Apple developers were obviously aware that in order for their new product (iPad) to be widely used, it must have to potential to be incorporated in it's user's everyday life, therefore it must be simplistic, user-friendly, not too big but at the same time but large enough to really appreciate the touch-screen and display resolution. So iPad enables users to carry everything with them in a small portable device: pictures, music, the Internet, personal information manager, interactive maps, books and magazines, movies etc. And to make sure to attract the masses, they made an alluring minimalistic design.
By creating a means of daily media consumption (iPad), Apple developers also affected the already changing publishing industry: now kindle has a rival, Amazon is threatened by iBookstore and the meaning and of a book is (becoming) revolutionized, first by e-books and now by e-books enriched with various audiovisuals. So If publishers want to assure their future, then their offer of e-books must exceed plain text and provide a dynamic reading experience. But as Nathan Jurgenson noted, the iPad favors passive consumers and not active prosumers.
During the last couple of weeks while I was browsing through various articles and blog posts on iPads I noticed something: the New York Times was constantly praising iPad in its articles and also when speaking of the new, revolutionized ways of reading newspapers, there was always a picture of iPad with the NYT on the screen (all the early posts on the subject had the same visual material, because pictures of iPad were available only on apple.com). In his recent article Francis Reynolds posted:
Dan Gillmor recently commented on the relationship between Apple and the New York Times, noting that Times new media executive Martin Nisenholtz was on stage for the iPad's unveiling ceremony in January, praising the device, and that the Times frequently appeared on the screen of iPads in advertisements for the device. "By appearing on stage at the Apple event and by launching an iPad app that the Times wants to monetize in every possible way—an app from which Apple will likely make money as well—the Times is becoming more of a business partner with a company it covers incessantly."
So while everybody is speaking of newspapers and publishing revolution in general, the NTY is getting a lot of publicity by being present at iPad-related events, in the visual materials and almost always being an example of this 'revolution'.
Reynolds makes another good point:
[iPad's] not just a better computer, it's a different way of providing content. It doesn't make it easier to surf over to nytimes.com, rather, the big draw of the iPad is that you don't go to nytimes.com, you get the content of nytimes.com in a visually-appealing and user-friendly app. All of which puts a lot of importance on the app as a content-providing medium.
While publishers are focusing on getting a lot of money from subscriptions, Apple will soon most likely be in the power to manage the content that these publishers will provide. So publishers are obviously not (entirely) aware of all the power they are giving up, and Apple is being smart enough to take advantage of the situation.
In my opinion, when all this buzz around the iPad subsides,
What do you think?
Ni komentarjev:
Objavite komentar