TAKEAWAY: We continue with coverage of the Poynter Institute’s conference The Power of the Tablet. Today, post-presentation interviews with Joe Zeff of Joe Zeff Design and Andrew DeVigal of The New York Times.
We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the conference and continue to receive emails and telephone calls from around the world from people who tell us they feel as they were present at the conference, thanks to the live blogging that detailed the proceedings in a remarkable way. At the moment, Reed Reibstein prepares an e-book transcript that will be available for the iPad and PC. I hope to complete an introduction for the transcript. It definitely represents one of the quickest turn arounds in terms of presenting conference content for those who were not in attendance. Stay tuned for instructions on how to receive the material.
By the way, I was happily surprised to read an interview with Chris Anderson, editor of Wired (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/504073/Wireds-Chris-Anderson-Makes-Big-Bet-on-the-iPad), who tells us what we mentioned repeatedly at the Tablet conference: Anderson uses terms like “personal” and “intimate” to describe the user experience. “It’s not a work device, it’s kind of a pleasure device,” he says.
Amen, we are convinced that the iPad, and it may be the same for future tablets in the horizon, invite to relax, to have the sort of “disconnect” experience we associate with reading newspapers, magazines and books. Indeed, finally the digital platform that offers a feeling of disconnect while one is connected.
I was also featured in a video interview with tablet conference presenter Staci D. Kramer of PaidContent.org:
Interview: Dr. Mario Garcia: ‘Print Is The Mother Milk Of The Tablet’: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-interview-dr.-mario-garcia-print-is-the-mother-milk-of-the-tablet/
Post-presentation interviews
While at the tablet conference, Reed Reibstein was able to interview several speakers, following up their presentations with one or two additional questions. We will present transcripts of these recorded interviews.
Joe Zeff, President, Joe Zeff Design
Question: In your presentation you discussed three kinds of media tablet apps. [“You can tabletize your entire publication, you can tabletize parts of your publication, or you can create something entirely new.] Do you think that one of those types is already dominating? In the future, do you think one of them will? Or will they all coexist?
Joe Zeff: We’re seeing a lot of magazines and newspapers that are fixated on the idea that their existing print publication needs to be conveyed somehow on the iPad. I think what’s going to happen going forward, in terms of making money from the iPad, is that publications are going to use their brand as a low-cost way of introducing people to their publication and brand values. Then you’ll see a lot of incremental publications that can be sold at higher price points that will generate the income for these publications.
P.S. Zeff was interviewed by USA Today about taking the iPad on a cruise. “It infringed on my vacation,” he said.
Andrew DeVigal, Multimedia Editor, The New York Times
Question: One person, through the liveblog comments, asked about the difference between web apps and native apps. When would you want to use a rich website versus an application written in a particular, proprietary language?
Andrew DeVigal: I think it’s about resources. If you have the resources to build out a native app on that particular platform, if you have the resources to program that in and work on that technically—I think it’s a steeper learning curve for many organizations—whereas a web app, or at least a web app that can be displayed on many different devices, there’s less of a barrier for most people. Again, it’s about resources.
Another reason to use native apps is that you have a lot more control over the experience, because the programming abilities and the customization are a lot more fluid and creative, while there are already built in limitations when you try to develop an application through the web. You would have to confine your development based on the limitations of the Safari browser, for example.
Question: Speaking about platforms, The New York Times homepage is mostly iPad compatible, but there are still parts of it done in Flash. For rich graphics I think you’re mostly still using Flash. Do you see yourselves transitioning toward technologies that work on platforms that don’t allow Flash, or are you going to continue using Flash for the foreseeable future?
DeVigal: We have an enormous number of talented and skilled journalists within the organization that have expertise in Flash, so our commitment to Flash is going to be long-term for a while. Obviously it’s a wait-and-see situation. One of the reasons why we haven’t ported out everything that we produce and develop on the website and go strictly HTML5 is, again, that learning curve. It’s pretty difficult to develop what we consider pretty complex and fluid interactions with our data and multimedia. [HTML5 would be] a limitation. It would hinder performance and usability for our readers.
I think if the trends go toward more people going to the iPad and expecting a rich experience in that way, then certianly our commitment to make that available is going to be a reality. At the moment we don’t quite see those numbers. We are going to try to expose our data and multimedia to as many people as possible. It’s a scaling trend. At the same time, the penetration of Flash is much higher than the compatibility of HTML5 across the different platforms, so that’s also a wait-and-see.