will output to PDF. It would be sad to see a tool developed for the creation of interactive books be used to create replica-like magazines, but it could be done.

It's best use by magazine and newspaper publishers will be in creating new digital book lines. Anyone with content, after all, can quickly convert that content for book creation.

But self-publishers will also, of course, be using iBooks Author, and it is already clear that this tool is in the hands of some people who really don't grasp the fundamentals of publishing (based on comments appearing online).

When I needed some artwork for my own iBooks project, and I was in a hurry, I quickly grabbed some artwork from the web to insert into my digital book. I'm not dumb enough to believe that I could really use that artwork for a real book simply because I have a working knowledge of copyright and fair use rules. But many do not. While one expects a professional journalist, photographer or publisher to understand copyright, few civilians do. If easy web hosting solutions have led to online piracy and the casual reposting of the work of other publishers, imagine what the consequences of easy digital book production will lead to.

Apple's grand new vision for textbooks and textbook authoring gets tested with E.O. Wilson's Life on Earth

2012-01-19T16:00:00.006-05:00

Despite the hype and excitement of a new Apple event, the roll out of new iBooks products ends today with only eight textbooks available inside iTunes. Because of this, the event will have to be judged as a success or failure weeks, months or years from now when iTunes is filled with new digital textbooks, or else as empty as it is today. (Some publishers, no doubt, will want to reclassify their books as textbooks.)

But while the new iBooks 2 only offers a minimum number of titles inside the Textbooks category, each book is more like an app than books previously found in iBooks. In fact, that really is the point of today's product launches: to promote more native designed books over mere text-only books. (This is why many independent magazine publishers would be thrilled if Apple would create a self-publishing authoring tool for magazines. But let's leave that for another day and just talk about books.)

As of today, McGraw-Hill Education has five textbooks inside the iBooks Textbooks category; Pearson has two. That leaves one other book: E.O. Wilson's Life on Earth. The book is free to download and additional chapters will be made available in the spring, according to the "app description". (DK Publishing also has a series of books that were developed with iBooks Author – those books can be found in other categories other than Textbooks.)

Anyone who has been a reader of TNM will be familiar with what this new textbook looks like in iBooks 2. The "app", if you will, looks like other books that were developed using Xcode: they include embedded video, and have pages specifically designed to be read on an iPad. The assumption is that this, though, was created using Apple's new iBooks Author software.

iBooks Author allows anyone with a minimum amount of computer skills to design and produce their own books. The software, free and available through the Mac App Store, comes with several templates that can be used immediately to produce a book that will be far more interactive than the standard ePub book familiar to Kindle or NOOK owners or those reading previously released books through iBooks.

E.O. Wilson's Life on Earth, though, did not perform very well on my first generation iPad. In fact, the introductory video could be heard but not seen – and it eventually froze my iBooks app completely. The first generation iPad simply doesn't have the juice and memory needed to power this 965 MB sized iBook.

If you saw the presentation today, or followed the live blogs online, you know what this book will look like. In landscape the book resembles a book app, with the video embedded right into the pages (though you can make the videos full screen with a simple tap.) In portrait, the books resembles a standard ePub book, but with the pictures running along the left side of the page, and the video, when tapped, will automatically open in a new window. It is very attractive, and quite intuitive.

So far this book has received overwhelmingly positive reviews inside iTunes, with only one person completely baffled by the requirement that they will have to update iBooks to the new version. That person will be failing their class, for sure.

Left: the book in landscape with its embedded video content; Right, instructions for taking notes and highlighting text.

For those who have seen the rise of mobile and tablet publishing as the promised land for self-publishers, iBooks Author is what many have waited for. Here Apple has given publishers a free tool to create and publish their own books.

For would-be authors, iBooks Author will end any excuses (outside of "I don't own a Mac"). What will be required to get your books into iBooks is a new account (your developer account does not work for iBooks, you must have a new one for book publishing, and don't blame Apple here), but Apple does not charge for the privilege.

The issue of exclusivity is a thorny one: any book produced with iBooks Author can only be sold through the iBookstore. One simple reason is that iBooks Author exports into three formats: iBooks, PDF and Text. There is no ePub export simply because iBooks Author is not using the current ePub standard. Whether iBooks Author is actually ePub 3 or a hybrid, I do not know.

If you plan on giving away your book, you can reformat it and distribute it elsewhere. But if you plan on selling it, well, Apple wants exclusivity.

Many won't like the idea of authoring only for Apple and Apple's exclusivity clause will certainly rub some people the wrong way:

B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows:
(i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means;
(ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution.

It will be up to other software developers to create something that will compete with iBooks Author, and will open other digital sales channels for authors. For now, it is Apple if you want to produce an interactive book, and Amazon for an eBook.

I assume that if you were to reformat the book for another device, call it something else, and obtain a new ISBN number then you might be OK. But Apple could, based on the agreement, pull your book for the iBookstore in any case. (If Apple really wants to enforce this provision, look for a legal challenge eventually.)

As a former B2B publisher, iBooks Author would have been a godsend. At both McGraw-Hill and at Reed, I have book titles under my control. But book publishing was a minor part of what we did, mainly because it was a pain.

With an authoring tool, however, a magazine publisher could quickly turn a columnist's work into a book title. Before you know it, you have a book line, and a way to distribute the titles.

All it would take would be for your art directors to learn iBooks Author.

Sadly, far too many publishing firms have decimated their production departments. I know of at least one B2B media company that has made their art directors into independent contractors (the good news is that the company will probably be out of business soon).

For many publishing firms, doing anything that involves production is out-of-the-question. And app development? Fuggeddaboudit.

But savvy publishers will see the opportunity at hand. iBook Author is free – frankly there will be no excuses now.

If you need more inspiration, here is Apple's promotional video:

Apple's education event: iBooks 2, iBooks Author and iTunes U app unveiled - all free and now available

2012-01-19T11:49:00.002-05:00

Many years ago Apple launched a product called iWeb that some hoped would bring web development 'for the rest of us', but failed to make much of an impact due to its less-than-powerful capabilities. Today Apple has, with much more fanfare, launched a series of tools that the company hopes will revolutionize textbook creation, and education itself.

Apple's Phil Schiller, senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, took the place of the late Steve Jobs on stage at the Guggenheim in NYC and began by unveiling a new version of iBooks, Apple's eBook reading software for the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.

The demonstration for iBooks 2 showed books that were far more interactive, visual and animated than books previously available for iBooks or Kindle Editions. In fact, iBooks 2 is the bridge between previous digital books available for the Kindle or iBooks apps, and book "apps", such as Al Gore – Our Choice and books being produced by Joe Zeff Design.

To produce these books, Apple unveiled iBooks Author, a new application for the Mac. iBooks Author is iWeb, or is GarbageBand. The new program is free in the Mac App Store, and is the tool necessary, the company hopes, that will allow publishers and self-authors to create these revolutionary new textbooks.

Four screenshots from the new iBooks Author app for the Mac.

If iBooks Author ends up being iWeb millions of people will be disappointed. If iBooks Author is the equivalent of GarageBand, then a revolution in education (or at least textbooks) may be at hand. TNM is no position to come to a conclusion right now, but believe me, this appears at first blush to be an exciting development.

The Apple event had a "and one more thing" ending as Eddy Cue, Apple's Senior Vice President
Internet Software and Services, took the stage to introduce yet another new, and free, application: the iTunes U app.

The iTunes U app looks to be a far more powerful tool for teachers than what is currently available. The app promises to give teachers to create one place where they can provide documents, apps, books, a syllabus, teacher posts and iBooks notes. This new app is also free, but whether teachers and professors adopt the new application is, to me, an open question.

The one thing missing, which some live blogs picked up on, was any new program from Apple that would discount the iPad for schools. If Apple does introduce something like this, it wouldn't have been announced at this event, as Apple doesn't like to throw everything at the wall, so to speak, but prefers to make sure the focus is on just a short list of things. Today's event, with three new product roll outs, last almost exactly one hour, was sharp and concise.

Notably missing was Tim Cook, Apple's CEO. Cook will probably be seen next at the iPad 3 introduction, most likely to be scheduled in February or March.

Today's new products, especially iBooks Author, I would think would have a far bigger impact on the college textbook market, where individual professors and schools can select the books to be used in the classroom. I always believed that those who thought today's event was all about K-12 were all wet, and I think that has been proved to be correct.

That doesn't mean that today's iBooks 2 and iBooks Author rollouts won't be relevant to K-12 (in fact, they specifically highlighted high school textbooks at the event), but higher education is where there is more ability to tailor the teaching experience quicker and deeper.

I will be curious to see how many public schools will be able to transition to totally digital textbooks, they will certainly need help. But Apple knows that to accomplish this they will need content. McGraw-Hill and other big textbook publishers are supposedly on board with iBooks. But seeing Terry McGraw on the big screen brought a chuckle to me – I just can't see these big publishers being very enthusiastic about what the future may bring if Apple is successful. This may well be why, though, that McGraw-Hill has chosen to split itself into two companies, with the textbook division clearly separated from its financial services division.

Apple says that the books that are to be found in its new Textbooks are of iTunes (under Books) will priced at $14.99 and lower, and that buyers will be able to keep these books forever – that is, they really will own them.

While this is great news for students, I think the major textbook publishers will be hesitant to launch a flood of books at this price level – at least until they have no choice. We are talking, after all, about old media companies here.

iBooks Author lets you export your book to iBooks, PDF and Text, but not ePub.

Mark Gross, CEO of Data Conversion Laboratory, told TNM this morning that technology will certainly be the key to a successful conversion to digital.

"I don't quite agree that the $8-billion-a-year business was 'ripe for destruction'," said Gross, referring to the often quoted remark by Steve Jobs from the Walter Isaacson biography.

"The missing link is better technology to support the complexities of education publishing which is much more complex than epublishing a novel," said Gross.

Data Conversion Technology works with publishers to convert their books into ePub format for reading through iBooks, Kindles, etc.

Short takes: And the winner is...; Kodak files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; Apple's education publishing event today

2012-01-19T09:02:00.001-05:00

The big reason politicians spend so much time in Iowa trying to win the caucuses there is not to win delegates but to get momentum for future primaries such as in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A win in Iowa, the thinking goes, can propel you on to future wins, maybe.

The press declared Mitt Romney the victor in Iowa, with Rick Santorum coming in second by only eight votes – or that was what was reported.

This morning the official votes are in and now Rick Santorum is in first by 34 votes. I'm sure the Santorum campaign would have liked those results announced on election night instead of two weeks later.

According to the Des Moines Register, Rick Santorum ended up with 29,839, 168 less than first announced. But Mitt Romney ended up with 29,805 votes, 210 less than first announced. Eight precincts are missing and will never be recovered and certified, the Republican Party of Iowa officials told the newspaper. There were more discrepancies, as well, that make ones wonder about the level of professionalism of those who counted the votes in the first place.

But as the Register story points out:

Romney has already soaked up the benefits of his declared win. With the Iowa caucuses, the prize is the immediate media attention and the credibility bestowed on the winner. But history now has an asterisk: It’s not clear whether Romney is the first Republican since 1976 to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Eastman Kodak Co. has filed for protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The company has been trying to find a way to survive by selling its patents, filing several patent suits, but in the end these moves simply could not delay the inevitable.

"After considering the advantages of Chapter 11 at this time, the board of directors and the entire senior management team unanimously believe that this is a necessary step and the right thing to do for the future of Kodak," CEO Antonio M. Perez said in a statement.

While many blame the move to digital as a reason for the failures of many media products, there is no doubt that Kodak's inability to adjust to the growth of digital photography doomed the company.

Founded in 1880 by George Eastman, the company was the giant of the industry for over 100 years, until Fuji entered the U.S,. market with lower priced products.

All eyes, at least in the tech and book publishing world, will be on the event at the Guggenheim scheduled for 10 am EST today. There, Apple will unveil its plans for book publishing in the education field.

Several websites will be live blogging the event as there will be no live stream by Apple. CNet and All Things D, among others.

The latest speculation from ZDNet's Jason D. O'Grady is that the event will used to introduce a new iWorks that will have a new version of Pages with ePub 3 support, as well as a new version iBooks that will also work on Macs.

We'll see, but this would be good news for Mac owners. Whether book publishers will be pleased is another question.

TNM will be reporting on what Apple has to say following the conclusion of the NYC event.

AT&T introduces new data plans with smallest plan now $5 more per month

2012-01-18T17:42:00.002-05:00

You got to hand it to AT&T, whenever their reputation as America's most hated cellphone company begins to wane they find a way to piss off everyone all over again.

Today the company introduced new data plans. No, they haven't reintroduced the $30 unlimited data plan to counter Sprint. Instead they have introduced plans that give you a bit more data, but at a higher price.

The smallest old plan came in at $15 per month. That one is gone and now the new 300MB plan will cost you $20.

“Customers are using more data than ever before,” said David Christopher, chief marketing officer, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets on the company's blog. “Our new plans are driven by this increasing demand in a highly competitive environment, and continue to deliver a great value to customers, especially as we continue our 4G LTE deployment.”

Current AT&T customers with the $15 plan can keep it, for now. But any change in their plan, for instance a temporary increase in data for a business trip, or adding tethering, probably means that you won't be able to return to the $15 plan.

I migrated myself and my unwilling family from Sprint to AT&T because AT&T was the only carrier at the time that offered the iPhone. But with Verizon and Sprint now with the iPhone, and with AT&T simply doing what AT&T normally does, I'm sure a lot of customers will find that the time is ripe to dump AT&T once and for all. (Unfortunately, the best alternative to AT&T, Sprint, is also the carrier that appears to be providing iPhone users with the slowest data rates.)

Year starts with few new interesting media apps launched, but lots of updates that pull periodicals into Newsstand

2012-01-18T12:16:00.005-05:00

I assumed that few newspapers or magazines would want to launch new tablet editions around the Christmas holiday season, but the trend has continued into the New Year.

Over 60 newspapers and magazines have appeared for the first time inside Apple's Newsstand this week. But of these, only 18 are new apps; and of those 18 new apps, only a couple of these were native designed tablet apps. The vast majority, as has been the trend of late, have come from third party vendors and are simple replica editions.

While I never consider it a good time to release a replica edition that will disappoint readers, releasing a new app now might not be a great idea anyways – especially if the app hasn't been in production long.

Apple will soon announce a date for its iPad 3 introduction, and with it might come an updated version of iOS 5, as well. The speculation is that the new version of the iPad will up the resolution of the display. (There are lots of other crazy rumors out there, but most have to do with launch dates, and I consider them without much merit.)

A higher resolution display won't change much for developers looking to build native designed tablet editions, but for replica makers the resolution change would most likely make their replicas look even worse than they already do.

The resolution change, if it comes, will require different artwork specifications, but little else as Apple is most likely to make the transition pretty smooth for its developers by not launching some crazy resolution set. But what else might be in the pipeline that media app developers should be aware of?

Many media apps already have incorporated AirPlay and Newsstand support. The iPad 2 and the iPhone 4S already support screen mirroring, which makes apps that do not support AirPlay streamable in a different way.

The big changes might not come until later in the year, or beyond. Just as Apple opened up app development to third parties in 2007, it has opened up other features over time, as well: multitasking, AirPlay, notifications.

CSP's new tablet app from Blue Toad: the December issue is extremely slow to download and then difficult to read. But issues may appear even worse if the next iPad has a higher resolution display.

The next biggie might be Siri. The first obvious use of Siri would be to allow the personal assistant to open apps. There is currently a crazy, convoluted way to make Siri do this, but it is no better than simply tapping the app icon.

In the future, Siri might be allowed to interface with third party apps in interesting ways. A user could, for instance, ask Siri to open the Chicago Tribune app and go to the sports section, or even to list any stories about the Bears (all sob stories no doubt).

But is a ways off, I believe. For now, media app developers looking at the iPad should simply see what can be done on the new iPhone 4S that might be added into the iPad's bag of tricks.

Web giants protest proposed legislation

2012-01-18T08:37:00.001-05:00

Several web giants today made their feelings about proposed legislation in the Congress known to their users today by either shutting down their sites or posting messages.

Google posted a message saying "Tell Congress: Please don't censor the web!" which contained a link to an information page. "Millions of Americans oppose SOPA and PIPA because these bills would censor the Internet and slow economic growth in the U.S.," the page read as it asked users to make their feelings know to their representatives.

Wikipedia.org was shutdown (kind of) for U.S. users. The normal home page remains, but once a user searched they were taken to a page saying "Imagine a world without free knowledge". Users could avoid the page, however, if they pressed the escape button before the page loaded, thus allowing them to continue to use the online information site.

Reddit.com went black, as well, converting their home page in the cause. The home page now gives a detailed explanation of why Reddit and other web services are against the legislation being pushed by News Corp., RIAA and others.

Today, for 12 hours, reddit.com goes dark to raise awareness of two bills in congress: H.R.3261 "Stop Online Piracy Act" and S.968 "PROTECT IP", which could radically change the landscape of the Internet. These bills provide overly broad mechanisms for enforcement of copyright which would restrict innovation and threaten the existence of websites with user-submitted content, such as reddit.

The story of the web blackout has been the lead story on the NYT website since late last night. The Washington Post is also leading its website with the story under the headline What happens when the Internet gets mad.

Tablet publishing will not be immune from hucksters; the low cost of digital publishing will be attractive to 'profile' publishers looking to avoid printing their magazines at all

2012-01-17T17:00:00.000-05:00

My first job in the B2B publishing industry was with The McGraw-Hill Companies, known to me as a major publisher of such magazines as Business Week (now owned by Bloomberg) and Engineering News-Record. I always saw them as a giant in the industry, though once I got there I realized that their heart was in the financial services area.

As the publisher of the local building trades newspaper and information service, I quickly learned that the previous publisher had made his revenue numbers mostly by producing special sections called profile issues. The formula was simple: the publisher called a major builder and said that our publication wanted to do a special section just about them. The whole 16 to 32 pages would be dedicated to their company, with stories about their building projects, their personnel, and with a major feature on their chief executive. The catch was that they needed to support the project in three ways: buy the back page ad, agree to buy some reprints of the section, and supply us with a list of their major suppliers and subcontractors.

We would turn around and sell ads to those on the list the company gave us – that was how we would make our numbers.

The whole thing seemed like a scam to me, like blackmail. After all, the sales pitch to the suppliers was that they did business with XYZ Company, and they really should support that company by buying an ad. It was blackmail, wasn't it?

Worse, the previous publisher had used a shady outside contractor to do much of the advertising – someone with a reputation for twisting arms.

My boss at McGraw-Hill thought it would be a good idea to get rid of the outside contractor if only to avoid future trouble. But he, my boss, still thought doing the profiles was a good idea.

At first I was against continuing the profiles but soon both my staff and some customers convinced me that we should continue them. These sections, it turned out, were well-written, and well-received by both the readers and the advertisers. It wasn't really blackmail, it turned out, if we truly were printing up the sections (we were), distributing them to all our readers (we were), and if they had the name of McGraw-Hill behind them (we did). Further, our advertisers felt that they were a good way to advertise since they could show them to other builders, sort of proof that they were well regarded suppliers or contractors.

So we continued the practice, though we eventually started to do other sections that were more general in nature, and less about one company only.

It didn't completely surprise me, years later, to learn that there were other companies doing similar kinds of things, but on a much bigger scale. These companies had built an entire business model around the technique of selling ads from lists supplied by the companies they would write about. These companies employed large phone rooms filled with staffers that called both the companies that would be profiled and the advertisers that would be solicited from the lists.

The sales people who called the big companies would often be called editorial researchers, but they were simply sales people – trained to sell the company on the article idea, and to sell them on the idea that they should hand over lists of the companies they do business with.

You'd think that companies would shy away from handing over those lists, but such is the lure of positive press that many were more than willing to have their partners and clients be bombarded with the calls from the ad sales people.

Sometimes the model would be a bit different in that the editorial itself would be sold, in which case it might be hard to tell the difference between what one would call custom publishing and something else more nefarious.

But what would separate out the legitimate publishers from the scammers was usually whether these magazines would be printed in large numbers and were audited. Very few publishers ever bothered to have an audit firm check their numbers. Further, no matter how many copies the publisher claimed they printed of their titles, usually one a small number (if any) ever made it into print – usually printed outside the U.S. (U.S. printers generally want to get paid within 60 days).

But these magazines also had one other thing in common: they were gorgeous. Well-designed, printed on good paper stock, these magazines were often quite impressive both in looks and size – with folios often well over 200 page, sometimes over 400. It was only by closely reading the magazines did you come to realize that the articles were simply press release material, and that the ads were not from companies you might expect to advertise, like major brands, but from small firms looking to butter up the subjects of the editorial pieces.

A decade ago, when the economy was in better shape, one publisher I am aware of routinely produced monthly issues that exceeded $500,000 in ad revenue, and then turned around and printed and mailed about 5,000 copies of the actual printed magazine. Whether any of these issues were sent to "readers" was hard to tell, but the companies profiled got copies, as did the advertisers, as did future prospects.

For the most part, advertisers didn't complain much, though some resented the strong arm tactics used. There were also lots of ads that never were paid for as, it turns out, many were not authorized. But with so much money coming in the publisher could just chalk up those lost ads to the price of doing business.

You'd think that these publishers would be considered pirayas to the publishing industry and would be outcasts. But industry trade magazine Folio: profiled one of these companies on the cover of an issue and a NYC PE firm had no trouble backing this same company to the tune of millions of dollars. To the PE firms, apparently, one publishing company is no different than another.

Today, the lure of digital publishing has led to at least one of these publishers simply producing digital flipbooks instead of printed copies. It was only a matter of time until we'd start seeing magazines using the profile model producing their own iPad editions.

Guerrero Howe LLC has launched iPad editions for six titles: Green Building & Design, American Builders Quarterly, Hispanic Executive, Advantage Magazine, Canadian Builders Quarterly, and New American Luxury.

Each of these apps are free to download and can be found inside Newsstand. The iPad editions offer portrait layouts, with some articles employing scrolling within stories.

Guerrero Howe LLC calls itself a custom publisher, but the model is pretty much as discussed above: the magazines are unaudited (in fact, the media kits make no mention of circulation levels at all), and complaints about the company are consistent with similar publishers.

But what is missing from the tablet editions currently are the ads. Guerrero Howe, according to their media kits, wants to sell these ads separately for $4500 per page (yep, you read that right), despite that fact that the apps were just released in January.

For other publishers the lure of the iPad will probably mean they might consider launching replica editions (and possibly eliminate print altogether). Since readership is irrelevant in this model, the prestige of being available in the App Store, and inside Newsstand, will convey to potential advertisers a sense of legitimacy that even an audit might not convey.

This option will become more attractive when publisher employing the profile model know that the executives at the center of these articles – and the ad decision makers, as well – will be able to see these magazines on their own tablets. For now, most publishers still need to produce tearsheets and to send out printed magazines to their customers to insure they pay their bills. Eliminating print completely may make this type of business even more profitable, no matter what the stigma attached to it may be.

Has the textbook industry set itself up to be punked: Apple set to unveil education publishing plans Thursday

2012-01-17T09:00:00.004-05:00

Imagine a scenario where you own a business and are wildly successful and profitable, but where the vast majority of your customers dislike you intensely and wish for your demise. That is the situation that textbook publishers find themselves in.

If you have a child in college, you know that each semester the buying of textbooks is a difficult and sometimes financially draining experience. With the textbook industry more consolidated than any other media area, prices for books appear to many to be artificially high – something ripe for innovation and competition.

On Thursday, Apple is holding an event at the Guggenheim to announce something that may turn this industry inside out... or may make matters worse, depending on exactly what is announced.

Ars Technica is saying this morning that Apple is planning to unveil a “GarageBand for e-books” and will announce support for the ePub 3 standard.

“When you think about what Apple is doing… they are selling tens of thousands of iPads into K-12 institutions,” Inkling CEO Matt MacInnis told Ars. “What are they doing with those iPads? They don’t really replace textbooks, because there’s not very much content on offer,” he said.

ZDNet is reporting that publishers such as McGraw-Hill are working with Apple, knowing that the digital wave is upon them, and hoping, as the ZDNet angle has it, that such a move will further benefit textbook publishers by killing off the used book market that has grown (this has been a big area of growth for companies such as Amazon.com).

This sounds like a typical strategy for Apple. Despite the claims of many tech writers about the way Apple does business, the fact is that Apple typically lines up industry support for its moves. Before launching its iTunes store, for instance, it lined up the record labels; before launching the iPad it lined up some important publishers.

The question, though, will be whether what Apple unveils on Thursday will assist authors and small publishers. If so, a move into education publishing could break the stranglehold big publishers have on the market.

eBooks / app books

That books are going digital is a given. But most digital books today are simply digital conversions of print – Kindle Editions, if you will. These eBooks can be found inside iBooks, as well as through Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In their present form the only threat they are to publishers is if the file sharing bug hits this industry as badly as it has music (and there is some evidence that it is).

But app books are another thing altogether. Few app publishers are being produced, compared to simple eBooks. Take Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, for instance. This book was a classic example of a publisher missing a golden opportunity to show off what an eBook can be. The book was available in eBook form at launch – I bought mine from iBooks – but the book was simple digital text and a few pictures. Isaacson's book failed to include any of Jobs's famous keynote addresses, for instance. Such a simple addition to the book was, in my view, unforgivable.

Imagine what can be added to a digital textbook: slideshows, videos of demonstrations and lectures, audio, etc. Textbook publishers will only move in this direction if forced to – and if they retain near monopoly hold on the industry, these kinds of books will only prove to be even more expensive for students.

An easy and inexpensive way to produce eBooks would not only transform textbooks themselves, but the also the way textbooks are used in higher education. A professor could produce their own supplemental eBook to accompany a main textbook from a commercial publisher, for instance. Textbooks could also be reproduced on the fly with updates, as necessary.

Notice, however, that we are talking about higher education here. The industry and the way books get published and approved is very different when one talks about high schools and below. But here, too, a new way produce digital books could have an enormous impact - and not always a positive one. Imagine, for instance, what education looks like in a scenario where each school district could have customized textbooks for its classes – how many districts in the South would want biology books that teach creationism, for instance? There are, of course, still state and federal requirements, but an environment where books are more customized could have an impact on where education goes in the future.

Dr. William Rankin, Director of Educational Innovation at Abilene Christian University, is quoted by Ars Technica as saying that the time is right for a dramatic change in the format and use of textbooks. “We’re headed toward a completely digital future at ACU,” Rankin told Ars Technica. “A recent study showed that 82 percent of all higher education students nationwide will come to campus with a smartphone. We need to have resources and tools ready for these mobile, connected students.”

Five years ago even the Association of American Publishers saw this. In its report submitted to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, the association said:

Today’s textbooks are no longer just paper, ink and cardboard. They are integrated teaching and learning systems – employing CDs, online graded homework, online quizzes, online self-testing and tutoring, and other support materials. A history textbook of 20 years ago might reference Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, but today’s textbook has a CD or an online Web site that enables the student to watch and hear the actual speech."

The next logical move is to have this material integrated directly into the textbooks themselves, rather than as supplemental CDs or links out to websites.

For Apple, which has been moving iPads into the classroom as a very quick pace (my high school daughter has a class where iPads are integrated into the classroom experience), the key to further growth is the make sure those iPads have lots of content.

Paywalls & SOPA: creating scarcity to build profits

2012-01-16T11:00:00.002-05:00

Today is MLK Day in the U.S., and although too few companies recognize the holiday, I believe it should be observed. But here are a few thoughts on paywalls and SOPA – the only post planned for today.

Today's big media brouhaha involves Rupert Murdoch's condemnation of both Google, which he accuses of promoting piracy, and the White House, which has taken a measured approach concerning SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act).

"So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery," tweeted Murdoch today.

At Google he threw out this one: "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."

Murdoch can have his opinion, but it is important to note that like newspaper paywalls, content copyright is not about protecting the economic rights of content producers (reporters, artists, photographers), it is about protecting the economic rights of content owners. Just as patents are sold from company to company until the owner has absolutely no relation with the inventor, copyright and paywalls are the profit generators of media owners.

In order to profit from these things, of course, one must create scarcity. This is the idea behind paywalls, and why newspapers that really have no real reason to install a paywall are on board with the idea. Sure, their traffic may be nil, but if all news can be put behind a paywall the scarcity of information will increase the value.

Most Internet observers don't believe the tactic (paywalls) will work simply because there are bound to be leaks, news outlets that don't play the game, and new news sources that will arise.

Likewise, the SOPA promoters can cry all they want about piracy, but the real issue is scarcity: if the Internet can be policed, and all copyrighted material removed, that material would be more valuable (the thinking goes). It's only fair, right?

But who owns the copyright on this content? Those rights have been sold from one company to another many time over. The same company that produced the original Kind of Blue recording no longer really exists. That company sold off the rights to Sony, a company that a few years ago showed its commitment to jazz by firing Wynton Marsalis. It now continues to profit from old jazz recordings without supporting jazz musicians today.

Rupert Murdoch's movie studio, 20th Century Fox, was created in 1935 when Fox Film Corporation, founded by William Fox in 1915, was merged with Darryl F. Zanuck's 20th Century, which has been formed in 1933. The creators of the great films of the old studio days are long dead, but Murdoch's News Corp. owns the rights today and wants to continue to profit. When Murdoch cries "piracy" it sounds too much to me like those rich investors who complain about the Fed continuing to hold interest rates low – they simply aren't making as much money on their holdings as they used to, and aren't they entitled to more profits from the money that sits idly in their accounts?

Why go threaten the freedom of the Internet over the issue of piracy? Why not go after the pirates themselves? If Google is such a promoter of piracy, then why not sue the company out of existence?

Because there is a clear risk that they might not win that case in court. Google has already survived court cases involving YouTube. The difficulty lies in who is the pirate and who is the one profiting from piracy.

For the casual YouTube user that uploads a video of their team's winning touchdown, using the broadcast feed from Fox, for instance, the uploader is not generally profiting. Instead, it is Google or the other Internet sites that host video that sell ads around the content that profit.

Google's response today to Murdoch's broadside was predictable: "Like many other tech companies, we believe that there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking U.S. companies to censor the Internet," Samantha Smith, a Google spokesperson, is quoted by the Daily Mail.

None of this would be controversial today, though, if the old media companies had not surrendered New Media advertising to companies like Google. Would Murdoch be pushing for SOPA if Google were a News Corp. company? But News Corp, and the NYT and other media companies have not been able to transition their full page ads and 30-second spots successfully to the web.

Putting content behind a paywall, or shutting down YouTube, or the thousands of file sharing sites, won't sell ads on The Times of London site. But it might reduce the total number of ad outlets available, thus allowing content owners to raise their prices enough to increase profits.

At least, that is the hope among old media titans.

What dare not be publicly stated about modern journalism; the issue as it relates to the trade press

2012-01-13T09:40:00.000-05:00

Some journalists and readers are up in arms today after the New York Times' public editor Arthur Brisbane unwisely chose to ask the question whether "news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." Readers quickly responded, asking Brisbane about his sanity, and comments were soon closed.

Brisbane than tried a rather lame attempt to backtrack in a follow-up column accusing NYT readers of misunderstanding the question being posed. Readers, strangely enough, don't like being called stupid and again gave the NYT public editor a dressing down. "No, we got it the first time. And the answer is still 'yes, you moron'," wrote a reader online.

Journalists and media critics piled on and this morning Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald recalled Stephen Colbert's 2006 contribution to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner: “But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works. The President makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ‘em through a spell check and go home.”

But left unsaid by most is why the Times public editor would even pose the question, and why the NYT and most other major papers believe that calling into question lies spewed by politicians and others is not in a reporter's and newspaper's best interest. This issue is, and always has been, access and information.

The idea is simple: if a reporter quotes a candidate or politician verbatim, and does not point out the obvious untruths, access is maintained. This access is to be used, in this prevailing theory of modern journalism, to some use at a later date (though it rarely does).

The example being used today is the claim, passed on by the press, by Mitt Romney that President Obama has been apologizing for America. The claim is false, of course; and, in fact, many news outlets have said so.

But many journalists and editors don't see it as the job of the campaign reporters to call out these claims in their stories, or to ask tough questions back to the candidates when such claims are made. The reason for this, and the reason some big paper editors think those that want this kind of reporting are naive, is that access to the candidate might be compromised. No campaign will talk to a reporter if that reporter is found to be doing their job. And so the cycle of "stenography" begins.

Of course, this cycle is self-perpetuating: journalists, who claim to know how the game is played, play along in order to stay on the beat. Editors will pull a reporter off their beat as soon as they learn their reporters are being blackballed by the source. And on and on.

The problem, in the end, is that the news outlet loses its credibility with the public. Editors are themselves naive if they don't understand that the public knows the rules of the game and don't appreciate it when reporters and editors choose to play along rather than look out for the interests of the readers.

But while journalists debate this question publicly today, the issue of credibility has long been settled in the trade press. With very few exceptions, B2B executives have schooled their editors to not make waves with potential advertisers, to print press releases from regular advertisers and good prospects, and to stay away from anything that smacks of either news or opinion.

As a result, most B2B magazines and their supporting websites are have evolved into standard-sized versions of product tabloids (while product tabloids have themselves started to die out). B2B editors, long used to this kind of editing, rarely question the formula – editing press releases allows them to move on to the second, third or even fourth magazine they are forced to work on in order to keep their jobs.

Just as in the newspaper business, this cycle of stenography is impossible to break. The businesses being written about – seen as advertisers or prospects – know they are at an advantage. And besides, if the trade press dies off, they have already prepared for this by building up their direct marketing capabilities.

But the reality is that by playing the game B2Bs have made themselves simply a commodity, subject to rate negotiations and other give-a-ways. The difference between one B2B magazine and another becomes less and less in an environment where editorial is freely given away, where BPA audits no longer are conducted, and where editors are too busy editing other books to have much personal contact with the industries they are supposed to be covering.

Some publishers have tried to put an end to this editorial policy by pressuring editors to only print stories from paid advertisers. The idea is to stop customers from demanding editorial prior to deciding to advertise. But this, of course, does not take into account the interest of readers. Many publishers justify this by saying that most readers receive their publications free of charge anyway, ignoring the costs of renewing subscribers in a situation where readers no longer see the B2B magazine as a legitimate source of information. (The next step, of course, is then to drop the audit and stop qualifying readers.)

Most B2B titles' website are a good reflection of their print editions: a collection of press releases with an occasional columnist thrown in. Newly launched websites being produced today update the look of their sites but rarely change the editorial philosophy. The addition of video, for instance, is simply adding in a new way to publish press releases as most B2Bs simply reproduce the video content contributed from their advertisers.

In fact, New Media offers a chance to break the cycle. Blogs, columns and forums are a way of not only bringing in new voices but in driving traffic. While B2B magazines intentionally set the circulation levels in relation to their competitors, the web and other digital media platforms are where true competition is still the norm. If a B2B can drive twice the uniques and page views that their competitor can, they will be in a stronger position to sell digital advertising.

Sadly, I must admit that as a publisher or group publisher, I have found it hard to sell this idea to my editors. The reason is simple: editing the title's website is just another chore added to the already long list of duties required of most B2B editors. True, some titles, like the ad agency books and the general business titles, are in a completely different position than their small to mid-sized brethren. But they truly are the exception.

Will Hungary become the focus of the EU's attention, or is the Central Bank all they are really concerned about

2012-01-12T09:30:00.000-05:00

For much of 2011 the center of attention in Europe had been Greece (followed by Italy). As the Greek debt crisis continued the Socialist prime minister was eventually replaced with a technocrat, Lucas Papademos, a former Vice President of the European Central Bank. Not long afterward the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berluscon was replaced by Mario Monti.

Today the New York Times published a story on what may be the big story in Europe this year, Hungary.

Faced with what critics say is an alarming drift away from democracy by one of its members, the European Union gave the Hungarian government a final warning Wednesday that it would face the start of formal legal action by next Tuesday unless it modified a series of measures that threaten the balance of power in the country. – NYT

At the center of the debate is Fidesz, the right-wing political party that has control of the levers of government, and has been pushing through laws that are meant to guarantee its continued control.

In 2011, only the laws concerning the media seemed to get much play (what a surprise), but now it is the move to end the independence of the Central Bank that has caught the attention of the EU.

Hungary has its own debt crisis, so the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban needs to be able to access credit. But can the EU really accept a non-democratic state within the organization?

For further background I would recommend this blog post at European Tribune: Protest in a one-party state.

The Philadelphia Inquirer choses makes a strange app icon choice: former U.S. Senator Arlen Specter

2012-01-12T08:15:00.000-05:00

This has to be the strangest choice for an app icon I've ever seen: U.S. Senator Arlen Specter.

Why The Philadelphia Inquirer would want Arlen Spector's face as their app icon is one of those questions I suppose that has no answer other than "don't question the thinking of a newspaper executive, it will drive you crazy."

The good news is that once you have downloaded the app the actual icon you see in Newsstand is different – though I have to say that the actual icon is really no better, a dark photo and the name of the paper so small that a magnifying glass wouldn't be of much help.

It is reported that Arlen Specter is now doing stand-up comedy, and isn't too bad. Maybe the management team at the Inquirer are attempting the same.

New Haven Register to close pressroom, outsource printing operation to Hartford, layoff 105 staffers

2012-01-11T15:30:00.023-05:00

This has to be one of the most tone deaf stories ever to appear on the website of a newspaper: the New Haven Register has announced that it will lay off 105 people by closing down its pressroom, yet its report reads like this is all going to be good news. Readers aren't buying it, judging from the comments to the story.

The story lacks the byline of an individual reporter but instead is credited to "Register Staff". Good thing, no one would want to take credit for such writing.

“We’re excited to be opening our newsroom to our community,” publisher Tom Wiley is quoted as saying about the newspaper's plans to open an "open newsroom". “We have launched our Community Media Lab and community conversations and this is the next step in serving our community.”

Yes, I'm sure the 105 staffers are equally as excited. But none of them are quoted in the story, and the publisher doesn't mention them in the story either.

Journal Register Co., if you have forgotten, is the company behind the newly formed company Digital First, the combined entity that includes MediaNews Group. Their big initiative right now appears to be opening Newsroom Cafés, places where readers can gather and drink lattes while observing digital first journalists aggregating and editing copy. It's all so modern and all so digital, you see.

More and more, this whole digital first initiative resembles a cult, and I guess I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid. Right now the movement looks to me like a new twist on the whole engineering craze which corporate suits and consultants used to justify layoffs in the mid-nineties.

(At McGraw-Hill we were given copies of the book to read by the newly installed division president as if it were Mao's Little Red Book – why I never burned my copy I don't know. One year later the division president was gone, but so were about half the employees. It was the first time, but unfortunately not that last time I was forced to layoff staffers in support of some idiot's great new idea.)

Adobe to offer CS3, CS4 owners upgrade pricing to CS 6

2012-01-11T12:13:00.001-05:00

The website 9to5 Mac made a nice catch this morning when it noticed a new post on the Adobe website. The news is that Adobe will be offering owners of Creative Suite versions 3 and 4 the opportunity to upgrade to Creative Suite 6 when it is released at upgrade pricing.

Here is their announcement:

We’re very excited about the upcoming release of Adobe® Creative Suite® 6 software and Adobe Creative Cloud™. CS6 will be a major new release of our creative desktop tools, with huge improvements for every type of creative professional. Adobe Creative Cloud will be our most comprehensive creative solution ever, giving members access to all of the CS6 desktop software plus additional services, new tools, Adobe Touch Apps, and rich community features. In addition, Creative Cloud members will receive continuous upgrades and updates to all products and services as part of their membership.

With these great new releases coming in the first half of 2012, we want to make sure our customers have plenty of time to determine which offering is best for them. Therefore, we’re pleased to announce that we will offer special introductory upgrade pricing on Creative Suite 6 to customers who own CS3 or CS4. This offer will be available from the time CS6 is released until December 31, 2012. More details on this offer, as well as any introductory offers for existing customers to move to Creative Cloud membership, will be announced when CS6 and Creative Cloud are released later this year.

Adobe upgrade pricing is currently highly variable – upgrading to Creative Suite 5.5 Design Premium from CS3 costs $949 while the upgrade from CS 4 is $649, for instance – so it will be interesting to see what kind of pricing Adobe will offer.

Two years ago I was able to upgrade to CS4 when Adobe suddenly offered discounted upgrades – that upgrade included a full version of the software with a new license. Hopefully Adobe will do the same this time around.

Two new tablet apps show that spending time on native layouts will result in a better tablet reading experience

2012-01-11T11:11:00.000-05:00

It is always a joy to download new iPad apps that prove to be a joy to read – the experience is far too rare these days. But these two apps (below) show the value in investing in native tablet production.

The first app comes from the German publisher CHIP Communications GmbH for its namesake magazine CHIP. The app is free to download and provides readers with free previews of the magazine editions found inside.

Each issue costs $3.99 per issue, or the reader can subscribe for three months at $9.99, $19.99 for 6 months, or an annual subscription at $37.99 (obviously the prices are different in the German App Store, for instance individual issues cost € 2.99).

The previews give the reader more than enough content to make a decision. More importantly, it shows the reader what the reading experience will really be like: landscape and portrait layouts, native page design which includes scrolling within pages, etc.

The issues open with an animated cover, which can be somewhat annoying because every time one encounters the page the animation plays again. But the animation is kept to a minimum at least.

This app has been in the App Store for several months now, but an app update was issued today to fix various bugs. The reader response to the app has been generally very favorable, with most complaints in the German App Store centering on the subscription prices being charged rather than the app itself.

Left: CHIP can be read in both portrait and landscape, with the ads redesigned to fit both orientations; Right: the TOC is simple and cleverly designed for the iPad reading experience.

A new app for Kent State University was released yesterday into the App Store. Developed by iMirus, the digital publishing division of Riggs Heinrich Media, the app is can be found inside Newsstand and is free to download, as is the content inside.

My expectations were that I would find replica editions of the campus brochures, but was pleasantly surprised to find that the brochures have been redesigned to be read on the iPad, taking advantage of native design ideas such as text boxes, embedded video, etc.

As a result, the app is very easy to use and read. The app was a bit sluggish on my first generation iPad (for this reason I am looking forward to getting iPad 3 when released), and gave me a memory warning when I played the Crooked River Adventures video found inside. But it did not crash, I might add.

Rather than using adjustable fonts, the app relies on pinch-to-zoom, which I found odd, but otherwise the app worked fine. But the developer iMirus has other apps inside the App Store that have pretty negative reviews due to performance issues (such as the negative reviews for Charisma Media Magazine). This app, then, appears to be a major improvement over the previous apps released by iMirus.

Left: The school President's opening page, with a scrollable text box; Right: the Crooked River Adventures article containing the embedded video.