The Reason Why Publishers Started Putting Their Magazines on the iPad

When Apple announced their digital subscription rules and locked down the iPad, publishers weren't exactly rushing to bring their subscriptions over. And then all of a sudden Conde Nast, Hearst, and Time Inc brought their magazines to the iPad. What changed?


According to Forbes, the biggest hurdle for publishers wasn't the 30% cut that Apple was going to take away from them, but rather the lack of information on the subscribers. They were worried that because users get to 'opt in' to giving up their personal information that nobody would do it. They were wrong. In fact, 50% of subscribers have been giving publishers their information.

Having that sort of basic subscriber info is necessary for publishers to do business. Now that they find Apple's terms workable, it wouldn't be a surprise to see more and more magazines come over to the iPad with agreeable deals. Which is a very good thing for people like me who prefer to read (and kill my eyes) on a screen. [Forbes]


Michael Zhao

I have a hard time buying the claim that reading on a screen is worse for your eyes. If you adjust your brightness levels accordingly and use nice fonts, I find it to be quicker and more effective, especially on an iPad (form factor is better for me). It doesn't really affect my eyestrain any more than if it were on paper.

The only exception is in using my iPod touch to read things. This makes it difficult for me to focus at distances for a short while thereafter. But I think this has less to do with the screen itself and more to do with the font size. I have this similar problem when it comes to reading paperbacks with small print.