Friday, September 24, 2010

Condé Nast gets a bit cynical with its Gourmet Live iPad app; readers forced to promote magazine to get 'rewards'

When Condé Nast announced that they had decided that between its two famous food magazines, Gourmet and Bon Appetit, Gourmet was the one that would get the axe, a lot of readers expressed their disappointment, as did the media world, calling Gourmet 'beloved' and 'honored' in their stories of the closing. Gawker's story is even titled The Wrath of McKinsey, blaming the consulting company for the decision.
Now Condé Nast has brought back the venerable title as a free iPad app called Gourmet Live (same name as the website), and this time Condé Nast may have put the final nail in the coffin of this title. Sure the name will live on, but this is a cynical app, maybe the first cynical media app out there. While it may succeed long term, my guess is that long time readers of the magazine will be disappointed that the app feels more like a trap than it does a real magazine.

The problem starts with the fact that this app appears built on the cheap. A half dozen stories, each laid out pretty much identically with no interactive content, unless you count the embedded YouTube video. For Condé Nast, this is like dressing up the Queen in jeans and t-shirt.
But the biggest problem, when users are complaining about in iTunes, is that the app requires you, begs you, demands of you, that you create an account by linking your Twitter or Facebook account to the app. Why? So the app can your accounts as methods of promoting the title. The editors seem thrilled with this, bragging on their home page that the first "rewards" tweet has been delivered (see screenshot at left).

The rewards, of course, is access to more content -- the real meat of the app, if you will. Don't play along and you're locked out. A lot of people won't want to subject their friends and families to Condé Nast promotional messages -- but tough, this is the price you will pay for getting this app and its content for free.

(I wonder if there was some sort of Faustian bargain made by the company with its staff: show us that enough people will want this app, and the readership base will be big enough, and we'll support the effort.)

The app is currently without out ads, but this may be a strategic decision -- after all, selling a product that has a circulation of zero the day it is launched is not easy. But it used to be that products were launched because the ad staff could prove that there would be a market for it by going out and getting commitments from advertisers. In today's content driven media world the ad staffs are at the bottom of the food chain apparently. (It is also likely that Gourmet Live is without an ad staff right now -- I see no ads on the website at all. This is all just a test, right? Boy, talk about a lack of job security!)

Concerning the tablet edition itself, it is still well done. Articles are read by scrolling just as yesterday's Publisher app did it. One can not swipe to reach the next article, though, but must return the home page. This is a theme throughout the app, returning to the same screen again and again, whether it is the home page or the registration page.

The app also does not utilize the iPad's ability to pinch-to-zoom, but there is a setting that increases the font size, so the feature is not at all missed.

Left: articles look great in the app, and some come with embedded video; Middle: Kindle owners can only dream of the way the iPad renders photographs in tablet editions; Right: Denied! Damn you TNM for denying us access to your social accounts!

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Swiss publishing trade magazine practices what it preaches, releases iPad app that shows how its done

I rarely open up a new tablet publishing app and have a wow moment -- a moment when you realize that someone really understands why tablets can a great publishing platform. Opening up the new iPad app from the Swiss trade magazine Publisher, though . . .
Winterthur, Switzerland-based Digipress GmbH produces Publisher, and its new app is free to download.  And despite the fact that iTunes says the language is English, it is clearly a German language magazine. (I think it was Bruno Pinto, the Luxembourg based developer who told me that this is caused by developer error when they submit their apps to Apple -- in any case, I see it all the time.)

The app weighs in at 322 MB, so you know that everything is there, no need to be online once the app is installed, and no need for an Internet connection when viewing any video that might be embedded.
One's first impression of the tablet edition is a bit negative: there is no landscape mode here, the lead-in editorial is a bit minimal in design. But that impression fades away quickly as soon as you start swiping the pages and getting into the magazine. The very first ad spot contains animation -- seen at left -- and the article employ scrolling to see additional pages. This may seem like a minor thing, but smart designers have understood from the beginning that reading patterns on tablets will mimic the web more than print, so rather than swiping to go to another page of an article the reader here just scrolls down to continue reading.

My German is nil, so I can not vouch for the quality of the articles -- but I certainly wish this magazine was in English, its articles on tablet publishing look very interesting to me, that's for sure.

Anybody at all interested in tablet publishing should head on over to the iTunes App Store and download this one, it won't cost you a penny. Publisher, it's safe to say, is leading by example.

Left: One way to navigate through the tablet edition is through the thumbnails; Middle: one of two articles that immediately appealed to me; Right: here's the other. Both articles are reached by swiping, but read by scrolling.

Newspapers reportedly demanding control of subscriber information in digital newsstand negotiations with Apple

It's always hard to tell what is going on deep within negotiations since the parties involved like to keep information to a minimum -- unless, of course, coming out in public will put a little pressure on the other side.

That seems to be what is going on in the (informal?) negotiations between newspaper publishers and Apple over the company's plans to create a digital newsstand. Word has leaked out several times over the past few days that newspaper's were not happy with how Apple proposes handling newspaper subscriptions bought through their iOS devices.
As things are now, a reader buys an app directly through the App Store; Apple already has the customer's information on file and so knows who bought the app and at least some information on that customer; that information does not make it to the developer of the app -- at least not directly; if a digital newsstand is created using the existing model this situation would not change.

Additionally, there is some push back concerning the revenue split currently being used by Apple -- Apple gets 30 percent of all revenue derived from app sales, and 40 percent from advertising. But reports I've read seem to suggest that Apple wants money from in-app advertising, but that seems like simple poor reporting, what the 40 percent split represents is the ad split that occurs if the app uses iAds, Apple's new ad network and platform. Publishers have known about the iAd revenue split since April 8 when Apple unveiled its plans for the platform, complaining now seems like a simple negotiating stance -- besides, how many major publishers plan on using iAds?

It is possible that Apple has introduced new requirements to be involved in the new digital newsstand, but more likely it is simply trying to enforce the rules they already have created.

Some of the loudest objections seem to be coming from News Corp., the Murdoch owned media giant. "Don't concede control of the customer -- just don't do it," Todd Larsen, president of Dow Jones & Co.(WSJ) is quoted by AFP as saying.

Apple's goal is to create an organized digital newsstand -- the App Store desperately needs this. In this regard, the tech giant probably sees no reason why newspapers shouldn't continue with the standard 70/30 split on app sales -- if newspapers do want to be part of the newsstand they would still be subject to the 70/30 split for the apps outside the store.

The problem that has arisen is that some apps have been approved that have created an end-round on the system. The WSJ app, for instance, is free. But readers are then required to purchase a subscription outside the app. In this way, the WSJ is able to keep 100 percent of the revenue. I'm sure Apple thinks this is abusing them. Why should they let any developer in for free when, in the end, the end user must still pay in order to properly use the app? No, Apple wants purchases to go through them -- this cuts down on fraud. (The alternative would be a fee system to enter the App Store, instead of a revenue split.)

Like all negotiated agreements, there are endless possible outcomes, but I think this is where we are headed:

  • Apps within the digital newsstand would have to adhere to certain guidelines including in-app subscription revenue splits -- whether they would be required to use iAds is doubtful since the major publishers would want to retain ad control -- but if they do, they would be required to have the same revenue split as everyone else who uses the service. To entice people into the newsstand, Apple could allow publishers access to subscriber information, or alternatively, encourage publishers to incorporate a registration mechanism as part of the subscription process.
  • Publishers outside the newsstand could continue doing what they want, but Apple would retain reader information. But out of app purchases could be eliminated, forcing some publishers to decide whether they want to continue to be part of the iTunes App Store at all.
Like all negotiations, some of the demands made may be simply negotiating stances. For instance, stating that they want a better cut of the revenue is probably a non-starter with Apple. Newspapers may be high profile developers within the App Store, but they represent such a small percentage of the apps currently available that Apple would be slitting their wrists in cutting a special deal with them.

Additionally, I'm not sure I like the idea of Apple sharing information with developers. I, and every other iPad and iPhone users would demand an opt-in process. To me, the logical solution would be to introduce a registration step in the purchase process: "you want to buy an annual subscription to the NYT? Then you must fill out this form." That seems logical and not unfair -- so long as readers are aware of the process before purchasing.
“Don't concede control of the customer” -- Todd Larsen, president of Dow Jones & Co.
But from Apple's perspective the complaints of publishers probably seem hypocritical. Do newspapers demand information from their readers when they put a quarter in the box to grab that morning's paper? And what the ad split issue? Who is selling the ads, paying commissions and managing copy? Wouldn't iAd be used by most publishers as a way to supplement their own ad sales, not take them over?

One thing for sure, Apple would like to wrap this up as soon as possible. By the end of the year lots of new tablets will be on the market, and if Android-based tablets gain enough of a foot hold it is possible that Google would be in a good position to create its own digital newsstand. On the other hand, no matter how well those new tablets sell, the iTunes App Store will continue to dominate the digital media landscape for quite some time. The major media companies are already committed to the platform, so pulling out now is probably not an option.

Addendum: NYT web design continued

This is a kind of addendum to yesterday afternoon's post about changes to the NYT website, and speculation concerning their upcoming paid iPad app.

Khoi Vinh writes a post on his own website about the work he did on the updating of the Opinion Page -- now called The Opinion Page, for the record.

Although my post was not exclusively about web design, I did have one criticism of the new design -- that it was a bit in love with white space, making it less of a usable web page than part of the trend towards loosening up of layouts. But, it turns out, that the design itself seems to have been tweaked a bit to tighten things a little. As you can see on Vinh's page, today's opinion page raises the breakline a bit, and more importantly to a former publisher like myself, raises the medium rectangle ad a bit, as well.

In any case, you can go over to Vinh's site to read more about the redesign, and see two examples.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Web design starts to merge with print design at the NYT; will this influence the look of its eventual paid tablet app?

The website of the New York Times has always tried to mirror the unique look of the newspaper. Take a look at The Wayback Machine at old home pages of the Times -- they have archives that date back to 1996 -- and you will see that while the design may have been incredibly thin in width, the web design still says "this is the New York Times".

← The distinctive look of the NYT.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball pointed today at the changes to the Times Opinion Page online, complimenting the website designers for its true to newspaper look. And while I agree that the Times continues to do some of the best work on the web (for a media company) I would disagree that the changes make much sense for the web.

The trend today is for enormous amounts of white space. But I think this is a fad brought on my the many sites out there that cram in text and graphics. The "more newspaper" look of the new Opinion Page is decidedly "un-web" in my view. On the Internet, readers want information fast, and they want to be able to scan the page for the information they want. Unlike a daily newspaper -- or, I'd argue, a tablet publication -- the web is timeless. It is neither "today" or "yesterday", it is always "now". So forcing the eye to the content that is in today's paper seems misdirected.

The online design of the Opinion Page.

It may still be a while until the Times releases its promised paid iPad app -- we'll probably have to wait until the NYT is satisfied with the way paid subscriptions will be handled by Apple. So in the meantime, we have to look to the only Times iPad app currently available, its Editor's Choice app.

Although often criticized for its limited content, the app itself is still a fairly remarkable tablet app. The Times did not want to create a replica edition knowing that readers would want a fresh look on the new device. Created in time to be released by the day the iPad first launched, the app manages to do quite a bit right: it does not jump stories from the front page (home page), it reflows stories into set layouts much like a mobile app, it reserves room for advertising, etc. (The look and feel seems to have been used for both the Financial Times and Telegraph apps.)

A paid version will have to offer much more, however. But will the Times simply reproduce the daily paper for the new paid app? I doubt it, they have shown much more imagination than that.

The Opinion Page from NYT Editor's Choice.

My guess is that the Times will continue to try and duplicate the look of the print edition, but continue to flow articles into native iPad layouts. With an iPad paid subscription, though, not only will the reader want more content, including what can be found on the website, but also access to archives, video, etc.

The time between April 3 of this year, when the Times launched its initial iPad app, and the end of the year, when the new app should appear, will be an interesting time for NYT designers. But I'm anxiously awaiting what they come up with.

Update: Wow, I've just now discovered that Joshua Benton from the Nieman Journalism Lab posted something very similar to my post above, complete with screenshots. Worse, based on the time stamp it looks like he beat me to the subject by an hour or more.

It is normally my practice that if I see a piece like Benton's I won't write my own piece unless I am in complete disagreement with the early posst -- or if the post takes the lazy way out and doesn't include screenshots.

Coincidentally, the NYT Co. forecasted its Q3 financial results and the picture remains bleak, with print revenue still declining, even while digital revenue continues to grow. The result is that the company expects to report a loss equivalent to 5 to 7 cents a share. As of 2:30 ET, NYT share prices are down a little over 6 percent.

I noticed today RR Donnelley has released another iPad app for one of its print customers, Hanley Wood's Remodeling magazine. The app, Remodeling Magazine Reader, is appropriately named -- this is not so much an iPad app as it is a way to read the magazine on your iPad.
RR Donnelley also produces flipbooks for Remodeling, or at least they used to. A look at the magazine's website that the last flipbook posted online was from January, and the magazine is not promoting their flipbooks on the home page, which many publishers do.

If the publisher has decided to stop posting flipbooks online and instead invest that money in an iPad app then I definitely applaud the move. The flipbook, being read online, probably does not attract new readers -- and besides, all research I've seen points to web readers demanding access to information quickly, and then skimming that information equally quick, that is not the same model as print.

But tablets are a different thing all together, and while I would prefer a more native reading experience than a replica edition, at least the magazine title will be offering their content in a new medium.

The Washington Post launches free iPhone app for Redskins football -- just in time for Week Three

Sometimes when I look at a new media app the first thing that I want to say is 'are you serious'? Not because the app is so bad, there are very few really bad media apps, but because often it appears that the company involved isn't taking the new platforms seriously.

This reaction never occurs when looking at the work of Condé Nast, Hearst or the New York Times -- their representatives have made clear they are committed to the finding ways to make mobile and tablets work for them. Heck, if you name someone to be in charge of tablet advertising -- Hearst -- you are definitely serious.
I don't get that impression with The Washington Post Company. The Post was late launching their first iPhone app, and the app for Newsweek appeared in iTunes almost exactly two years after Time magazine created an iPhone friendly mobile website (their app launched around September 1 of 2009), and right around the same time Time released its first iPad app. Then, of course, Newsweek was sold off.

Now WaPo has launched a separate iPhone app for the Washington Redskins -- two weeks into the football season.

The free iPhone app, officially called Football Insider for reasons that are beyond me, is the last of 14 Redskins-centric iPhone apps now in iTunes. The others basically grab the same copy produced by the Washington Post app, and then delivers it pretty much the same way.

The best feature of the new WaPo app is the stats that are found in the Games section. The website says these are "updating statistics from each game" -- if that means that the stats are updated live, during each game, then that is a nice feature along with the play-by-play feature.

Left: articles and blogs post are the editorial content of the app; Middle: the Games section features stats and a play-by-play log; Right: the photo gallery features lots of landscape photos that must be seen in portrait.

In the end, this is a timid, unimaginative iPhone app, and it is s shame that the company does not have a mobile and tablet publishing leader assigned to grab some editorial, advertising and design people by the scruff of the neck and throw them into a conference room where they can brain storm and invent.

Executive editor Marcus Brauchli held an Ask the Post session with readers yesterday. One of the questions asked of Brauchli concerned the company's plans for an iPad app. Here was his response in full:
We've taken more time than we probably should have developing an iPad application, but we hope to have one launched reasonably soon. Because iPad users can easily use their browsers to see, we felt readers could find our content as we thought through the right approach for an app. We'll review the iPhone app again soon, too. And we're looking at how we can better serve audiences using other platforms, such as the BlackBerry and Android-based devices. There's no question more and more people will read Post news primarily on mobile devices, and we need to ensure that we are serving them well.
You can read the whole conversation with readers here.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Short takes: analyst says 'sell!";

Afternoon news items:

• Shares of both the New York Times Company and Gannett fell today after UBS analyst John Janedis sent a note to investors that recommended selling the Times -- he gave Gannett a "hold" rating. The original BusinessWeek story this morning showed shares of both stocks had fallen modestly. But as of one hour before the close, shares of NYT were down 4.5 percent, Gannett down a little over 2.3 percent. The market overall was up slightly.

• Canadian Steve Parr, the former president of Primedia Enthusiast Media has been pegged to take over Hachette Filipacchi Media. Current CEO Alain Lemarchand will be stepping down October 1.
• The open-source media play VLC now has an app for the iPad.

The new app is yet another example of developers adding capabilities to the iPad that greatly enhances the user experience. In this case, the VLC software allows users to view media that wouldn't in the past be viewable on their tablets. An example would be an AVI file.

Just as importantly, this is more proof that Apple is indeed living up to its own new relaxed developer guidelines. Now, will Google's own Google Voice app get approved for the App Store?

• Both Apple and Google continue to gobble up companies thanks to their huge cash reserves. The latest Apple acquisition is Swedish face recognition software company Polar Rose. If the rumored deal is true, then the new addition will give Apple's iOS products the ability to add face recognition to its FaceTime and iPhoto products.

As for Google, the search giant has averaged one deal every two weeks so far this year.

The Telegraph uses NYT as a model for its free iPad app; 'best of' approach limits content, mimics newspaper look

The UK newspaper The Telegraph has released its initial iPad news app last night. The free download gives readers access to a limited amount of content from that day's newspaper, mirroring the approach used by the New York Times for its Editor's Choice application.
The Telegraph for iPad is both free to download, and does not require a subscription to access the content. And like the NYT iPad app, the Telegraph app creates a pseudo-newspaper look when opened, then flows stories into tablet-native layouts when the reader touches a headline.

The tablet's layouts are in both portrait and landscape -- accomplished by simplifying the front page layout.

Navigation is extremely easy and logical, and articles are flowed into simply layouts that make them easy to read. The app, however, does not offer its readers either pinch-to-zoom or the ability to change fonts. In this regard, the app has duplicated the NYT approach in almost almost every way.
The one area where the paper took a somewhat different approach is advertising. The Time's app reserves a front page leaderboard position for an ad, and incorporates a fractional ad on the secondary pages of articles. The Telegraph however is limited to full page ads that pop-up over the articles and contain a "close" button in the upper right hand corner of the ad. →

"This development demonstrates Telegraph Media Group’s dedication to making its content accessible to the widest possible audience on all key platforms,” said Edward Roussel, Digital Editor of Telegraph Media Group in a post on the newspaper's website.

According the newspaper, Apple has sold one million iPad's in the UK since the tablet's launch in late May, already creating a viable market for British newspaper companies.

Left: Readers must register with the paper before accessing content; Middle: more registration; Right: drop down menu shows the reader the other stories available in that section of the tablet publication.

This limited content approach is but one of the trends newspapers are following when attempting to figure out tablet publishing. This approach allows the reader to download that morning's edition by 5 AM for offline reading while commuting or at the breakfast table. If desired, the editors can update content, though there was no mention of this for the Telegraph app.

The problem long term is the limited real estate for advertising within the free app. Additionally, readers may find, as they have with the NYT app, that they prefer to read the newspaper's website as its content is constantly updated. But as a commute product, there is no doubt that this approach has its advantages,

Monday, September 20, 2010

Adobe Systems announces that its online museum dedicated to digital media will go live October 6

Adobe Systems announced today that they will open the Adobe Museum of Digital Media (AMDM) in early October. The online site (here) will be an "interactive venue to present and preserve groundbreaking digital media works, inspire creative ideas and experimentation, and provide a forum for expert commentary on how digital media influences culture and society," according to a company press release. (And no jokes about Flash belonging in a museum!)

The AMDM will feature a wide range of material such as film, design, architectural and social media. "Adobe works with a wide range of creative professionals every day. We see extraordinary digital projects that take advantage of current technology and point to where creative minds will take digital media in the future," said Ann Lewnes, senior vice president of global marketing, Adobe. "The museum was inspired by them and is a tribute to their talent and innovation. We believe digital media plays an important role in shaping our society as well as our creative culture and should be celebrated in a space where the medium is literally the message."

After watching the video I had to wonder: 'is this just a PR move by Adobe to counter all the bad press rising out of the brush-up with Apple, or a legitimate attempt to celebrate digital arts?' We'll see on October 6th when the site goes live.

The online museum is a collaboration between Adobe and Piero Frescobaldi, co-founder of unit9, a U.K. based digital production company; Filippo Innocenti, of Spin+ and professor of Architecture Technology at Politecnico di Milano University; and Goodby, Silverstein and Partners, the San Francisco-based ad agency for Adobe Systems.

Handmark releases iPad app for Evening Standard; continues with series of trade show apps for Ascend

With over 100 iPhone apps inside the iTunes App Store, Handmark, Inc. continues to be one of the more active media app developers around. In addition to news apps for such companies as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and the Evening Standard, Handmark has also produced an app for Penton's Supermarket News, as well as a series of apps for Ascend Integrated Media in support of their client's events.
Released over the weekend was their first iPad news app for the Evening Standard. Handmark had previously released a free iPhone app for the London based tabloid. Evening Standard for iPad is also free and is essentially an exact copy of the mobile app. This is not a replica edition as the app does not in any way try and duplicate the print edition. The app is based off the RSS feeds coming off the newspaper's website, which, interestingly, doesn't try and duplicate the tabloid either -- rather than a large photo that adorns the front page of the print edition, the website is a collection of lots and lots of small stories.
The advantage of an RSS feed driven app, of course, is that once the shell is created by the developer all the newspaper needs to do is continue to maintain its website. The feeds from the site can then be pulled in to populate the app -- no additional staffing or effort required. The disadvantage of this approach is that it is more like the website -- and therefore will be priced at that same level.

The app can be used in both portrait and landscape modes. In portrait mode the index is a pulldown menu, but while in landscape it occupies the left hand column. As a result, the reader can not use pinch-to-zoom, though they can increase the size of the font.

Because this app duplicates the iPhone app, rather than the print edition, it is a single-sponsored app with just the one ad at the bottom of the screen (as you can see in the screenshots).

Left: An article in portrait mode; Middle: the settings menu; Right: articles can be shared using Twitter and Facebook

Handmark also continues to release iPhone app for Ascend Integrated Media, the custom media side of Ascend Media. (Both companies are based in Kansas City, Mo.)
The latest app is for the American Academy of Otolaryngology (that would be "ear, nose and throat" to the rest of us) and their annual meeting and trade show. The free app is pretty much devoid of content as of today, but it is assumed that Ascend will fill up the app with content well before the event opens on September 26.

When fully populated with content, the app will offer daily news, a schedule of events, as well as miscellaneous content such as Tweets about the event, photos and such.

Morning Brief: dragging classifieds into the 21st Century; two new Google Voice apps get approved by Apple

Good Monday morning: the Giants are in first place, the Raiders won (and being in Chicago I suppose I am forced to acknowledge the Bears and Packers, too), so all is well -- at least until tonight when the 49ers get crushed by the Saints. Now it's back to work.

There was a time when the folks in classified were on top of the pyramid. In California, our classified association meetings were always in Monterey or Palm Springs, the national meetings were in places like Banff or Aspen, and all the other newspaper departments would be jealous of what classified managers could get away with. But, in the end, they knew who paid the bills, so life was a good as a CAM.
Now, no one seems to want to talk about classified advertising. The future of newspapers is now the future of journalism, and advertising is rarely part of the conversation. As a result, few media apps have been released that even give a nod towards those ads that appear in those back pages of the newspaper.

Luckily for newspapers, their nemesis, Craig's List, with its clunky web UI is not much of a threat to lead the way to smartphones and the iPad. But that is not stopping developers from seeing gold in those little ads. As of this morning, a search of the iTunes App Store brings up 39 apps for the iPhone and a half dozen for the iPad.
Among the many out there Craigslist Pro for iPad is certainly among the best -- but iPhone and iPad users can pick and choose their developers to see what they like best.

For traditional media companies the real issue here is that they are determined to be as behind the curve moving to mobile and tablet media devices as they were to move online. Even companies like CareerBuilder are not players in the new space, with only one iPhone app under their name, and even that one won't allow you to apply for a job you find right from the app. (, too, has an iPhone app, though it has not been well received by iPhone owners either. Neither company has anything for the iPad.)

Is the problem that when it comes to new mobile publishing decisions that the ad departments are not part of the team making decisions?

It appears that Apple really is loosening their app restrictions. Two new apps have appeared for Google Voice, though both are from independent developers. GV Mobile + is from Sean Kovacs, and GV Connect is from Andreas Amann. Both are paid apps, though it is possible that Google will resubmit their own app and provide a free alternative.

I have not tested either app simply because of issues with multiple sign-in with the apps, but both apps have been enthusiastically received.

In case you are not a Google Voice users here is a brief explanation of it: Google Voice gives you a phone number that when called will ring on any phone you designate; GV gives the user voicemail, voicemail to text, and now you can call any number in the U.S, and Canada from G-Mail for free.

The bottom line is this: voice calls are moving to free -- that means the money in phone calls won't be in the charge for making them, but the charge for providing Internet connectivity.