The Inimitable Tiff - fred-wilson: paulgiacherio: petervidani: ...

17th February 2009

fred-wilson:

paulgiacherio:

petervidani:

This is the first progression I’ve seen in the online transition from print in a long time. Finally, they are understanding that such a transfer only needs to carry the emotional experience and not the aesthetic.
Software like Classics App goes so far beyond the purpose that its interface actually outweighs the content. Wooden shelves? Animated page turning? Is this why we read books?
The crucial step that the NYT has taken in this case is realization of the browser; the fact that it is only a square with two dimensions and each part of it can be utilized. The application is fluid, constricted, and to-the-point. Opposed to this idea is the printed page, whose shape takes into account its manufacturing, distribution, and maybe a stubborn ad system.
Advertising in this medium can obviously follow suit; find its place. But I’d rather see a system of micro-payments that correlate to an amount of content read. Paying $0.25 per article might seem too self-aware to a reader at first, but consider that a 7-day delivery (to the Midwest) is $6.70/wk, which would let you read 27 articles. And that weekly cost is accounting for the printing, delivery, and all the labor in between.

This format could handle advertising quite elegantly, and (importantly for advertisers) randomly. I’m speculating, but irregular ad placement would probably be good for advertisers.
The second I saw this I thought it would be wonderful if it integrated some of the functionality of the Space Collective site. Articles could expand in their entirety, in place.

I think what’s missing is the implication of story importance based on the *amount* of column alloted to the story. All these stories are equally treated—simply varying the amount of story abstracted would make for a more interesting grid, better hierarchy and even more to content to skim before deciding to dive into a specific story. In-place expansion would only make that more compelling.

paulgiacherio:

petervidani:

This is the first progression I’ve seen in the online transition from print in a long time. Finally, they are understanding that such a transfer only needs to carry the emotional experience and not the aesthetic.

Software like Classics App goes so far beyond the purpose that its interface actually outweighs the content. Wooden shelves? Animated page turning? Is this why we read books?

The crucial step that the NYT has taken in this case is realization of the browser; the fact that it is only a square with two dimensions and each part of it can be utilized. The application is fluid, constricted, and to-the-point. Opposed to this idea is the printed page, whose shape takes into account its manufacturing, distribution, and maybe a stubborn ad system.

Advertising in this medium can obviously follow suit; find its place. But I’d rather see a system of micro-payments that correlate to an amount of content read. Paying $0.25 per article might seem too self-aware to a reader at first, but consider that a 7-day delivery (to the Midwest) is $6.70/wk, which would let you read 27 articles. And that weekly cost is accounting for the printing, delivery, and all the labor in between.

This format could handle advertising quite elegantly, and (importantly for advertisers) randomly. I’m speculating, but irregular ad placement would probably be good for advertisers.

The second I saw this I thought it would be wonderful if it integrated some of the functionality of the Space Collective site. Articles could expand in their entirety, in place.

I think what’s missing is the implication of story importance based on the *amount* of column alloted to the story. All these stories are equally treated—simply varying the amount of story abstracted would make for a more interesting grid, better hierarchy and even more to content to skim before deciding to dive into a specific story. In-place expansion would only make that more compelling.