Here’s a round-up of a few more posts talking about how iPad apps for magazines and newspapers really are a poor second to the web versions of those magazines and newspapers:

Mike Masnick on Techdirt covers Michael Gartenberg’s review of Wired’s iPad app:

Gartenberg notes that the iPad version is, in some ways, a worst of both worlds. It’s not like the website, which is easily shared or emailed or discussed with others. Most of that functionality is effectively missing, which is really quite limiting for folks who are used to sharing the news as a part of experiencing it. Second, it doesn’t allow physical notations or markup the way an actual paper magazine does—or, again, the ability to easily share the magazine with others. You could share your iPad, but that’s not quite the same thing…

Frederic Filloux on PaidContent sums up a number of iPad media applications with the phrase “a) most are disappointing; b) no need to worry.” He remarks on how many of his friends use Safari in preference to apps, and say that newspapers are better read through browsers.

He describes three conditions necessary for media apps to be a good deal:

  1. The price has to be right.
  2. The reading experience has to be fluid and flawless.
  3. Interface has to be obvious.

Needless to say, most apps do not meet these conditions.

Filloux concludes with a wish list for iPad media apps, including such things as programmable downloading for offline reading, more interaction, and new formats.

British journalist Adam Tinworth has a post linking to a couple of other posts looking at problems with iPad media apps, in lieu of finding time to write his own on the matter.

I suspect the underlying message to these posts is this: publishers need to come up with a compelling app experience that beats out the web experience if they want customers to pony up for apps. Offline access might be part of that, but it’s far from enough on its own.

It’s a little amusing to consider that some people are accusing Apple of having a secret plan to force publishers to move away from the web and into apps by bundling the ability to skip ads into the Safari browser. Given how unanimous public opinion seems to be that media apps Aren’t All That, I think it’s going to take a little more effort on Apple’s part to pull that conspiracy off.

3 COMMENTS

  1. One media app which is working beautifully is Publishers Weekly. This is costing me $4.99 per month which I think is reasonable, considering what other subscription options cost. It is a very well done app with the full content of PW, including all the ads from the print version. Navigation is easy. A double tap enlarges the text hugely, but then you can pinch to bring it down to whatever size you are comfortable with. I am really thrilled to have this, mainly because of the book reviews.

  2. I’m finding that I really like reading some magazines on the ipad – it’s fun reading some
    glossy home decor magazine from the UK or India that would be difficult to find at a newstand. Newspapers are different, though.

  3. Press Display has an app that’s a BIT rough around the edges (interface isn’t as smooth as it could be), but for $30 a month you can read any number of their newspapers, and they do have a LOT. Each paper is a scanned digital replica, but they also have the text of each article an dyou can easily email an article out.

    Seems like a lot, especially since they don’t have the NY Times, but they have HUNDREDS of papers from around the world, and many mainstays here in the states, including MANY of the major ones. If you subscribed to one or two on Kindle, this becomes a pretty good deal. If you just want your local paper, they have a $10 deal for 30 a month, nice thing there is if you skip a day of your local paper, you can just download two another day, since its’ any 30 newspapers in a month.

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail newteleread@gmail.com.