<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;wired&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:19:14 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why Can't All These Ideas For Content On The iPad/Tablets Also Work On The Web?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/0335558196.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/0335558196.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, at a panel in Silicon Valley on the future of journalism, one of the topics of discussion was whether or not tablet computing would be the "savior" of news, with most of the focus being on a recent video put together by Sports Illustrated of <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/magazine/12/02/tablet/index.html" target="_blank">what a specialized tablet version of the magazine might look like</a>.  More recently, Wired Magazine <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/02/the-wired-ipad-app-a-video-demonstration/" target="_blank">demonstrated a working prototype of a tabletized version of the magazine</a>.  Both of these demos are certainly impressive -- but I'll say the same thing that I said about the SI demo on that panel discussion: why is the focus on the hardware?  Nothing in either demo <i>really</i> requires a tablet.  If this format is so compelling, why aren't these publications already offering it for use on regular computers?  Certainly, the ability to use touchscreen controls is nice, but you could easily replicate the basics with a mouse.  If the overall format is so compelling, then what does it have to do with a tablet/iPad, specifically?  Now, perhaps Wired does intend for this to be useful on other platforms, as its version is just an Adobe AIR app, and so it could function just fine on a desktop/laptop, but again, the video seems to keep focusing on the tablet as if that's necessary.  Yes, perhaps the form factor of a tablet computer makes this experience more enjoyable, but I think it's important in judging whether or not these apps actually make sense to separate the hardware from the software, to see if either makes sense without the other, or if they really are joined at the hip.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/0335558196.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/0335558196.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/0335558196.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i'm-confused</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100217/0335558196</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Opening Up Your Entire Writing Process Isn't Such A Ridiculous Idea</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0411062206.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0411062206.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, when we wrote about how author Stephenie Meyer seemed to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080901/1701422140.shtml">overreacting</a> to the leak of her latest manuscript, one of our regular critical commenters (an IP lawyer, who fully supports the IP system) posted a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080901/1701422140#c21">mocking comment</a> pretending to mimic us by saying that maybe she should have opened up her whole writing process and put it up as a wiki.  Of course, we never suggested any such thing, we merely pointed out that once the reality of the leak had happened, there were good and bad ways to react to it, and she chose a bad way, that punished her biggest fans.
<br /><br />
However, it's worth noting that the more wide open process of creativity isn't necessarily worth mocking either.  In fact, <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/03/this-month-the-edito.html">Boing Boing</a> points out that Wired Magazine has <a href="http://blog.wired.com/storyboard/" target="_new">opened up its storyboarding process</a> for a feature for the next issue, so that people can follow the process of building the story.  The mocking commenter-type folks would insist that this would somehow hurt the magazine and the writer by somehow "revealing" the process too soon, but the reality is that it's likely to help build more interest in the story by better connecting with fans who will feel a bigger connection to the story by seeing the whole process, rather than just the finished product.
<br /><br />
Of course, this isn't to say that everyone has to embrace such an open process, but that it's not such a ridiculous process, no matter how much it may offend the sensibilities (or billing ability) of an IP attorney.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0411062206.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0411062206.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080908/0411062206.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-that-everyone-has-to-do-it...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080908/0411062206</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>