Wired Can't Quit Adobe, Pours Cash Into Flash-less iPad App

wired-ipad

Wired magazine's efforts at producing an iPad imprint aren't going to be stifled by the spat between Adobe and Apple over Flash, apparently. The e-mag is plowing ahead--on a path paved with cash, apparently.

We're all familiar with the notion that the iPad can save newsprint and magazine publishing by now (good news for Wired magazine, whose very moniker sounds a bit dated in the wireless iPad era), and we've all seen several times the efforts by Condé Nast to transmogrify their slowly-sinking science-tech magazine into a tablet e-zine--Condé is aware of the iPad's "savior" status too, of course. We've even seen some odd statements from Wired that it'll be leveraging Adobe tech, even though we know the iPad won't support Flash...and we've wondered what's been going on.

Well, now we know: Adobe is helping Wired, directly. Condé Nast has made it clear that the recent development in the Apple-Adobe battle won't affect the plans for Wired. Apple banned the use of intermediary compilers that do part of the transcoding job automatically, meaning you could craft an iPad app in Adobe's software, then have a compiler rejig it to run on the iPad. It's been working directly with Adobe, apparently, and though the Adobe guys will probably have to take a slightly more backseat role from now on, they'll still be helping. The point is that Wired, like many publications, uses Adobe software to craft its printed version...and the Condé team was clearly hoping that it could automate a lot of the iPadification of Wired.

You'd expect a magazine about high-tech to leap wholeheartedly into the new mode of working and craft an innovative, highly unique and value- (and revenue-) generating iPad app. Instead, it seems Condé is throwing money an old tech, forcing the publication to squeeze and twist itself through a number of Adobe hoops before emerging on Apple's tablet. Can the resulting mongrel really take full advantage of the latest innovations and multitouch magic? Can any forced collaboration with Adobe live up to eye-popping innovations we're already seeing on apps such as Alice? The longer Wired takes to deliver on its promises, the higher the bar is set.

Read more iPad coverage

Kit QR TwitterTo keep up with this news in a more real-time setting, follow me, Kit Eaton, on Twitter. That QR code on the left will take you to my Twitter feed too. (And if you've no idea what that spotty-looking thing is, then find out here.)

Add New Comment

7 Comments

  • Hale Holman

    Apple hasn't forced anything. Everybody, including Wired, is completely free to opt out of any presence on the iPad.

  • Tyler Gray

    Flash doesn't work on iPad, Tyler. If Wired wants an app for iPad, it has to develop one that doesn't run on Flash. That's always been the point. It puts Wired in the quandary of having put out a lot of very slick promotional material using Flash or Adobe products that won't run on iPad. And yet they're still partnering with Adobe. So again, they can't quit Adobe, but they have to develop a Flashless app if they want one at all. Hope that helps.

  • Alicia Gonzales

    FC grudge aside, what's really going on over at Wired? How will they sneak in Flash, or the rest of CS5, for that matter? And why is Wired working with Adobe in the first place? That pursuit is a dead duck! I want to glean an inside slant from you folks, but all I'm reading are taunts and typos.

  • Thomas Gibbs

    I think Wired said it they are using Adobe for print version. Apple is trying to force everyone to do everything there way with little to no advantage. Its a matter of money its just not worth spending tons of money on a item that is all hype. How many developers are in Objective C not many. I am a developer and I have not had to build any apps for the iPhone or iPad because no client is willing to spend the money on the small market. I think it all hype and would be nice if reporters looked at it as a gamble to spend the money on iPad and iPhone apps.

  • Tyler Travitz

    Shouldn't the article title read "Wired Can't Quit Adobe, Pours Cash Into Flash iPad App"? The whole article talks about them pushing forward with a Flash based app, so why does the title say Flash-less?