The Joss Group

Wishing Steve Jobs All the Best

I have mentioned Steve Jobs on this blog before, and, sadly, am doing it again today. Yesterday Apple announced Steve Jobs has resigned his role of CEO and will continue on with Apple as Chairman of the Board. Immediately blather started pouring forth on what was probably millions of online chat venues--speculations about why he made the move, his health, and the future of Apple.

Supposedly, the full text of his resignation letter got out on the Web, and it says, in part, "I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come."

I doubt the text is authentic--hope not because it sounds like an unwelcome harbinger to me.

I have to admit I got really irate at one post "out there" on the Web--just blasted the person--which is not my normal style. The person had agreed this was probably sad news and said, yes, Jobs had contributed a lot, but then followed that up by saying something along the lines of there are a lot of bright, young 25 year olds out there who could do just the same kind of thing.

Uh, no.

Now, I am not BFF with Steve Jobs. I met him years ago when I worked for the company that then owned the Seybold Report and Seybold Seminars. He faithfully attended and spoke at Seybold shows and conferences for years and was a solid supporter of our efforts (wish Apple would subscribe now that I own the Seybold Report).

He was always exemplary, always enthusiastic and on point, and always brilliant. He, IMHO, used that vision and enthusiasm to single handedly change the graphic arts industry for the better time and again.

So, no. There is not another Steve Jobs waiting in the wings out there somewhere, and we are not ready to say good-bye just yet.

Get better, Steve!

Another Great Webinar Coming Up June 29th!

We are having another great Webinar in our Publishing on the iPad series. Next week, Wednesday June 29 at 2 PM. Click here to register (free to Seybold Report subscribers, $29.99 for everybody else--the price to listen to the recorded seminar will be more than the price to attend the live event).

 

Financial Times Will Not Publish a "Dumb" App

I really enjoyed this post on the Nieman Journalism Lab blog today--I suggest you read the entire post. It is about why the Financial Times is sticky with its HTML5 Web/iPad app instead of going through the App store. Apple still won't allow publishers to put buy buttons in their own content! So the FT is just saying no.

As quoted in the blog post: “The fact remains that the publication still wouldn’t be able to sell subscriptions within an app using our own system, so all we’d be allowed to do is offer an app—that’s what they called dumb—for subscribers who purchase it somewhere else,” said Tom Glover, a Financial Times spokesman.

How Long Does it Take to Make an iPad App?

How about three weeks? But factor in having to do your regular job on top on working on the app? That is what so many magazine production departments are having to do right now. Publishers are still exploring the world of iPad publishing and are reluctant to add staff to help get the additional work of making an iPad app done.

Nobody has been talking too much about how the process of multi-channel production works, which is why I was glad to see Terri Stone, CreativePro's editor, tackle the job. She chronicled the process by which Scientific American went from print magazine to iPad app in three weeks. You can read about it by clicking here.

I asked Terri what she found most surprising about the project, and, not surprisingly, it was how quickly they could turn it around. Even though it took three weeks, this is not a timeline I would recommend for publishers because production staff should not have to work this hard.

Here is what she told me: "I was shocked that three people, even these particular experts in InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop, working every moment they were awake could accomplish this feat in just 27 days.

I don't want to promote the idea that it's easy to bring print material into digital publications, or that it would normally take less than a month. No way! That's why I'm in awe of their success.

I was also interested in how they worked together using Dropbox, though I don't think that made it into the article.  Scott Citron said, "Without Dropbox, this wouldn't happened. All the files were on my Dropbox folder, which was shared with Mordy and Bob."

Mordy Golding continued, "Scott would start a design. I then created Horizontal and Vertical versions of the design and added layers that would become multi-state objects. Then Bob would create the MSOs and do other production work. If I had to go into it, all of the previous work was there. Dropbox was even better than if we had been in the same room at same time..."

"... because we would have killed each other," Bob said.

Is a Trend Starting? Condé Nast Slows Work on iPad Editions

Well, well...one of the major magazine publishing companies is pulling back from its development of iPad editions. Quote from on one of the company's publishers: "They're not all doing all that well, so why rush to get them all on there?" Read more about it.

Yep, I am calling it. A trend. And it will only grow in momentum--and quickly. Publishers don't like the terms of the deal Apple has set, they do not have the money to invest in apps that do not make money, and, well, who can blame them?

What publishers should not do, however, is pull back from exploring mobile publishing at large.

Financial Times Goes Toe-to-Toe with Apple

Or should we say iPad to iPad? Either way, good for the Financial Times! The publisher wants to sell directly subscriptions directly to readers instead of surrending good money and good information to Apple. This, at least, according to a recent report by Reuters. My question is why does Apple feel it has to suck up all this money and all this information? Yes, yes, we get the company owns the platform, but the companies that make paper do not ask for anything beyond the price they charge for the paper publishing companies use to disseminate their printed content.

Another Free Webinar on iPad Publishing! March 16

I am excited about the upcoming free Seybold Report Webinar in the iPad publishing series. We started off with YUDU, Quark did a great one for us on multi-channel publishing with QuarkXPress 9 just last week. Next week, WoodWing will give a demonstration of how to create iPad and other apps (such as Android OS) with the company's software tools. To learn more about the Webinar and to pre-register, click here. Space on this one is limited, so pre-register to make sure you get a spot.

Some of the people who attended the Quark Webinar asked if it would be possible to get Adobe to do the same kind of thing in a free Webinar. I have asked and hope to be able to schedule that one soon, too.

How Much Would You Pay to Create an iPad App?

I have been reading and hearing some scary numbers for iPad app development. Magazine and newspaper publishers are paying tens of thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a single iPad app that is really just a juiced up/dolled up version of a single issue. Now, Apple, says publishers must give up 30% of the gross sales for each iPad app sold and that is if Apple is happy enough with the content of the app to allow it to be sold in its store.

Really?

What if you could make an app yourself--in house--that would cost little more than a few hours of additional production time per issue? With a total cost of less than a few thousand extra dollars? What if you could create an app that would run on multiple readers and tablet PCs? Wouldn't you be interested? If you are, please plan to attend our next Publishing on the iPad Webinar on March 2. Visit the Seybold Report site for more information and to sign up to attend this free event.

Apple has Competition (iPad)

There is a rumor going around Hewlett-Packard and Time Warner have struck a deal for TW to provide magazine content on HP's new tablet PC, coming this summer. TW had hoped to do a deal with Apple, but it fell apart after Apple and TW could not come together on terms.

Apple's iPad Policy Angers Publishers and Discourages Multi-channel Publishing

We took Apple to task in the latest issue of the Seybold Report (11.3), which we published yesterday. Apple has apparently decided it will force publishers who want to sell content for the iPad to add in a subscription or purchase option in each app. That means for every sale of the publisher's content that goes through the App store, Apple will get 30% of the sale price. I say "apparently" because 1) Apple does not seem to have an official spokesperson for dealing with publishers, so this is all on the level of hearsay and 2) nobody in publishing can wrap their minds around the prospect of losing 30% of the sale price (not the net price, the gross price) of their content sales on the iPad.

I know this policy is going to make more than a few publishers simply walk away from publishing any content on the iPad. Not just paid content. Any content. Publishers are already straining their budgets and pulling their hair out to figure out a way to stretch existing staff and other resources to do some kind of mobile publishing. There is simply no more give in their budgets. Apple's policy is just another reason for publishers to give up on the whole idea of multi-channel publishing.

The European Newspaper Publishers' Association issued a statement February 7 calling on all tablet PC vendors, including Apple, to be realistic about what will work for publishers and what will not work (sucking all profits out of mobile publishing efforts goes in that category, in my mind). The Association tendered its objection a little more gently, saying "The European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA) today called on technology companies to ensure that newspaper subscribers can continue to enjoy access to news content on tablets and other online services, without any restrictive conditions."

I wish more publishing trade associations would just say what we are all thinking: "Yes, Amazon, Apple, HP, and whoever else, we know you want to make some money from our content. Well, so do we. And if we are not happy with our profit levels, or we cannot make money selling our content on your medium, well, then you will not have enough content to sell to make your medium worth the silicon it is printed on. If you are going to keep this up, we are better off using paper and just paper."