Magazines: Still Ripe for Digital Reimagining – Psst. The Train Has Left!
I came across this post by Harry McCracken over at Technologizer about how he doesn’t seem to believe anyone has it right in terms of digital editions or readers.
Posts like this are always good for a whine but truly serve no purpose. When Carl Benz came out with the first “motored carriage”, I’m sure the Harry McCracken’s of the day said it would never work because it was too noisy, caused dust, roads were too bumpy, etc. What Benz developed was what I consider to be the first “perpetual prototype”. Every new technology starts somewhere and evolves as resources are committed and time passes.
If McCracken had left it at that I would have said “OK, I suppose there is value in telling us what it’s not.” Unfortunately, the argument rings hollow when the person making it lacks the basic understand of what a digital edition is.
I left a comment on Harry’s blog outlining just a couple of misunderstandings but in the event the comments are not accepted, I’m posting them below:
Harry,
Reading articles such as this really leave me shaking my head in disbelief. Not because of what is said but rather because of what is not. Defining a digital edition as a print “replica” is like viewing the Grand Canyon through a cardboard tube. It focuses solely on your first glance and ignores all the benefits behind the scene.
The other point that needs addressing is your comment regarding “one of the big gotchas with Zinio magazines”. They are a very successful company that, as far as I know, have never produced a portrait view of a publication. If you get the chance, have a look at most of the digital edition providers‘ products and you’ll notice they all have a 2-page “landscape” format as you recommend.
Now that we’ve managed to clear up your reason for not having any digital edition subscriptions, perhaps you can let us know which of the thousands of the “got the format right” publications you’ve decided to plunk down your money for?
Loading ...
