[lutusp]

> "The Magazine: For geeks like us"

... geeks "like us" who only care about iOS and are willing to pay for content. Just to be accurate.

Not that there's anything wrong with paying for content. Every time you're confronted by an ad that you didn't volunteer to look at, you're paying for content.

But iOS-only seems like quite a limitation, and seems to contradict "for geeks like us" as the headline appears in HN.

[mjb]

I don't have a problem paying for content, but I do have a problem with IOS-only. Even though I own an iPad, I like to have access to my reading material in multiple places. I spend a bunch more time looking at my Kindle, for example, and prefer the reading experience there to the iPad.

A decade ago, something like this published in the closed formats of the time (MS Word, maybe) would have met with a huge backlash. Today, it seems like Apple have convinced the market that 'closed' is OK, because it's well-designed and a little bit shiny. I think it's a real step backward, especially given the great open standards that are available (like HTML5) and other tools which give similar control with more accessibility (like PDF).

[guiambros]

I also share the concern with an iOS-only model, but give him a break: it's just a 2 months proof-of-concept.

He needs critical mass in order to make this sustainable in the long term - without having to resort to ads, sponsored reviews and all sorts of ways to keep the quality.

The choice for iOS for the initial platform seems obvious: it's much easier to monetize quickly. And it's easy to add Kindle, Android, HTML5 and others later on - at the cost of maintaining multiple versions, provided that there's enough interested paying subscribers to justify the effort.

I think that's exactly the right approach, and a real step forward.

[mjb]

> I think that's exactly the right approach, and a real step forward.

I disagree. I think, sales issues aside, that open standards like HTML5 offer enough to give a good reading experience on most devices. Where it doesn't, that's typically because the device doesn't support the format, rather than the converse.

As for how monetizing this is going to work for Marco, I don't know. Maybe iOS-only is the only way he could get that to work, and that's the right choice for him. If that's true, I still think it's unfortunate.

[guiambros]

> ..open standards like HTML5 offer enough to give a > good reading experience on most devices

It doesn't matter if it's HTML5 or whatever. If they don't find a sustainable model, then the magazine will not exist and you won't have the content - open or otherwise.

Second: content trump format. But while the focus is on content, the format is equally pleasant, better than most other magazines that spend a good amount of energy trying to imitate their tree-based predecessors.

> Maybe iOS-only is the only way he could get that to work, and that's the right choice for him. > If that's true, I still think it's unfortunate.

To me the only unfortunate thing is for this experiment to fail. Marco is a great writer, and his proposal seems honest and has merit.

[arrrg]

Do you think a multi-platform launch would have been possible with about the same effort? That’s the important question here. Also take into account developer experience and what skills Marco Arment has.

We are talking about a small project with limited resources and a developer with a certain skill set. I don’t think you can ignore that.

You can certainly ask for support on more devices and be disappointed that the magazine in the offered format isn’t a good fit for your devices – but I do not understand the apparent moral condemnation of that decision. It seems harmless and morally neutral to me – maybe ill-advised (in that it might doom the magazine), but not morally problematic.

[revelation]

Really? Do we really have to make up stuff now in excuse? The guy runs an Apple blog.

[arrrg]

I don’t really understand what you want to say. Do you honestly believe that he didn’t make the magazine multi-platform out of spite? That’s just ridiculous.

[MaysonL]

And the guy has a successful iOS app which recently launched an Android version. So your point is?

[lutusp]

> Today, it seems like Apple have convinced the market that 'closed' is OK ...

Yes, to the degree that Microsoft has decided to imitate the Apple model. It seems Microsoft has closed Windows 8 to third-part applications (except pre-existing ones operating in compatibility mode). All Windows 8 apps that depend on Windows 8 features can only be gotten from Microsoft directly, in an obvious imitation of the App store:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/10/developers-windows-8/

What's worse, these cyber-birdcages seem wildly popular.

[saturdaysaint]

It's certainly iOS-first, but I don't see any indication that it's iOS-only. Given the iPad's position in the tablet market, it will be a while before magazine style publications (which are natural for the form-factor) give equal priority to Android.

[incision]

>It's certainly iOS-first, but I don't see any indication that it's iOS-only.

You know exactly what he meant, no need to play word games.

>Given the iPad's position in the tablet market, it will be a while before magazine style publications (which are natural for the form-factor) give equal priority to Android.

It's text.

Also, considering it took 4 years for Instapaper to make it to Android, skepticism is more than warranted.