Picture 2

Everyone in the media industry will be waiting with baited breath as Apple unveils its tablet computer today (live here at 10am PST)

Will the Apple tablet save publishing? No.

It will force them to get off their collective duffs and start investing in defending their brand digitally, but just like the music industry the business model–where you’re forced to buy a bunch of crap to get at the one thing you want–is broken. I’ve long predicted a bright shiny future for people who deal in photography and the tablet is one more device where things shouting for our attention will require creative geniuses to give us arresting imagery.

Designer Joe Zeff has this to say (here):

Watch closely as newspaper and magazine publishers bet their last nickels — not an exaggeration, in some cases — on this new medium. It provides the 50-somethings who run these companies a chance to captivate subscribers and advertisers by returning to their roots — producing and selling the terrific newspapers and magazines that made these brands valuable in the first place. But even better than the original, with up-to-the-minute content that can be individualized for every reader — and advertiser. Happy days are here again, along with the ubiquity, relevance and brand loyalty that has been absent from the publishing world for the past 15 years.

Jason Kincaid over on TechCrunch (here) describes how a tablet will change the way we consume media and a big part of that consumption will be in rich media where text, graphics, audio, video and photography combine to immerse users in a story telling experience.

I for one am looking forward to getting rid of the piles of magazines, browsing an endless newsstand of titles and buying well written, well photographed and well designed stories to read.

Recommended Posts


  1. If Magazine do move to a digital version, it will provide a lot more room for photography to be featured, without the publisher worrying about his page count. And that can’t be a bad thing for any of us!!

    • @Simon Winnall, more photos in this medium is good, just dont expect to get higher fees for providing more.

      • @Stephen Karlisch,

        Not only that… remember, now you’re also going to have to do video along with your stills. Oh, they might give you a couple hundred more dollars for it… but as anyone who’s dealt with even small amounts of video knows, it will take up a lot of storage space, resources, and most importantly time. And just like with digital and digital fees photographers will take very little (or nothing) because hey, “it doesn’t cost anything anyway.”

        Hmm, that sounded like cynicism and Conan hates cynicism… he’s right, it doesn’t get you anywhere, so I’ll stop now.

        • @Jeff Singer, I hear you, I’m already seeing that happen with photogs and “giving” away video. There needs to be more action taken to educate photographers shooting motion how to charge, deliver, manage their work. IF this already exists, someone please post.

  2. Just don’t turn me into a micro stock producer.

  3. Although the tablet may fill in the unknown void in the equation of digital media devices; there are still going to be a LOT more PCs and Macs (and BlackBerry’s, iPhones, Kindles, and….) then there are iSlate’s in the world. Editors and publishers are going to have to broadcast their content to more than just 5% or 10% of the internet world. I would argue that Xbox 360 and PS3s will have a larger (internet) subscriber base for the first few years. It’s obviously going to be a niche market for a while.

  4. More room for photography would be great – as long as the publishers will pay for the expanded content. My fear is they will ask for more work and more pictures but keep assignment rates where they are (and where they have been for the past 20 years).

  5. I’m still not going to buy a magazine if the content is shit.

  6. The cat is out of the bag why would they pay anything more then what they are paying now for content? Please, I am being serious. I just don’t see how this will raise photographers rates!

  7. I dont buy many magazines, mostly because the content is boring, but I do like paper magazines. I’ve always thought type looked better on paper. There is also something special about seeing your work printed.

  8. I’m not impressed and I won’t be when it comes out either. This doesn’t this make boring content more interesting. Everyone is scrambling around to invent the next new killer ap, to be the big thing of the moment

    How about an old killer ap?

    Something well written with good photography to go along with it.


  9. Oops,

    I meant to say “This doesn’t make boring content more interesting.”

    Talk about well written : (


  10. Hey Rob, did you notice that it has “page flipping” in the iBook reader ap? I know that bugs you as much as it does me!

    Overall, I’m quite intrigued by the iPad though. Looking forward to checking it out further and seeing if great content does indeed follow. One nice aspect of Apple’s approach to this is that users heavily rate content available from iTunes Music Store. Creating a stinker for the iPhone for example, doesn’t really help you. Good aps stand out. Perhaps, the vocal user base will aid in getting media outlets to produce higher quality content…

    Here’s to hoping.

  11. @Stephen Karlisch, Steven Noreyko & jo blow: Fair fees are completely up to us, friends. Say no to every bad project or loser fee. You know in your gut when something is wrong.

    So what if you don’t shoot every day? Or even 180 days a year. You also won’t find yourself doing a shoot and saying, “Damn it, I should have been paid more for this.”

    Those of us who are willing to stand up and fight for our creative input, and intellect, will not be the ones struggling with new media’s fees. The future is bright if you open your eyes.

    Among other things, this business is also about knowing your real worth. That’s the problem with our industry right now. Not many photographers know what they do is more valuable than what they give it away for. Mostly because they’re blinded by the love of their creativity.

    Ninety percent businessman, ten percent photographer. Every single super successful shooter has more business sense than talent, no matter how good they are at making a picture.

    Talent won’t get you noticed. Smart marketing and schmoozing will.

    @Giulio Sciorio: Magazines are so busy scrambling to save what they have left that they’re not able to see how they could make more with better content. Quality publication, online or print, would sell very well, even in a crap economy.

    Run the numbers of what a major publication makes on an issue. Pick any month. I did this exercise with a major US magazine using their online media kit and the current issue.

    I found out that less than one percent of the revenue generated from that month’s issue was spent to make the cover, which is the very thing that sells the magazine in the first place. Appalling. Disgusting. Who’s to blame? Wimpy photographers.

    As for bad content/product, take a look at Apple last quarter. Highest earnings in company history. During the worst economy since the Great Depression. With an expensive product. A wonderful product that makes people happy. If people don’t have buyers remorse they’ll come back again and again, even if they’re broke. Make your consumers addicted to your product and they’ll pay almost anything for it, time and time again.

    Apple stole the music industry’s sales and I’d love to see them steal the editorial industry’s too, if only to save it from itself.

    Sorry for the book, Rob. Hope you guys will take two minutes to read it.

    • @Chris Schultz, I think your off base here. Talent will ALWAYS get you noticed. I could care less if you have a great promo or if you buy me a beer after showing your book. If your pictures aren’t good, why would I call you?
      There are plenty of mediocre photographers.
      As far as fees go-many a photographer has gotten repeat business by doing a project with a small budget. Maybe your only referring to editorial shooting, which I agree, is greatly under paid. But in the commercial world, it’s all about negotiation. If someone flat turns down a job just based on money, I am hesitant to call them again. I want to hire people who are passionate about taking pictures not making money.
      And lastly Apple had a record breaking year because of book keeping-“The iPhone’s rollout in several major new markets, including China and South Korea, helped Apple double sales of the hot phone.
      Apple’s numbers also got a boost from an accounting change. Apple started putting iPhone revenue and profit on its books when the gadget is sold, rather than deferring those results over the presumed life of the device.
      Apple said Monday it earned $3.4 billion, or $3.67 per share, in the latest quarter, which ended Dec. 26. In the same period of 2008, had the same accounting standards been in place, it would have had net income of $2.3 billion, or $2.50 per share.
      Revenue was $15.7 billion, a 32 percent jump from $11.9 billion in the same period last year. Apple’s chief financial officer, Peter Oppenheimer, said on a conference call that half of the company’s revenue growth could be attributed to the accounting change, but Apple was silent on the change’s effects on net income.” Source:Yahoo Finance

      • @Midwest Art Buyer, I meant to say, “Talent *ALONE* won’t get you noticed.” Typo that I noticed after hitting “Post”.

        Question… How often, if ever, have you hired a photographer who has a one or two great photos in his book, but doesn’t have any personal recommendations, no website or email address, and no prior history of any other advertising jobs? Has that actually happened? Recently? Talent by itself won’t last. It’s a complex, supplemental scenario that truly breeds success, both in advertising and editorial.

        And yes, I was speaking on editorials only, yes. Advertising generally isn’t broken. Although knowing one’s worth is still applicable to both.

        Well done on the actual Apple figures. I’m going to claim being a victim of the media, as Google didn’t post this data. Regardless, my point is still the same. High quality product will still push healthy sales even when the wallet is emptier than usual. Agreed?

        Let’s also agree that talent is in the eye of the beholder, yes?

        • @Chris Schultz, No problem on the typo Chris. I would think a number of young photographers read this blog (or should if they don’t) and I don’t want them to have the impression that average work will propel them to success even if they have a kickass flash filled website or send a limited edition promo box with action figures of themselves. You need to bring your A game to get noticed above the pile of promos and email blasts I get everyday.

          I don’t think I’ve ever hired someone without a website.
          It’s the easiest and most fundamental way to show your work to potential clients. If you don’t have a website, you better have a rep that is showing your work. If you don’t have either, I just don’t think your taking your job seriously. As far as experience goes, I hire a couple people a year that only have editorial experience and want to break into advertising. But, they don’t get those jobs on one or two great images, I need to see a whole portfolio of great shots to have the confidence to give them a job.

          Of course great products will almost always sell. And they sell better with an Apple logo.

          And yes, talent is in the eye of the beholder. But it helps to have an awesome retoucher!

      • @Midwest Art Buyer,

        “I want to hire people who are passionate about taking pictures not making money.”

        :o Whoa!!!! What can’t a photographer do both?

        My favorite clients are the one’s that live under the freeway, and provide their goods and services to the public for free… you know because they are passionate about their products :-^

        As someone that seems well versed in finance, I ask why should the creative artist be responsible for the clients costs? Your post seems to indicate costs being externalized on to the artist. Maybe I’m mistaken. Please show me, I’m open to learn.

        iPad – I have desktops and laptops. Why will I buy this?

        • @Bob, You are mistaken, I don’t believe I implied that a photographer should be responsible for any costs. Did I?
          I support free market capitalism just like you.
          The point I am trying to make is that fees rise and fall based on budgets. I always want to pay photographers a fair rate. In fact, I make an effort to find other areas of the production to sacrifice in order to preserve shoot fees.
          Just don’t tell me the reason you can’t do the job is because your day rate is triple what I have in my budget. Tell me your booked, tell me your dog died. At the end of the day, we’re all going to get paid. I want to hire people who want to do great work. Everybody thinks their underpaid, it doesn’t matter what you do. My humble advice-the relationships you might build with an Art Buyer or an Art Director by doing a job that you consider below your pay grade might pay off in other ways down the road.

            • @Jason Lindsey, That’s the best advice EVER!
              Well done Jason.

          • @Midwest Art Buyer, This attitude really makes being a photographer extremely challenging,…(quote) ‘if someone flat turns down a job just based on money, I am hesitant to call them again.” ????? And then you say,…”My humble advice-the relationships you might build with an Art Buyer or an Art Director by doing a job that you consider below your pay grade might pay off in other ways down the road.”?? Sure, they will love the fact that you just poured your heart out for them for peanuts, and will always remember what you will sacrifice to keep work coming in. Thats excellent advice. Thanks for helping photographers keep faith in this business.

          • @Midwest Art Buyer,

            Let’s have a closer look and break this down.

            First, I don’t believe an argument can be won. Even if one party shows errs in the others statements or reasoning, they still do damage to that person face (pride). However, both of us have chosen to remain anonymous, so the value in this discussion is not our own egos, but as a forum to others in the industry. Unfortunately this is an off topic tangent, and has very little relation to the thread topic, though it is still significant.

            In the original statement of yours -which I quoted- you did not come out and *directly* state that the photographer should be responsible for “costs”. I took it as an “implication” from you, hence my response. Passion and making a healthy living is not a dichotomy. They go hand in hand. A creative artist will need financial health to be of benefit to this industry.

            I’m not sure why you bring up the “free market”. Possibly you’ve had this discussion before and this was part of your defense? Personally I believe in regulated capitalism but don’t believe a free market exists. Often when I see “free market” brought into a discussion it is by someone arguing for minimum wages or lower. Supply & demand, etc. Generally this becomes ‘my way or the highway’. But possibly you associate free market with capitalism, and just used the term out of habit.

            The question isn’t whether “we are all going to get paid”, it is the ‘rate of return’ (ROI). Is it worth an image makers time and energy to undertake a project? Creative artists don’t value or price their work based on your budget. These rates are not arbitrarily set. They are based on what it takes to run a profitable business, and how the individual values their own time. It’s not up to an art buyer or account exec to determine what a creative artists time is worth. By earning a healthy return a creative artist can then manage their lives better, the client benefits. If a photographer changed their fees capriciously to fit every project, they would immediately lose respect, and perceived value for their services/brand. After all we work in a very subjective industry.

            If your budget is one third of the photographers fee, maybe someone is expecting something for nothing. There are no free lunches. The client or agency may have expectations which are out of line with reality. Since the media buys almost always dwarf creative fees, maybe there is some room for change on that end – instead of externalizing the cost onto the image maker.

            I’m all for developing and maintaining relationships. I suggest if you want a discount or freebie, the time to ask for it is not with a new image maker. Pick someone whom you’ve already developed a relationship, commissioned half a dozen or more projects. Most of us will be happy to help under those circumstances. In fact many of the agencies in other areas of the world often pick up projects with smaller clients with the intent to have full control over creative – the goal being to win awards. These projects often have smaller budgets and image makers will often contribute.

            On the other hand, anyone that has not had a lowball -“this would be good for you”- offer has not been in the business very long. Usually this offer is the carrot on a stick with (unfulfilled) promises attached. Do the job for cheap and we’ll remember you when the cherry projects with big budgets come around. Of course the lowball photographer is never considered for those better projects. His/her brand has been damaged or diminished by working cheap. If you want a discount, let’s shoot the first nine projects at full rate, I’ll throw in the tenth as a courtesy :)

            There is a reason the irony of this piece hits home so well:

            Please pardon any typos or less than graceful phrases, I’m running to a meeting.

  12. Maybe a good day for photographers, definitely a good day for trees. I like photographing trees and thus, I am happy regardless.

    • @Glenn Cratty,

      I often wonder about this. All our digital technology is laden with heavy metals, rare earth minerals, and a hell of a lot of plastic and aluminum. I’m not at all convinced that the net toll on the environment is greater than when we printed magazines and processed film. Especially when you think about replacing all this stuff every two years.

      • @Peter Bohler, I think it is a popular misconception that as more paper is produced, there are less trees. If that were the case, then paper companies would go out of business at a fast pace. Witness Stora Enso, who have been in business since 1347 in Finland. Paper companies manage their forests, and do not clear cut them. Paper that is FSC certified verifies that forests are maintained properly.


        A bigger loss of forest is do to mining and to increase agricultural land usage. Just on the mining aspect, coal is still the widest used generating mechanism for electricity. So recharging all those devices indirectly burns more an more coal.

  13. I am very interested in the new iPad and am excited to see how newspapers and magazines start to format their content for mobile, digital devices.

  14. A very successful still life photographer friend said to me recently…” When are folks going to start buying unnecessary crap again , so i can photograph it”.
    (In reference to the current eco slump) This tablet comes to mind . Load of bollocks. Just another contraption that you don’t need but the advertising powers that be will tell you ..”It will change your life”. I like the journey to the book store…and what adventure might or might not happen on the way..I love seeing my photos in a magazine….It’s the Journey man! Btw… The editorial rates for photographers will never go up significantly…Agents don’t care(they make no $ on it), Magazines don’t care (They think of you as just another vendor),Most photographers don’t care..because they are making the real$$ shooting advertising…it’s a no win situation.

  15. The iPad might not save publishing, but it’s sure going to make it a hell of a lot better. Printing and distributing a paper printed newspaper or magazine is expensive. Distribution electronically will lower the cost of printing additional copies down to nothing, and if the file is hosted on Apple’s servers the distribution cost will also be 0 for the publishers. This should lower the price of how much a subscription sells for as long as advertising is still in the mix.

    This means that publishers can spend more money on content. I think there will be more opportunities than less for photographers. More money too. Surely more than where things were heading. Look at National Geographic Adventure. Fringe titles in the magazine biz were getting too expensive to run because of the cost of paper, printing and distribution and the decline in advertising $$$. The loss of NGA meant one less revenue stream for many outdoor photographers.

    Will it instantly save publishing? No. But it will revolutionize the game and more “electronically published only” pubs will startup and go to market….creating more demand for content. With more demand the price (rates/fees) go up as there is more competition for quality content among publishers. Other than the computer pubs during the internet bubble, printed papers and magazines have been in a recession for decades. So they didn’t have the resources to pay more for content. Additional revenue went to cover overhead.

    Also please don’t cry a river of the recording industries “losses”–they are still making obscene profits–just not hugely obscene profits because they have to pay a middle man now (and Apple supposedly isn’t making more than break even on their sales through iTunes). I think for them it is more of an issue of control and being dictated to.

    • @Eric, Apple’s iTunes got me buying music again. For almost 15 years I didn’t buy any music that wasn’t available free online or from friends.

      Big win.

  16. It’s a netbook without a keyboard, but you can buy one for it. It runs various apps, but only one at a time. It allows you to view websites, as long as they don’t have Flash. It has an LED back-lit screen, and like most laptops will be tough to view in sunlight.

    I think the important thing is that this will be yet another form factor into which content will need to fit. So partially it is a technical issue, to make sure our images look as good as possible when (if) they ever end up displayed on such a device. I don’t entirely think this will increase demand for still images, but I could see it increasing demand for video content.

  17. If this was the replacement for the laptop it – I’d say yes. As a third device… my gut says no.

    One thing that I think is overlooked is the burden of the device. As much as I like and use my iPhone – it’s work to make sure that the device is charged, synced and most of all – not damaged or lost. All of those little things eventually add up to a workflow. My feeling is that the average consumer does not want another workflow. At least I don’t.

  18. Yes!!!!! @Chris Schultz
    “Those of us who are willing to stand up and fight for our creative input, and intellect, will not be the ones struggling with new media’s fees. The future is bright if you open your eyes.

    Among other things, this business is also about knowing your real worth. That’s the problem with our industry right now. Not many photographers know what they do is more valuable than what they give it away for. Mostly because they’re blinded by the love of their creativity.

    Ninety percent businessman, ten percent photographer. Every single super successful shooter has more business sense than talent, no matter how good they are at making a picture.

    Talent won’t get you noticed. Smart marketing and schmoozing will.”

    Oh is so much about the adventure, @BOOBS
    “Those of us who are willing to stand up and fight for our creative input, and intellect, will not be the ones struggling with new media’s fees. The future is bright if you open your eyes.

    Among other things, this business is also about knowing your real worth. That’s the problem with our industry right now. Not many photographers know what they do is more valuable than what they give it away for. Mostly because they’re blinded by the love of their creativity.

    Ninety percent businessman, ten percent photographer. Every single super successful shooter has more business sense than talent, no matter how good they are at making a picture.

    Talent won’t get you noticed. Smart marketing and schmoozing will.”

    Wisdom from a sage!

    Life is about the journey! It pisses me off that people are so fricking lazy, get off your duffs and really live life. I think as a photographer I do every day. I see people struggling, their success, sorrows and more. That is why being a photographer is so visceral. We see more in a day than some see in a life time. This technology is making people like in the kids movie Wall-E. Fat dumb and oblivious to what life is about.

  19. I think it is just, cool. Change life? ehh.. not so much. Mainstream? sooner then later in my opinion.

    Who ever thought they would have an electronic ping pong table that you can play on your t.v.??

  20. Different prospective at different blogs/forums.

    The pixel peeper forums are already bitching that it can’t run PhotoShop. :-) Oh well !

  21. To me it looks like an over sized iphone. I don’t get all the hype?

  22. I certainly do hope this does translate into ‘well written, well photographed and well designed stories to read’. Which would mean quality journalism would be sought after, perhaps translating into a resurgance of jobs for journalists in new media. The combination of all types of media, audio, photo and video I think is really exciting.

    But will the current trend of online tabloid style news websites prevail? With online newspapers gaining cash through clicks to new pages (where there’s more advertising space) I’ve noticed a lot of sensationalist article headlines screaming ‘click me’ that are clearly just for revenue. I can’t see how the tablet will change this. All I can say is I hope that quality news sources do emerge in new formats that don’t cave into the easy cash of sensationalism.

    I also agree that I won’t be sorry to say good by to the stacks of newspapers and magazines. Thats gazillions of trees saved and gazillions of not so nice chemical inks diverted from production. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I’m against printing, but I’m against printing stuff that is disposable. If you want to print wall art or a book, that’s great because they’ll have a long life. Of course there’ll be big environmental impacts from all these new electronics being produced, I’d love to see life-cycle comparisons of the impacts of the new medias versus the old!

  23. It doesn’t even support flash. It’s going to limit the use for a lot of photographers.

    • @B, Yeh not suppotying flash is pretty average.

  24. Rob,

    I feel the real challenge will be to the TV. How soon Hulu and boxee get an app out will be telling.

    Lets have a contest and guess which TV/ Movie will have one in an actors hand first.


    I have hundreds of pdfs that I would love to read, and now I can. Also, I can have this open as I work on my mac and read the manuals, help files and online tutorials.

    For photos:

    When we see raw image processing on this watch out.

    Notice no real talk of iLIfe for iPad? That is definitely coming. At this point is more of a consumer device then a producer device. That will change.

    And I want to create photo/image apps for this device. From intervalometers, lens focusing, realtime color correction on set, to active intelligence gathering using wifi/ bluetooth of how my lights/strobes/camera(s) are talking to each other. Getting a metadata steam that can be used/ called back replayed or sent out to an agency.


  25. The iPad (tampon for old folks) seems to fill the void for the older generation who has no clue how to use an iphone/iTouch and needs a bigger screen because they don’t see so well no more.

  26. Having a hard time wrapping my head around the ergonomics of the iPad.
    My iphone can be with me anytime, anywhere. I can bike, ski, run with it. Juggle coffee, keys & bagel confidently. My portfolio is always in my pocket.
    Sure I curse the small screen but it’s always there.

    The iPad does have that big sexy display but now I’ll have to protect it. With some sort of satchel or mini messenger bag? iPad iPurse ? Where do I put it, how do I carry it? Seems destined to hit the ground sooner than later.

    It needs to be held. Set it on a table and it just lies there, flat. Awkward when you are trying to eat and surf the web. Put a laptop on a table and you can have ten people watching your slideshow or video, hands free. This thing commands serious physical attention. Can’t even think about texting while driving, instant death.

    My iphone is true portability, my laptop is a true portable workhorse.
    Is it just me or is there something so not appealing about the word iPad.

  27. I thought the New York Times demonstration showed that newspaper management still hasn’t got it. They’re trying to sell a whole album, when an awful lot of people just want to buy individual tracks.

    I don’t buy a print newspaper nowadays because I’m not going to read 90% of it. I’ve already got my news from free content on the web, or from the radio. I’m not interested in the sport section. And most days, I’m not interested in their specialist features (fashion, interior design, etc) And likewise I’m not going to pay to download the whole New York Times.

    However, I will pay (a micro amount) to download specific articles that are of interest.

    This is where it could get interesting – and could breathe life back into photojournalism, photography and video. Imagine a good old fashioned photo-essay (think Picture Post or Life) delivered to an iPad for say, 25c. If it’s downloaded 10,000 times that’s $2,500 for the author(s)……

  28. Bated breath, not baited. Just sayin’…

  29. I cant take all the whining about the down market, or even worse, all the doom’sday nihilism about the dead of the market. The industry is shifting its foundations due to change in technology and culture. The issue is not focusing on what is bad, but getting down and dirty and mining what is on our hands for opportunities. Every shift and down market, personally, is extremely welcome. WHo the hell wants the same structure and institution forever? institutionalization means lousy concept, ideas, and and stale content. new technologies: welcome! what am i going to do about it to start climbing the curve of the new and learn what is static and what is garbage? so i can be position to make a killing when the dust settles?

    video? ha! animation, video, and multimedia some kid in his parent’s garage is building right this very moment that will wipe everything out in 5 years.

    evolving on a day to day basis is the new medium. murphy’s law is a joke now. gone. transcended in the blink of an eye. those of us who become adept ad adjusting and change on a weekly basis will be the ones charging the higher fees when the market settles.

    so, my karma is I got a cheaper apartment, cut down on my fancy toys, cut my budgetst across, cut all my costs radically, so i can survive the mayhem and still keep working toward developing out of being a rookie photographer.

    you work with what you are given. lock your horns, and move forward by focusing the energy on opportunities. and for those clients who are just way below my value. a smile and an excuse that i am booked. cause they’ll come around again with good budgets.

    The fees are lower because ad revenue is lower, and there are more of us vying for a piece of the *much* smaller pie. simple idea. simple assessment. what are we going to do about it? whine?

    diversifying is my way of surviving while the industry resets its Teutonic plates. And I am a rookie photographer, mind you. isnt that what the old-timers had to do to survive when they were starting out or when things were tough?

    so, i knock the doors of every possible client who needs photos that i can think of in my local market, i negotiate as best as i can with the lower fees, never give away more rights that the job deserves (because buyers are lumping rights grabbing under the same excuse), shoot whatever pays my bills for the time being (while doing a lot more personal work of the kind of work I would love to be doing (editorial & commercially) so I can keep evolving and learning and getting better, and ransack the new world before us so i can anticipate and figure out and get ready for what will be the future next year, and keep myself sane and productive and happy while things get better.

    dinosaurs do not change.

    mammals do.

    • by the way, it usually takes a few versions before a new product has appeal for me. right off the bat, what i didnt like about the ipad is that the picture does not go to the edge of the tablet. i dont like that big frame between the edge of the screen and the edge of the tablet. makes things look smaller and contracted. why photos look better on screen with either a very small frame or no frame at all. that is a huge aesthetic mistake that quite surprises me given apple’s mojo for great design.

      what i would do is make a table that i can roll and stick into a tube. the technology is already there. if i am an office worker, white collar is the market segment who buys magazines, it is a pain in the ass to carry a laptop and a tablet on my business trip or commute to the office.

      if no rolling capacity ready yet, then much thinner is needed.

  30. You can buy a lot of book and magazines for $800. , and you wont get mugged for a French Vogue.

    Cool toy, but everyone has to own one. Not a problem with the ipod since you can get one for under $100.

  31. Nice gadget, but it needs a keyboard to go with it. A separate keyboard that you plug in via USB will be OK, but you will need to carry the keyboard around with you everywhere, which rather defeats the purpose.

    I’ve been using a tablet ultra mobile PC for a while, and I (nearly) always have to carry a separate keyboard. Microsoft had this concept with the Samsung Q1, having a full PC with touch sensitive screen and designed to work without a keyboard. They sold the keyboard as an optional extra. In the end though, you miss out on so much of the functionality of a laptop if you don’t have a keyboard, that they ended up supplying the keyboard as standard.

    Nice looking gadget, but it’s an awfully unwieldy thing to carry round on the off-chance that you want to read a magazine. Just try typing a few emails on it and you will soon go back to your laptop.

  32. Did all of you missed the part where Zeff talks about all the waiters/waitresses will lose their job because of his major role in this invention?
    I did not. I’ve never served, or thought about serving, but playing Mr. Pink will get you shot in no time.
    A product that is out to get the jobs out of millions of people (opposed to a handful working photographers) i have a problem with.
    But i am an artist, so i will criticize it, put it into context, modify it, mock it, curse at it, rally against it, and at the end praise it for giving me the material to express myself.
    Going through art school, i was not allowed to cite Wikipedia. Only printed material was valid enough to make it into my essays. Why? Because it goes through an editing process. An editor, who more or less knows what they are talking about.
    on the internet, anything is valid. We are walking towards a millennium of lies. enjoy the ride.

  33. doesn’t seem like the media get it. the device (the medium) is irrelevant. it’s the content that matters. if the content’s shit, then why would i be interested? just because i can look at the same old shit on a shiny new ipad?

    the main factor in driving people’s attention to the internet is the fact that it’s content is free (mostly, still). as it becomes more and more bombarded by ads and pay walls go up, there will mostly likely be a shift and people will refuse to pay for digital when they can have the real, physical object for a similar amount – even if it is shit. it took newsday $650 million dollars to get 35 subscribers in 3 months. is that the new economic model we’ve been waiting for?

  34. M.F, I spilled my half caf SOY mochachino on my “Hollywoods 25 most sexy Actors” issue….or I spilled my H.C.S.M….on my Tablet. Tablet? Is that a biblical ref?

  35. I would think that the advantage of a bigger screen over the Iphone is the ability to see 2 windows open at the same time to cross reference what you reading.
    If eg. you are reading an article on manufacturing a car with an image that could open in separate window with several views while you continue to read,
    or maybe you are reading about a story on Scotland with images that open to a short video or how the photographer saw it,his experience, in a separate window…that could have a cool dimension to an article.

    No doubt the need for images and multi media will grow and the one who can produce it all and tell the story, linking it all back to him ,taking advantage of SEOs will rule the next wave.

Comments are closed for this article!