<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The iPod moment?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tamark.ca/public/2007/09/05/the-ipod-moment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tamark.ca/public/2007/09/05/the-ipod-moment/</link>
	<description>It&#039;s about the journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:09:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.tamark.ca/public/2007/09/05/the-ipod-moment/comment-page-1/#comment-346135</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamark.ca/students/2007/09/05/the-ipod-moment/#comment-346135</guid>
		<description>One of the thoughts I&#039;m wrestling with is that most of my web browsing is interactive -- leaving comments, blogging, etc. -- and the iPod touch doesn&#039;t look like it&#039;s ideal (or even easy) for that type of &quot;work.&quot; But while there are a lot of folk like me, there are a lot who aren&#039;t.

The thing is: whenever I find myself thinking this isn&#039;t such a big deal, I remember a blog post I wrote some years ago, when the video iPod&#039;s were released, basically blowing off the idea that anyone would want to watch video on a tiny screen.

Like you, I&#039;m still tending toward the idea of larger-sized, flexible e-paper as the eventual doom of much of print, but I&#039;m leaving myself open to surprises. Of course, that surprise could be bad news for publishers: if they &quot;lose&quot; the viewport of the bigger size, they stand to lose considerable ad opportunities.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the thoughts I&#8217;m wrestling with is that most of my web browsing is interactive &#8212; leaving comments, blogging, etc. &#8212; and the iPod touch doesn&#8217;t look like it&#8217;s ideal (or even easy) for that type of &#8220;work.&#8221; But while there are a lot of folk like me, there are a lot who aren&#8217;t.</p>
<p>The thing is: whenever I find myself thinking this isn&#8217;t such a big deal, I remember a blog post I wrote some years ago, when the video iPod&#8217;s were released, basically blowing off the idea that anyone would want to watch video on a tiny screen.</p>
<p>Like you, I&#8217;m still tending toward the idea of larger-sized, flexible e-paper as the eventual doom of much of print, but I&#8217;m leaving myself open to surprises. Of course, that surprise could be bad news for publishers: if they &#8220;lose&#8221; the viewport of the bigger size, they stand to lose considerable ad opportunities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian King</title>
		<link>http://www.tamark.ca/public/2007/09/05/the-ipod-moment/comment-page-1/#comment-345624</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tamark.ca/students/2007/09/05/the-ipod-moment/#comment-345624</guid>
		<description>Coupla quick thoughts: I think that the moment will come both when more-or-less free wireless is as pervasive as cable TV has been since the &#039;80s (and works under heavy loads!), and those e-paper thingies mature, can present something approaching a tabloid size, and pick up on the wireless. Getting mobile kit in the right size matters. Having read stuff through an iPhone, I find it laborious for anything over a few hundred words. Reading a few grafs without having to _do anything_ is something this iStuff can&#039;t offer. Then, there&#039;s the ability of a big viewport to allow publishers to present material with all the visual hints we expect from print. A small screen -- no matter how hi-res -- doesn&#039;t affter that.

Second: the amount of fellatio (and playing His Steveness&#039;s game) given to Apple for a bloody product refresh is truly astounding. Five-and-a-half minutes on CTV NewsNet this evening for Pete&#039;s sake! Dvorak is right: the media tends to be a bunch of inveterate Apple-polishers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coupla quick thoughts: I think that the moment will come both when more-or-less free wireless is as pervasive as cable TV has been since the &#8217;80s (and works under heavy loads!), and those e-paper thingies mature, can present something approaching a tabloid size, and pick up on the wireless. Getting mobile kit in the right size matters. Having read stuff through an iPhone, I find it laborious for anything over a few hundred words. Reading a few grafs without having to _do anything_ is something this iStuff can&#8217;t offer. Then, there&#8217;s the ability of a big viewport to allow publishers to present material with all the visual hints we expect from print. A small screen &#8212; no matter how hi-res &#8212; doesn&#8217;t affter that.</p>
<p>Second: the amount of fellatio (and playing His Steveness&#8217;s game) given to Apple for a bloody product refresh is truly astounding. Five-and-a-half minutes on CTV NewsNet this evening for Pete&#8217;s sake! Dvorak is right: the media tends to be a bunch of inveterate Apple-polishers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

