@sgthalka: Not true. Some of us are media geeks, too.

J.T.

And thanks, Gizmodo guy, for the personal/career sniping about Wired and Esquire writers.

But really, no one cares except you.

sgthalka

At least this isn't as lame as that Time Magazine "Person of the Year" cover with a piece of reflective coating on a computer monitor. Get it? YOU'RE the person of the year! Youtube! And stuff!

Say what you want about Esquire. It's still better than 90 percent of the tripe getting printed online and off.

sgthalka

@housewarmer: "Uh...what? Mac's aren't as functional as PC's? Who knew. Care to cite examples of this revelatory claim?"
1) # of programs on mac vs PC.
2) Mac is big on minimalism.
3) Mac mouse, 1 button vs my 3 button pc mouse w/ a scroll wheel.
4) hardware available
5) scientists use linux for calcs (I know a few from cal tech), not Macs, wonder why?

"Also, why the fuck would you want linux on a mac? OS X runs on FreeBSD unix anyway."

Actually it runs on Darwin. Darwin incorporates code from freeBSD, NEXTSTEP, and other sources, but is not actually freeBSD. And most agree that OS X is a castrated unix variant, where much of the options have been removed from the users experience. Additionally, if you don't know why one might want linux on a mac, it's because you're not familiar w/ some of the advantages of many of the current flavors of linux. Before making such a statement, please try linux for a bit, it's free after all.

jkr2

Yeah, make sure to show off to everyone how great a product e-ink is, and how 5-10 years from now, paper magazines and newspapers will be on the way out, replaced by digital delivery.

Just think, you can wake up, grab your e-reader that's already updated over wi-fi and head straight for the crapper without having to trudge out to get the paper.

TVGenius

@jkr2: Uh...what? Mac's aren't as functional as PC's? Who knew. Care to cite examples of this revelatory claim? Also, why the fuck would you want linux on a mac? OS X runs on FreeBSD unix anyway.

housewarmer

what's wrong w/ a gimmick? Anybody here ever touched an e-ink product before? I know I haven't (yes, some here have, but the point is that most haven't, and their readership would have an even lower percentage that have). To each their own, but as an editor, you really missed the usefulness of novelty. For being so big on Mac, iPhone, gaming glasses, etc. you should seem to have a firm grasp of novely and gimmick.
Mac - nice user interface, clean, but not nearly as functional as PC's (Are you even allowed to put Linux on a Mac?).
iPhone - much the same as above, no copy/paste, no word, no excel, no physical key pad, etc.
gaming glasses - nothing beyond the obvious needs to be stated.

jkr2

Wow Blam, that was a pretty bit of lambasting there. I understand your take - it's a bit of a ham-fisted move trying to meld "print with technology" - but then again, the hologram covers people were running in the late 80s and early 90s were damn expensive too. What they did is elevate you to a "whoa, look at them, they've got balls" sort of status. I still read Wired cover to cover and am always impressed with the crazy metallic inks and blatant PMS coloring they always pull off; talk about a a "content first" mentality. And while that's not nearly on the level a friggin' e-ink cover is (the 90-day battery is a killer, I agree), it's a similar concept.

All I'm saying is... they're not as moronic as you may think.

J.T.

I don't know. I guess I'm old fashioned. I picked up an Esquire sub a couple of years ago and have been very entertained by it. Just enough liberal, just enough fashion, just enough snark.

Then again, I also read Wired and Fortune cover to cover.

But no J-14 or Hot Rod.

*shrug*

hologon

David Granger looks PA-THE-TIC in that shot...sadly smiling, like he knows this is doomed...

lizzybennet

I didn't have much of a clue what Esquire was doing until I clicked the link, but spot-on analysis, Lam. I still flip through Esquire but I rarely find anything worthy of a sit-down read, the exceptions often being, sadly, guest features.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, Esquire. Paper has been paper for 150 years, and, hopefully, will be paper for 150 more.

Eric Merrill

@Brian Lam:
So you want the gift subscription or not?

Screw it, you're all getting fruitcakes.

Secret Agent Man

@James: When the website and reporting can use it, they should stick to their core. That's a straw man argument from you re the children if I've ever seen one.

Brian Lam

@Secret Agent Man: I love esquire, I just dont' like what they're up to.

Brian Lam

@Ryan H: Whoa, stunning idea.

Brian Lam

Wow, somebody doesn't like Esquire much. ;)

Sockatume

@James: Hey, maybe they could feed the e-ink screens... to children!!! Hmmmmm.

And if they are "first" then BLam has every right to banhammer them.

@Secret Agent Man: Besides, he's already got a subscription. Maybe one of the magazines from that scene in Airplane in the airport newstand (wish I could get a clip here at the office).

ps61318

@Gann: tubular, dude.

ps61318

So I guess BLam doesn't like Esquire... good to know... I'll check that off my list of potential gifts...

Secret Agent Man

Does it sing Happy Birthday when you open the cover? Cuz I have those already.

Sora57

@ps61318: Imagine millions of these scattered world wide into some kind of net even.

Gann

I disagree. They'll be first, someone has to be. Complaining about where they're spending their budget is silly. Why not suggest they feed the children instead?

James

@DeadWriter: ...and many of them are listed in the Kama Sutra.

ps61318

@Gann: Now don't get all hyper as though you've just found the missing link or anything ridiculous like that...

ps61318

@kyel57: They're make part (or all, maybe) of their cover into an e-ink display. It is idiotic, as it will never, ever change, and after 90 days the battery will run out.

brainwav

@Ryan H: Aww what?! They aren't full page screens? It didn't look like they mentioned specifics in the article, but in the picture they do look about 3x5ish. I'd definitely consider picking up one of these to hack it apart.

Log1c

There are so many ways that one could screw with flashing Esquire covers.

DeadWriter

I like the hologram idea better. Who doesn't like holograms? Anything = better with a hologram.

MagnoliaBoy

@TheAdAgency: "Wouldn't it be better to issue a single page e-ink version of the whole magazine you could tab your way through?"

Great idea. Then, maybe put the magazine in some remote location that can be accessed virtually anywhere in the world and eliminate the need for a disposable physical copy! I think I'm on to something...

Gann

What are you talking about? This is fantastic news!
Where you see "Old Magazine Tries Gimmick" I read "Magazine Subsidizes Distribution of Cheap E-Ink Screens"

If I am reading the article right they will be including 2 screens that look roughly 2x5 inches each. I give it two days before modders have worked out the interface used. Think of all the things you could do with a pair of thin, decent resolution screens.

I've never read Esquire I my life but I think I'm going to hunt up a copy of this issue.

Ryan H

Agreed with all. Guy in charge of multimillion dollar budget of the great Esquire has less clue than Gizmodo commenters.

Brian Lam

I think it would be interesting if it was more than just the cover. Include the entire magazine in the E-Ink display and that would be awesome, but just the cover screams gimmick.

Log1c

After Googling it and reading several boring articles I have found the entire concept is to create "a flashing cover with the text "The 21st Century Begins Now".

While I do agree the Gizmodo article is a total off-topic rant, this is clearly a poor utilization of e-ink for effect, not function.

Wouldn't it be better to issue a single page e-ink version of the whole magazine you could tab your way through? Even if the content didn't update, at least that would show some understanding of the point of the tech.

TheAdAgency

*Simple. Wow.

Gizmog

It's a gimmick. Plain and simle.

Gizmog

Good point, Lam. They might as well have just printed out all their web pages and bound them together and marketed it as "the mobile web!"

weatherman

Agreed. And the sad thing is that if E-Ink does take off, this magazine probably will be in the Smithsonian...

Platypus Man

I think it is a good idea! Actually, this is only the beginning of what the future will bring us in dynamic packaging and content. I'm looking forward to checking it out.

cronked

Thanks you, someone had to say it.

peterfnet

I don't know if I'm the stupid one here, but even after reading the article multiple times I couldn't actually grasp what esquire did, it came across more as a rant than a scholarly article.

kyel57

@hologon: I read wired and fortune, the atlantic monthly, sometimes the new yorker (which is usually pretty boring beyond the features), and I hope once in awhile to find an awesome feature in GQ or Esquire. Their front of the book and lists are pretty much blog level content, but late and warmed over so many times you don't want to bother with it.

Wired's Front of book needs a freaking asme award, though.

Brian Lam

Oh but your first comment was right on. I do think that a lot of shit out there is bad, but esquire is getting its ass handed to it by the atlantic monthly, etc.

Brian Lam

@sgthalka: Same re your comment, baby. Same re your comment.

Brian Lam

If it's in "Minority Report," it's only a matter of time.

frigg

well that didn't work. I suck at internets.

Cupajo

@Secret Agent Man: "Screw it, you're all getting fruitcakes."

?

Cupajo

It is like those hologram magazine covers from back in the 80s - a stupid gimmick.

Triborough

Good god Brian, did someone at Esquire f*** your girlfriend?

Tell us how you really feel!

That anecdote isn't exactly a barn-burner.

brundlefly76

@jkr2: Why I'm bothering is beyond me, but...

1) Quantity doesn't equal quality. All the pro software I need and use is available on OS X - Creative Suite, Maya, Final Cut, etc. Some of which isn't on the PC platform. The only sector where this argument holds any water is games, which is disappointing.
2) Not sure how that has any bearing. Creating a logical and intuitive interface does not equal reduced functionality.
3)Apple hasn't shipped a one button mouse for a couple of years now. The mighty mouse is in fact a four button mouse with a two axis scroll ball.
4)Again, a disingenuous argument. Most peripheral hardware is cross-platform compatible, as are hard disks and memory. This leaves things like video cards and motherboards. It's true video options are lacking for the consumer end of the spectrum (if gaming is your focus), that's not much of an issue at the high-end where there are several good options.
5)Scientist use os x for calcs (some I know from OHSU and UC SF) - see I can provide anecdotal evidence too. On a larger scale, I can't provide solid numbers of OSX vs Unix in sciences, but there is a very active mac userbase, oarticularly in bio-sciences.

And as for trying linux - why would I want to? Most of the tools I use aren't available on the platform, and those that are have better implementation in OS X (due in large part to the brilliant interoperability OS X provides).

housewarmer

I agree. This is fucking stupid and Esquire Magazine should be ashamed of themselves. Running a gimmick just to make up for their shortcomings as a publication. It's about content stupid! Burn Esquire BURN!!

BeFrugalNotCheap

@housewarmer: I'm probably going to get banned for continuing (and inadvertently starting) a PC vs mac discussion, but here I go.
1) quantity doesn't equal quality, but it does equal choice, competition, and a monetary incentive to develop for the PC base. Macs used to be king in video/imaging. That is not the case anymore. Oh yeah, the open source movement has adopted PC's way over macs.
2) take a census, I'm not making up these claims that macs remove functionality to protect users from them selves.
3) Good glad to hear. Took them long enough to figure that one out.
4) hmmm, motherboards? Think MRI's run on macs. Think CNC machines run on macs. Think airplanes run on Macs. Think car navigation systems run on Macs. Oh, and macs rule the server world (yes I know there are a few out there).
5) Oh really. Number of super computers running OS X = 0, housewarmer = fail. Yes, I'm sure every scientist out there wants to create a program to model some kind of physical representation, on linux, just to turn around and rewrite it for a mac to use at home. Researchers do take their work home w/ them, but they don't take home to their macs.

"And as for trying linux - why would I want to?" Biggest Apple fan boy statement of the day. Reply all you want, but unless it's really interesting, I won't respond, this discussion has gone as far as I was willing to run w/ it.

jkr2

@jkr2:

"castrated unix"

Isn't that redundant?

Sora57

BLAM,

You're not Esquire's target guy. This will probably be his intro to epaper (may have heard, never seen) and he'll probably think it's pretty cool. That shift has meaning.

Don't worry, their guys didn't get your clicker schtick at CES any more than you understand why they're investing millions in epaper.

Neither is right, just ships in the night....

HKLV

@housewarmer: @jkr2: I only have a little knowledge, specifically about #5: While supercomputers per se may not run on OS X (and I don't know that for sure, any more than I know that they do run on linux, you don't back up that claim), I do know that Macs are often used in high performance clusters that, using some custom software and a fiber optic switch network, perform highly parallel calculations at FLOP rates equaling (and often surpassing) some supercomputers.

So Supercomputers = maybe not; but supercomputing = hell yes.

ps61318

@ps61318:
That's not a bad point, but here's a little background. Most super computers are mainframes. They often times can also network w/ other computers for processing purposes, but usually only limit themselves to doing this w/ other super computers. Yes, macs can be part of a cluster, but considering how many macs are out there vs PC's, usually they aren't significant. You obviously can't install OS X on a supercomputer for 2 reasons; 1 it's against the EULA, 2 you would need to write drivers and optimizations. WHat's more here is a nice chart of OS's used on the top 500 super computers [en.wikipedia.org]

Here's a mac super computer, but it doesn't run OS X, it runs Linux [www.wired.com]

I see that there was a mac based super computer consisting of 1100 apple servers, running OS X, but the servers were sold off, looks more like they did it to see if it could be done. But I will give you the ultimate common sense reason why Mac based clusters aren't seriously developed; macs cost more than PC's. Clusters are about bang for your buck, and PC's kill apple on that, and have even more so in the past.

jkr2

@ps61318: It was me, I take full blame. I really didn't even mean to start a mac vs pc discussion. But looking at my post, it was obvious in retrospect.

jkr2

@jkr2: Well stated - and well referenced - full marks!

WAAAAY back in the day, really before Mac on Intel, the PowerPC had gotten to the point that it had better price/performance characteristics than whatever Intel had out there, as I recall. Now that the systems share processors, that can no longer be used as an argument, so yep, looks like PC's will have the greater "bang for the buck."

Ah, well... How'd we get on this, anyway?

ps61318

How can anyone complain about free/cheap possibly mod-friendly bits of hardware?!

Hey Esquire, add some LEDs with a control circuit while you're at it (like that new shaving gel package has)!

leMel

*@cronked* * * "I think it is a good idea! Actually, this is only the beginning of what the future will bring us in dynamic packaging and content. I'm looking forward to checking it out." This sounds like a planted commentor from Esquire. No normal human being uses terms like "dynamic packaging." Sorry, but you sound like my Sales Director. Very suspicious....

DevinMocker

Speaking of that Ali-as-martyr cover: Esquire has cannibalized itself TWICE this year with recreations of the iconic image (not to mention the recent Radar parody).

I guess when you've got no new ideas it's time to resort to gimmicks!

WhiskeyTango