Killed off by apps, death of the web – is the open web dead?
Here’s a question and it is serious: is the web dead? Are mobile apps and Apple iPad apps about to supplant the vast untamed stretches of open and free content with a wide variety of subscription based services?
According to a piece on Valleywag, Wired’s editor and his team might be preparing a front page cover story that is to declare just this: “the Web is Dead”. RIP, we just couldn’t make the thing pay.
Some are going to find such a Wired cover a little strange. Anderson, after all, is a technological utopian and the magazine he leads has been THE magazine of this whole online revolution, but then again maybe it isn’t that strange. If you pause for a moment to take it all in it is becoming apparent that the web is changing all around us and it is changing quite quickly.
The arrival of paywalls, mobile apps, the Apple iPad and the imminent arrival of other tablet devices not unlike a horde of Visigoths laying waste to all that is free. It’s like 410 AD all over again.
Valleywag says that Anderson is to argue “that more tightly controlled corners of the internet, especially iPad and iPhone apps, are gradually supplanting the open web as means of publishing and online networking”.
Talk of this Wired cover comes as publishers invest more and time in these apps. Yesterday, the New York Times announced its Press Engine venture that is seeing it create a new platform for mobile devices that it is licensing to rival publishers to build new subscription services.
Last week it was reported that News Corporation was seriously considering establishing a unit to create subscription-based content for applications on digital tablet devices such as the Apple iPad.
There is no doubt that Anderson has championed tablets and iPad devices very much in the spirit of utopianism.
When Wired launched its iPad app, Anderson said that the iPad and the tablet more generally represented “a grand experiment in the future of media” and that Wired planned to offer a variety of versions and “ways to subscribe in digital form”.
Anderson is much less glowing about the web and Wired’s place on it in particular. In June local newspaper, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, reported a talk that Anderson gave around Wired’s $4.99 iPad app, which sold 80,000 copies in 10 days.
He said that reading Wired on a tablet is fundamentally different than going to Wired.com, which he said looks like many media websites and “carries little content from the magazine”.
He added that while reading any magazine is supposed to be an immersive experience, with the design and long pieces keeping readers’ attentions for prolonged sittings, none of those aspects translates well to the web.
More damningly, he said: “Long-form journalism becomes 16 pages you have to click through. So like everybody else, we flail on the web.”
If you’ve seen an iPad or watched a demo of how a magazine article works on such a device then you already know how well it can function.
All this adds to the feeling that publishers are on the cusp of a fundamental reshaping of their digital strategy and that the world is separating between those who are forging forward on the free and open web and those who are looking to the world of apps and elsewhere where the new mantra is “subscription based services”.
For magazine publishers and many newspapers there is a clear attraction in that consumers are willing to pay for content in that form.
When you start to add up all the app based ventures in the works you start to feel, taking a look over shoulder, that a change is coming and that the web as it looks right now will not look like this for much longer.

All Comments
Seldom do I comment but:
“the magazine he leads has been THE magazine of this whole online revolution”
Bobbins! Wired has *never* been the magazine of the online revolution – it’s been corporate as it comes for years…
Mondo 2000 – now that was the Revolution… and now the Revolution is out there in the data…
On the point of the open web being dead? Who knows – but most of the world hasn’t grasped the web yet – let alone an iPad
Fair point, to be honest I meant to go back and add a link here about that. I was going to add the comment John Gapper in the FT made, when Anderson published his last book ‘Free: The Future of a Radical Price’, where he accused him of being propagandist for “West Coast software firms and venture capitalists”.
Clearly that’s a view held by some, but by the same token I think that Wired has had an enduring impact and is looked to (maybe not for all the right reasons, I don’t know).
Thanks – I’d agree with John Gapper’s comments.
The problem is that generally there is a very uncritical view taken of Wired and it’s ilk because of the digital ‘bright new future’ it likes to portray…
I think your point about its impact is an interesting one… Having been around the web since the mid-90s, my perception is that it’s led us down the techno-capitalist yellow brick road.
And those in the (digital) industry (which includes me) are happy/unchallenging of it’s cheerleading because it generates the next buzz for corporate clients…
Whether that’s good in the long term, I’m not sure…
It would be intriguing to take all the technologies it’s shouted about & see what percentage ever made the grade… (nice project for a student somewhere maybe)
From the perspective of equal access to information for people who are blind or have other disabilities, I have serious concerns that all the efforts of the W3C could be undermined, if mobile apps aren’t carefully designed to provide accessibility through technology such as Apple’s VoiceOver.
I discuss the accessibility of mobile apps in my article http://www.vocalbranding.com.au/mobile
Tim Noonan
Vocal Branding Australia
@Ben You are right re the cheerleading to a degree, but people aren’t uncritical — even where Apple is concerned. Although Apple is interesting as it more than anything other company has the most dedicated bunch of cheerleaders you could ever meet. And I don’t know why that is as its technology — as recently witnessed — is not all that it is cracked up to be.
The web isn’t dead. It’s just grown up and got a job.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BrandRepublic, Chris Lake, Gordon MacMillan, Emily Cagle, James Griffiths and others. James Griffiths said: RT @thewalluk: Killed off by apps, death of the web – is the open web dead? http://fwd4.me/GHu [...]
[...] delivering the presentation, the following article Killed off by apps, death of the web – is the open web dead? asks questions about publishers moving to apps for delivery of their content. Accessible Mobile [...]
[...] The Wall, The New York Times and the Huffington Post have all pronounced the web on its last legs. Wired [...]
[...] It is content like this that makes the case for the death of the open web debate that was getting a lot of attention last week. [...]
[...] Killed off by apps, death of the web – is the open web dead? [...]
[...] comments also serve as a bulwark against articles and blog posts that appeared in the summer declaring that the open web is dead. The pieces argued that the web was being replaced by a wide variety of subscription based mobile [...]