[thesethings]

Ha... I definitely get what you mean. Others have compared these "rich site" apps to CD-ROM, another dis.

I think they are generally uninteresting, and not "the future," but could be an OK short-term product idea for legacy media companies. (But not business model)

Old-school publishing companies have lots customers who might not exercise the same effort in discovery that you and i do.

Let's compare to familiar territory: tech companies:

Shrinking technology paradigms (giant life cycle desktop OS's like Microsoft Windows, Sun's SPARC) can launch new products, and make money off of shrinking, but existing customers. That doesn't mean they're being realistic about how to survive the future. Or that these "short burst" products are a good use of their time. (Sun maybe spent too much time denying SPARC's disappearance. MS seems to be doing just fine with Windows 7.)

Coming back to magazine apps... it's a short-term blast kind of thinking. Sometimes those things work out great, and get you enough money to survive to the next era... sometime it doesn't. I won't buy 'em. But depending on what else is going on inside of their organization, I don't necessarily blame msm for trying it out.

[foomarks]

I'm also thinking that the actual production of interactive material is, when done relevantly, extremely time consuming. Can the cost of programming and interaction design stay on budget? Will $5 per issue be able to sustain this type of setup?

Also, I'm trying to remember the last time when an interactive infographic was enlightening... [remembering] nope, I can't remember!

For magazine and paper news journalism, I think they can improve their market by going further into the video medium, not the interactive medium.