We all know that being featured in the app store has a tremendous impact. The real issue, however, is the value of the exposure. A 30% cut it is a much cheaper distribution channel than what they are used to. Apple's newsstand fits neatly into their world. And for a company like Conde Nast, I am not surprised. He then goes on to praise Apple's app store or more specifically the upcoming newsstand. A world in which exposure through vendor controlled newsstands is the only way to sell. The only people who can possible think that packages and covers are a good idea are those based in a disconnected world. And limit it to a digital newsstand where people have to browse and download each issue? Or about making something go viral because people want tell their friends about it?Ĭould you imagine, say, that a site like Techcrunch where to stop posting new articles as a stream? Instead, they would put them all into daily packages with a cover on the front. To have a dedicated container on a tablet device, the iPad, where covers are the primary means of purchase and browsing is something we've been looking for a long time.Ĭovers as the primary means of purchase? He must be mad! Or maybe he has just never heard about people linking and sharing content to spread the word. He starts out by talking about the cover. He talks about digital publishing, but every single word he says is firmly based on a print mentality - one in which packaging and broadcasting are the only factors. The first article I read this morning was the interview with Condé Nast's Scott Dadich on " reinventing magazines for the iPad and why partnering with Apple matters".
0 kommentar(er)
