Wired UK to Cease Publication

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Bill Thompson

unread,
Feb 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/4/97
to

It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997
issue, following a failure to attract external funding. This is not
yet formally confirmed (announcement expected Thursday), but several
sources indicate that it is true.

Since its launch in March 1995 Wired has had a chequered history,
including a falling out with original partners The Guardian,
but it seemed to have found its editorial
feet under Oliver Morton and will be missed by lots of us - not
just the writers!

No flowers. Email condolences to ed...@wired.co.uk


David Harvey-George

unread,
Feb 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/4/97
to


Bill Thompson <bi...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<5d86gj$n...@join.news.pipex.net>...


> It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997

So it may yet possibly outlast it's parent publication? Or are rumours of
financial woes at Wired merely that?

Personally I won't shed a tear for Wired UK. Too much style, too high a
price, too little content and too many rants against the frogs. Still at
least it was different from .sad and the other dozen Internet rags.

David

Pete Morgan-Lucas

unread,
Feb 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/5/97
to

Bill Thompson wrote:
>
> It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997
> issue, following a failure to attract external funding. This is not
> yet formally confirmed (announcement expected Thursday), but several
> sources indicate that it is true.

IMHO it won't be missed... it had degenerated into a typical
"all glttz no substance" publication...

OK, it may have been a "marketeer's dream", being targetted at
males with high disposable incomes, but high disposable incomes
or not, does anyone really want to spend their money on a 'zine
thats stuffed full of glitzy ads and ~sparse~ comment?

I used to get "why don't you subscribe to WIRED?" junk-mails
through the post ona monthly basis... i was never tempted,
as soon as i realised that the cover price would get me a
good couple of hours on thenet, where i could choose my
opinions to fit my own prejudices, rather than relying on
those of Oliver Morton.

//PJML//

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Pete Morgan-Lucas <pj...@mail.nerc-
swindon.ac.uk.nospam> writes

>Bill Thompson wrote:
>>
>> It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997
>> issue, following a failure to attract external funding. This is not
>> yet formally confirmed (announcement expected Thursday), but several
>> sources indicate that it is true.
>
>IMHO it won't be missed... it had degenerated into a typical
>"all glttz no substance" publication...
>
>OK, it may have been a "marketeer's dream", being targetted at
>males with high disposable incomes, but high disposable incomes
>or not, does anyone really want to spend their money on a 'zine
>thats stuffed full of glitzy ads and ~sparse~ comment?

"sparse"? I wouldn't know. All I do know is who the hell could read it
with those impossible on the eyes, clashing colours all over the pages.


tbt
--
| Bruce Tober - octob...@reporters.net - Birmingham, England |
| pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume:http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
| For CV/Resume and Clips: http://nwsmait.intermarket.com/nmfwc/tbt.htm |
| "Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation|
| for the future." --- Benjamin Disraeli |

A OSHINEYE

unread,
Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97
to

T Bruce Tober wrote:
>
> In a rather exuberant mood, Pete Morgan-Lucas <pj...@mail.nerc-
> swindon.ac.uk.nospam> writes
> >Bill Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997
> >> issue, following a failure to attract external funding. This is not
> >> yet formally confirmed (announcement expected Thursday), but several
> >> sources indicate that it is true.
> >
> >IMHO it won't be missed... it had degenerated into a typical
> >"all glttz no substance" publication...
> >
> >OK, it may have been a "marketeer's dream", being targetted at
> >males with high disposable incomes, but high disposable incomes
> >or not, does anyone really want to spend their money on a 'zine
> >thats stuffed full of glitzy ads and ~sparse~ comment?
>
> "sparse"? I wouldn't know. All I do know is who the hell could read it
> with those impossible on the eyes, clashing colours all over the pages.
And they always split articles so that reading anything was more akin to
a game of hide and seek.
Anyway it was always far too american with very little materail to
justify the UK in the title. Is there noone in the UK who could have
replaced Negroponte's overly optimistic and technophilic ramblings?
Wired UK never even had it's own web site and the magazine kept on
making the same mistakes over and over again. How many letters can they
have received saying that unreadable articles (because of overly
complicated backgrounds) are not "cool" but silly and self-defeating?

Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Bearing in mind I'm impossibly biased, and this is all completely
unofficial comment from an ex-Wiredling...

In article <32F8CC...@mail.nerc-swindon.ac.uk.nospam>,
pj...@mail.nerc-swindon.ac.uk.nospam wrote:

>OK, it may have been a "marketeer's dream", being targetted at
>males with high disposable incomes, but high disposable incomes
>or not, does anyone really want to spend their money on a 'zine
>thats stuffed full of glitzy ads and ~sparse~ comment?

I think part of the problem with the advertising is that although it was
obviously popular with rich young men, it doesn't comfortably fit into any
traditional magazine categories. Convincing advertisers who are used to
either FHM/GQ etc or Internet/.net etc can't have been particularly easy.

I certainly would be happy to spend my money on the 'zine. I haven't
counted, but I'd be surprised if the editorial/ad content was much worse
than most other mags. I've always found far more to read in Wired than in
any other magazine out there, and certainly wouldn't call it 'sparse'
comment. Are you saying it wasn't in-depth enough, or that there wasn't
enough of it? Either way, I'd disagree.

>I used to get "why don't you subscribe to WIRED?" junk-mails
>through the post ona monthly basis... i was never tempted,
>as soon as i realised that the cover price would get me a
>good couple of hours on thenet, where i could choose my
>opinions to fit my own prejudices, rather than relying on
>those of Oliver Morton.

Or Oliver Morton and all the other editors and freelancers. What you spend
your money on is up to you, but I'd be happy paying 3.50 for something that
would take me hours to read.

In article <OH8CetBX...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> wrote:

>"sparse"? I wouldn't know. All I do know is who the hell could read it
>with those impossible on the eyes, clashing colours all over the pages.

I've heard this so many times, both before and since I started working at
Wired, and I still don't understand it. Hey, maybe I'm just young and my
eyes haven't quite yet been weakened by decades of computer screens. I can
barely recall *any* articles that have made me stop and think "This is too
hard to read" (the article on Pachinko a few months ago springs immediately
to mind). It's tempting to bow to popular comment and say "oh, you must all
be right", but if people did that we'd still be reading *everything* in
plain black on white text with nothing to differentiate publications. If
Wired looked like Byte (which I have nothing against) it simply wouldn't be
Wired. Maybe some people would prefer that, but I certainly wouldn't.
Wired's design was more than just 'gloss'.

In article <32FA40...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk>, A OSHINEYE
<TA5...@QMWCC7.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:

>And they always split articles so that reading anything was more akin to
>a game of hide and seek.

This has *always* been the thing that most annoyed me (and others here)
about the magazine. The reasoning behind it is (I believe) to keep too many
ads out of the feature well in the middle of the mag. This does have
benefits, I must admit, but I've never been convinced they outweighed the
annoyance of those jump pages.

>Anyway it was always far too american with very little materail to
>justify the UK in the title. Is there noone in the UK who could have
>replaced Negroponte's overly optimistic and technophilic ramblings?

I think at first it was too American, yes. However I feel each month did
get better and better, and had more relevant UK content. It must have been
difficult to start with something which is so obviously completely
Californian, and make it into something that reflected the emerging UK
digital culture, without simply starting afresh. I think we were finally
succeeding in producing something that justified being "Wired UK", but
sadly this seems to have come too late.

Negroponte? What can I say? :)

>Wired UK never even had it's own web site and the magazine kept on
>making the same mistakes over and over again.

I have to say it was mind-numbingly awful that Wired UK never had a Web
site, and it's something I've found embarrassing since I started there 15
months ago. Quite how a magazine of 'the digital society' could justify not
having one was, and still is, beyond me.

Being an ex-employee, I'm obviously sad to see Wired UK go, but I've loved
the magazine for years, and it's a real shame it's all over now, just when
the great team that put it together were finally producing what should have
been around months ago.


` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' ` ' `
PHIL GYFORD Inter-planetary dialling prefix 44(0)171
mailto:ph...@wired.co.uk Daylight productivity podule 775.3434
http://www.paranoia.com/~fabius Darkside leisure palace 622.9058
Wired magazine, 51d30'N 00d05'W, Earth Hard copy portal 775.3401
. , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , . , .

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Phil Gyford <fab...@paranoia.com> writes

>In article <OH8CetBX...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
><octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>
>>"sparse"? I wouldn't know. All I do know is who the hell could read it
>>with those impossible on the eyes, clashing colours all over the pages.
>
>I've heard this so many times, both before and since I started working at
>Wired, and I still don't understand it.

Let me see if I can clarify it for you. colours which clash (black or
red on metalic silver, black on a white page with tones of pale blue
graphic background, bleeding yellow, orange and red lines of type into
one another in a pull quote wherein the lines of type overlap each
other, red and yellow lines of type on a dark wood-like background, in
the pages I was looking at just now in an issue I picked at random - I
own about 3) are nearly impossible to read. Even if readable, they hurt
the eyes.

> Hey, maybe I'm just young and my
>eyes haven't quite yet been weakened by decades of computer screens.

Mine have only been weakened by 1.5 such decades. I don't find them
terribly weak when reading other magazines or books (remember them?) or
newspapers.

>I can
>barely recall *any* articles that have made me stop and think "This is too
>hard to read" (the article on Pachinko a few months ago springs immediately
>to mind).

You're lucky.

>It's tempting to bow to popular comment and say "oh, you must all
>be right", but if people did that we'd still be reading *everything* in
>plain black on white text with nothing to differentiate publications.

If they did you might still be working for Wired because more of us
might have bought it.

>If
>Wired looked like Byte (which I have nothing against)

And for which I write.

>it simply wouldn't be
>Wired.

Fortunately, which could be why Byte continues as one of, if not THE,
techie computer magazine after 20 years. Wired lasted what? Two? Three?

>Maybe some people would prefer that, but I certainly wouldn't.
>Wired's design was more than just 'gloss'.

Hard to tell.

I am however sad to see it go. Sad for the writers joining the rest of
us in the wonderful world of freelance and sad for the unfortunately too
few readers who found something of value in it.

Axis

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

bi...@dial.pipex.com (Bill Thompson) felt sure that it was vital for
our survival to know that:

>It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997
>issue, following a failure to attract external funding. This is not
>yet formally confirmed (announcement expected Thursday), but several
>sources indicate that it is true.

>Since its launch in March 1995 Wired has had a chequered history,

>including a falling out with original partners The Guardian,
>but it seemed to have found its editorial
>feet under Oliver Morton and will be missed by lots of us - not
>just the writers!

>No flowers. Email condolences to ed...@wired.co.uk

I must say I will miss Wired.

I used to read the US version and swapped to UK Wired when it came
out. Looks like I'll have to switch back again.

Elsewhere in this thread, it has been said that Wired was more style
than substance. I can see where that POV comes from. Personally, the
colour schemes and layouts never gave me any problems; in fact I quite
liked them - it made Wired more than just plain old text. It was
pretty to look at too.

Also, I really liked the content, although others didn't. Wired was
never trying to be Byte (which is in itself an excellent magazine),
but offered a far broader scope than just Net and tech issues. It had
an eclectic mix of social and hard sciences which I fear I will be
hard-put to find elsewhere... I remember articles from radical
economics, to agriculture, IndyCar racing and biology. It was a mixed
bag of stuff, all of which I invariably found thought-provoking and
interesting. There's nothing else like it out there.

So I'd like to thank all involved with Wired UK for their efforts over
the past few years and wish them all the best in the future.


//=============== THIS WAS A MESSAGE FROM AXIS ==============\\
// "I want the two-seven, the three-two /| \ / O /ŻŻŻ` \\
// and the fifty-third squadron in my / | \/ \__ \\
\\ sky on the double and RAINING FIRE!" /__|__/\ | \ //
\\ - COMM. ROSS, USS SARATOGA SCVN-2812 / | \_|____/ //
\\================= <*> =================/Ax...@netcomuk.co.uk//


Richard Baguley

unread,
Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

> It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997

Well, I'll miss it. I know it had its problems and the occasional dodgey
article and design, but by and large I think it was good. I think it never
quite found its audience, and that was the real reason for its failure.

Hopefully, this might at least mean that the US edition gets better
distribution into the UK...

*********************************************************
* Richard Baguley * Internet Today *
* Editor * Paragon Publishing *
* rich...@paragon.co.uk * http://www.paragon.co.uk *
*********************************************************

Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <F+CQwyBul3+yEwT$@crecon.demon.co.uk>,

T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:

>Let me see if I can clarify it for you. colours which clash (black or
>red on metalic silver, black on a white page with tones of pale blue
>graphic background, bleeding yellow, orange and red lines of type into
>one another in a pull quote wherein the lines of type overlap each
>other, red and yellow lines of type on a dark wood-like background, in
>the pages I was looking at just now in an issue I picked at random - I
>own about 3) are nearly impossible to read. Even if readable, they hurt
>the eyes.

Well, we're never going to agree on this point. There have been a mere
handful of instances over the last three years of reading Wired where I've
found something unecessarily hard to read, and nothing's going to change
that fact. Flicking through the current issue (3.02), I could only describe
parts of Flux as being anywhere near hard to read, but that wouldn't bother
me were I not out looking for such things. In fact the parts of Wired I've
always found most offensive to the eyes are the dreadfully dully presented
Abacus and Idees Fortes - which are almost all black on white text.

>>It's tempting to bow to popular comment and say "oh, you must all
>>be right", but if people did that we'd still be reading *everything* in
>>plain black on white text with nothing to differentiate publications.
>
>If they did you might still be working for Wired because more of us
>might have bought it.

But then a lot of people I know wouldn't have bought it because it wouldn't
have been nearly so appealing.

>Fortunately, which could be why Byte continues as one of, if not THE,
>techie computer magazine after 20 years. Wired lasted what? Two? Three?

I can't quite see the logic in this argument... Byte has lasted 20 years
and is the predominent techy mag because it prints black on white; Wired UK
fails because it has a tendency to use flourescent and metallic inks?

>>Maybe some people would prefer that, but I certainly wouldn't.
>>Wired's design was more than just 'gloss'.
>
>Hard to tell.

Any desigers out there?

>I am however sad to see it go. Sad for the writers joining the rest of
>us in the wonderful world of freelance and sad for the unfortunately too
>few readers who found something of value in it.

I'm sad for *all* of the staff who have worked so hard on it, and sad for
the rapidly increasing numbers of readers who obviously *did* find

Ian Dickson

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <AF217C2E9...@splendid.demon.co.uk>, Phil Gyford
<fab...@dircon.co.uk> writes

>and is the predominent techy mag because it prints black on white; Wired UK
>fails because it has a tendency to use flourescent and metallic inks?
>
>>>Maybe some people would prefer that, but I certainly wouldn't.
>>>Wired's design was more than just 'gloss'.
>>
>>Hard to tell.
>
>Any desigers out there?
>
As a Web Publisher ( NOT designer, the look of Moneyweb is what you get
when you have nil graphical mind) I get two sorts of emails commenting
on my site. Ones from designers thinking I need a makeover, and ones
from the public thanking me for a site that makes sense and is easy to
use. ( I am still waiting for a designer to come up with something that
does not look like a bank....)

In my view Wired was required reading for it's content, but the <design>
was horrid.

In the design vs content debate look at Private Eye, a wonderful
publication and no one gives a damn about it's cheapo paper etc.


Didn't Wired notice that their readers ARE wired? This means that they
like plain text screen in emails, and , being Internet users, are
probably much more CONTENT oriented than graphically minded.

Will we be able to get Wired USA here? Much of the issues are global
after all.

If anyone is trying to analyse the readership with a view to a lower
cost relaunch ( anyone for 2Wired?) I'm 32, self employed and take three
magazines without fail - Wired ( RIP), Private Eye, and New Scientist,
and Internet/Computer mags sometimes, Mens Mags, never. No daily paper,
Sunday Times.
--
Ian Dickson Moneyweb - www.moneyweb.co.uk 01451 844468
Find your Local IFA.
"probably the UK's most comprehensive Personal Finance site" - The FT
"packed to bursting" - WWW Directory "Three Stars" Magellan
Financial Webmasters - free site listing and link.
UK FinServ Professional?, join Finservuk-list via Moneyweb. Moderated


Paul L. Allen

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <AF217C2E9...@splendid.demon.co.uk>
fab...@dircon.co.uk (Phil Gyford) writes:

> In article <F+CQwyBul3+yEwT$@crecon.demon.co.uk>,
> T Bruce Tober <octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>
> >Let me see if I can clarify it for you. colours which clash (black or
> >red on metalic silver, black on a white page with tones of pale blue
> >graphic background, bleeding yellow, orange and red lines of type into
> >one another in a pull quote wherein the lines of type overlap each
> >other, red and yellow lines of type on a dark wood-like background, in
> >the pages I was looking at just now in an issue I picked at random - I
> >own about 3) are nearly impossible to read. Even if readable, they hurt
> >the eyes.
>
> Well, we're never going to agree on this point.

This is true. Let's face it, Wired is the magazine equivalent of Chris
Evans - loud, annoying and boringly repetitive.

> >Fortunately, which could be why Byte continues as one of, if not THE,
> >techie computer magazine after 20 years. Wired lasted what? Two? Three?
>
> I can't quite see the logic in this argument... Byte has lasted 20 years

> and is the predominent techy mag because it prints black on white; Wired UK
> fails because it has a tendency to use flourescent and metallic inks?

Yes, that is a *large* part of it. Byte is easy to read in poor lighting
conditions or on the train. Wired is bloody hard to read under optimum
conditions. The other part of it, of course, is that Byte has technical
content as opposed to pretentious crap.

> >I am however sad to see it go. Sad for the writers joining the rest of
> >us in the wonderful world of freelance and sad for the unfortunately too
> >few readers who found something of value in it.
>
> I'm sad for *all* of the staff who have worked so hard on it, and sad for
> the rapidly increasing numbers of readers who obviously *did* find
> something of value in it.

I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the
graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.

--Paul

Geoff

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <5dg2q9$bq$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Axis
<Ax...@netcomuk.co.uk.ANTISPAM-PLEASE-DELETE> writes

>bi...@dial.pipex.com (Bill Thompson) felt sure that it was vital for
>our survival to know that:
>
>>It seems that Wired UK is to cease publication after the March 1997
>>issue, following a failure to attract external funding. This is not
>>yet formally confirmed (announcement expected Thursday), but several
>>sources indicate that it is true.
>

Sorry to see it go. I had been buying the US edition, I switched to the
UK one, then later I got both.

The US one has more articles, more value for money. I even liked the
adverts, they are show cases in themselves for stuff that won't be
available in Britain for years. The thing was W UK was more American
than British. A US edition you would expect no compromise but a UK
edition there is no excuse.

It was just beginning to cover stories about upcoming Sloaney art
students in the WWW publishing scene.

Lets face it there is bugger all in Briatin to write about. This country
is almost as crap as a good edition of Space: Above & Beyond!
--
Geoff

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In a rather exuberant mood, "Paul L. Allen" <p...@sktb.demon.co.uk>
writes

>In article <AF217C2E9...@splendid.demon.co.uk>
> fab...@dircon.co.uk (Phil Gyford) writes:
>
>> >the pages I was looking at just now in an issue I picked at random - I
>> >own about 3) are nearly impossible to read. Even if readable, they hurt
>> >the eyes.
>>
>> Well, we're never going to agree on this point.
>
>This is true. Let's face it, Wired is the magazine equivalent of Chris
>Evans - loud, annoying and boringly repetitive.

Good analogy, I like it.

Dave Griffiths

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <01bc12eb$52fbf5f0$5874989e@kimble> "David Harvey-George" <da...@threewiz.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Personally I won't shed a tear for Wired UK. Too much style, too high a
>price, too little content and too many rants against the frogs. Still at
>least it was different from .sad and the other dozen Internet rags.

It was too jazzy for the UK anorak market. They should have printed it on
line-printer listing paper in Courier font.

Dave


Richard Lloyd

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <6a35oPAF5P$yM...@hene.demon.co.uk>,

Geoff <ge...@hene.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The US one has more articles, more value for money.

Apart from the dreadful colours/design of the US Wired (quite why the UK
Wired had to slavishly copy the major fault of its US version is anyone's
guess !), US Wired is indeed interesting reading. I took a look at few
copies of UK Wired and wasn't impressed - too much US content meant it was
a pointless and inferior clone of the US version. I was pretty
annoyed when you couldn't buy the US Wired at regular UK newsagents, so I
stopped reading it altogether then.

>Lets face it there is bugger all in Briatin to write about.

How about spelling (ouch !) ? :-)

> This country
> is almost as crap as a good edition of Space: Above & Beyond!

You mean there *was* a good edition of Space: Above & Beyond ? :-)

Richard K. Lloyd, E-mail: r...@csc.liv.ac.uk
Computer Science Dept., WWW: http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~rkl/
Liverpool University,
Merseyside, England,
Great Britain.


Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <6a35oPAF5P$yM...@hene.demon.co.uk>,
Geoff <ge...@hene.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>The US one has more articles, more value for money. I even liked the
>adverts, they are show cases in themselves for stuff that won't be
>available in Britain for years.

I could never deny the fact that there's more of everything in the US
edition - I imagine that's the benefit of having a 350,000ish circulation.
And yes, their ads are far more interesting.

>The thing was W UK was more American
>than British. A US edition you would expect no compromise but a UK
>edition there is no excuse.

By the end, there was far more British/European content in the UK edition
than when it first started. Maybe it took far too long to get this way.
However, I don't see how a magazine trying to cover the things it did, even
if from a British point of view, could avoid covering developments in the
US, which is obviously ahead of us all in the acceptance of all things
digital.

>Lets face it there is bugger all in Briatin to write about. This country


>is almost as crap as a good edition of Space: Above & Beyond!

There is plenty happening out there. Unfortunately a large amount of it is
obviously influenced by, or spawned from, US developments. But we are
gaining ground fast; There is an extremely healthy Web design industry in
this country, and British Web designers are highly sought after in the US
(eg Online Magic opening a New York office). There are also more and more
British originated initiatives appearing (eg the Acid Test collective);
maybe it's simply that Wired UK was too early.


PHIL GYFORD
fab...@paranoia.com


Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <cgD4v...@sktb.demon.co.uk>,

"Paul L. Allen" <p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>This is true. Let's face it, Wired is the magazine equivalent of Chris
>Evans - loud, annoying and boringly repetitive.

Fair enough, your opinion.

>> I can't quite see the logic in this argument... Byte has lasted 20 years
>> and is the predominent techy mag because it prints black on white; Wired UK
>> fails because it has a tendency to use flourescent and metallic inks?
>
>Yes, that is a *large* part of it. Byte is easy to read in poor lighting
>conditions or on the train. Wired is bloody hard to read under optimum
>conditions. The other part of it, of course, is that Byte has technical
>content as opposed to pretentious crap.

Aside from the fact that not everyone is stuck in the dark ages and some
people enjoy lively and innovative design... Comparing the content of Byte
and Wired doesn't really help any argument - Byte covers the
computer/internet industry, reviews new products and developments. Wired
covers all aspects of digital technology, and how it affects (and will
affect) all aspects of our lives, from the economy, leisure, politics etc.
Byte does its job extremely well, it's just a different job from Wired's.
It's like criticising a fashion magazine for not having enough articles
about the minutiae of tailoring suits.

>I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the

Phil, resisting the temptation to get personal in public and give Paul L.
Allen a hefty virtual smack in the mouth.


PHIL GYFORD
fab...@paranoia.com


Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

In article <rZveINAi1E$yE...@iand.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Dickson <i...@iand.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>As a Web Publisher ( NOT designer, the look of Moneyweb is what you get
>when you have nil graphical mind) I get two sorts of emails commenting
>on my site. Ones from designers thinking I need a makeover, and ones
>from the public thanking me for a site that makes sense and is easy to
>use. ( I am still waiting for a designer to come up with something that
>does not look like a bank....)

You must be looking at the wrong designers :)

I haven't seen your site, but maybe it *is*, to some extent, well designed
if people find it makes sense and is easy to use. Maybe the critical
designers find it not to their liking from an aesthetic visual standpoint,
which is only half the battle of designing a Website.

>In my view Wired was required reading for it's content, but the <design>
>was horrid.
>
>In the design vs content debate look at Private Eye, a wonderful
>publication and no one gives a damn about it's cheapo paper etc.

That doesn't mean expensive paper and more colour would make it a worse
magazine (which I'm *not* saying they should do, before anyone says this is
a stupid idea). Wired and the Eye are completely different organs with
obviously different philosophies behind them.

>Didn't Wired notice that their readers ARE wired? This means that they
>like plain text screen in emails, and , being Internet users, are
>probably much more CONTENT oriented than graphically minded.

Aside from the fact that print- and net-based publications entirely
different... If wired people so favour plain text, why do people bother
with all these obviously annoying, gaudy and unreadable pictures and
colours on Web pages then?

>Will we be able to get Wired USA here? Much of the issues are global
>after all.

You certainly will. The March issue of Wired UK will be the last (due out
Feb 20), and Wired US will replace it in the shops after that (subscribers
will be getting copies of the US issue too).


Axis

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

"Paul L. Allen" <p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> felt sure that it was vital for

our survival to know that:

>I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the


>graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.

Twat. You have every right not to like Wired, but the above comment is
bang out of order. What a small man.


//=============== THIS WAS A MESSAGE FROM AXIS ==============\\

// "I want the two-seven, the three-two /| \ / O /秤畔 \\

James Eibisch

unread,
Feb 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/9/97
to

On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 15:52:49 +0000, "Paul L. Allen"
<p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>This is true. Let's face it, Wired is the magazine equivalent of Chris
>Evans - loud, annoying and boringly repetitive.

[snip]

>Yes, that is a *large* part of it. Byte is easy to read in poor lighting
>conditions or on the train. Wired is bloody hard to read under optimum
>conditions. The other part of it, of course, is that Byte has technical
>content as opposed to pretentious crap.

[snip]

>I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the
>graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.

An extreme view there. It seems Wired polarises its readers like no
other magazine. I'll be very sorry indeed to see it go and would quite
happily sacrifice most (all?) of the other Internet mags to secure its
future.

The practice of spending large numbers of pages reviewing Web sites in
dead tree media is incomprehensible to me and seems to be the mainstay
of most of the 'Hey! Internet!' type mags. If the reader can make use of
the reviews, he's on the Net already and would get better value for
money going to an on-net directory instead. If said reader took uk.net
and uk.media he'd've read most of the news stories before they were
published. Wired actually offers something more - a lot more, now that I
think of some of the stories they've run that 'Hello Internet Monthly!'
or whomever wouldn't have had the imagination to consider.

As for Internet mag's league table of ISPs, how did they choose the
criteria they use to rate ISPs? 27.6Kbps average connection speed, 92%
uptime over the last 4 weeks, etc. What about international routing,
news server loading and available funds for short- and long-term
infrastructure upgrades, to name three vastly more useful attributes?

Byte's still here not only because it's exellent, as is Wired IMHO, but
because it's got McGraw-Hill behind it. Having worked for MGH for a few
years, I know that established brands rarely get sunk because of funding
alone. Perhaps they or another publishing empire will take on Wired and
give it some security. I hope so but doubt it.

Btw Paul, it sounds like you read more than just a couple of issues of
Wired to get so aerated about it. The question is: why?

--
_ N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
James Eibisch ('v') -- http://www.revolver.demon.co.uk --
Reading, U.K. (,_,) -- Now showing: Invaders 1978: --
======= a faithful version of Taito's original

Jason Finch

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

After Paul Allen decided to write:

> >I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the
> >graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.

... "A message from Axis" plopped into Usenet and proclaimed:



> Twat. You have every right not to like Wired, but the above comment is
> bang out of order. What a small man.

I have to agree I'm afraid. Everyone likes certain things in a
magazine.

As a snowboarder (oh no, that's me condemned by the line-printer
publishing fanatics) I get 3-4 boarding mags a month and ALL of them,
without exception, are about 10% decent content and the rest is
stunning visuals of boarders in action, and fancy design surrounding
very very "easy reading".

But then so what, it's something to do to occupy a few spare minutes
here and there when you're bored... good graphics that you can look at
over and over again and content that you read through quickly and have
a laugh at (assuming you've got a morsel of sense of humour). I'm not
saying Wired was, or should have been, like this incidentally.

On the flip side I also get a ridiculous amount of very dry Internet
trade press stuff. It contains lots of news and information that I
need and I don't want any hassle trying to find the content. If this
stuff came through with OTT design we'd probably bin it rather than
advertise in it. But sometimes you want something a bit less down
to earth.

There are mags that cater for different tastes in people; accept,
or maybe tolerate, but don't condemn those that differ from your own.
Just go out and buy those mags that you want, and leave the others
to people who want something else. There's so much condemnation on
this newsgroup.

Jason.


---------------------- port80 the internet publishing company
email: enq...@port80.co.uk www: http://www.port80.co.uk
mount pleasant farm, thornton hill, easingwold, york, yo6 3qa

Ade OSHINEYE

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

Phil Gyford wrote:
>
> In article <rZveINAi1E$yE...@iand.demon.co.uk>,
> Ian Dickson <i...@iand.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> >In my view Wired was required reading for it's content, but the <design>
> >was horrid.
> >
> >In the design vs content debate look at Private Eye, a wonderful
> >publication and no one gives a damn about it's cheapo paper etc.
>
> That doesn't mean expensive paper and more colour would make it a worse
> magazine (which I'm *not* saying they should do, before anyone says this is
> a stupid idea). Wired and the Eye are completely different organs with
> obviously different philosophies behind them.
>
> >Didn't Wired notice that their readers ARE wired? This means that they
> >like plain text screen in emails, and , being Internet users, are
> >probably much more CONTENT oriented than graphically minded.
>
> Aside from the fact that print- and net-based publications entirely
> different... If wired people so favour plain text, why do people bother
> with all these obviously annoying, gaudy and unreadable pictures and
> colours on Web pages then?
I always felt that the magazine was trying to look like a website and it
just wasn't working. I wonder why noone ever thought about putting more
material on some kind of cover-mounted CD (after all even the
Guardian-who today referred to Wired's editor as Oliver Moron- have done
it).
Wired was always trying to be all things to all men. It was trapped in a
very american conception of techno-culture and perhaps somebody should
have re-thought the entire concept, making it more of a UK Wired mag
rather than just a watered down version of the US one. There were few
issues when it was really worth getting both Wired UK and US.
Also Wired always seemed, to me at least, unsure of whether it was
leaning towards the techy or laddish end of the spectrum. It showed in
the advertising and it showed in the articles.
<snip>

Ade OSHINEYE

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to
You may have a point there. But I wonder if T3 or Escape will do any
better. They seem to be trying to do pretty much the same thing as Wired
but from a UK angle with fewer attempts to provoke thought.
I'll miss Wired. I used to get it every now and again when they had
something particularly interesting but it was never a 'must buy'. Oh
well the first casualty of new technology is always the innovator. On
the bright side you guys get to join the Sir Clive Sinclair Hall of
Fame; containing British ideas which never really caught on for
inexplicable reasons.
The only people who tend to complain about the design are fairly regular
readers. How about some comments from people who _never_ read a single
issue?

Axis

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

Jason Finch <ja...@port80.co.uk> felt sure that it was vital for our
survival to know that:

>After Paul Allen decided to write:

>> >I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the
>> >graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.

>... "A message from Axis" plopped into Usenet and proclaimed:
>
>> Twat. You have every right not to like Wired, but the above comment is
>> bang out of order. What a small man.

>I have to agree I'm afraid. Everyone likes certain things in a
>magazine.

Of course everyone has a right to like/dislike various styles of
magazines. But to say 'I couldn't give a shit what happens to the
staff' of Wired is just plain small of the guy, IMHO. I wouldn't wish
unemployment on anyone, and the thirty-odd members of the Wired staff
are presently facing that reality. It's the same mentality you see at
football matches when supporters shout 'break his f**king legs!' and
suchlike.

Take care.

Jason Finch

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

Ade wrote..

> The only people who tend to complain about the design are fairly regular
> readers. How about some comments from people who _never_ read a single
> issue?

I thought the point that people were making was exactly that - there was
nothing in an issue to read anyway! ;)

Richard Baguley

unread,
Feb 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/10/97
to

> Byte does its job extremely well, it's just a different job from Wired's.
> It's like criticising a fashion magazine for not having enough articles
> about the minutiae of tailoring suits.

Phil, you are absolutely right. The two magazines are aimed at very
different markets. It's rather like comparing, say, The Radio Times with
Empire. Sure, they've both got stuff about films in them, but they are
aimed at very different markets...

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/11/97
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Axis <Ax...@netcomuk.co.uk.ANTISPAM-PLEASE-
DELETE> writes

>Of course everyone has a right to like/dislike various styles of
>magazines. But to say 'I couldn't give a shit what happens to the
>staff' of Wired is just plain small of the guy, IMHO. I wouldn't wish
>unemployment on anyone, and the thirty-odd members of the Wired staff
>are presently facing that reality. It's the same mentality you see at
>football matches when supporters shout 'break his f**king legs!' and
>suchlike.

I agree, for the most part. Though there are some, like billy gates (you
remember him, the guy with more money than god) who thinks writers (you
remember us, the guys who can barely aford the rent on our attic
bedsits) should freely (as in for no money) contribute content, or Roger
Green (co director of EMAP's online division) who thinks Wired's
freelnaces were paid too much. Well fuck both of them and everyone else
who thinks similarly thank you very much.

Giles Booth

unread,
Feb 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/11/97
to

So farewell, then, Wired UK
I will miss you very much...

I think Wired UK was very good value for money, each issue keeping me
busy reading for ages (insert slow-reader, bad design, split-article
wisecracks here). It's a terrible shame it's been cut off in its prime.

I opened an old American edition to be met with an article that started
'In the London suburb of Swindon...' Presumably we can see a return to
that kind of howler now us Wired-addicts are to be forced back to the US
edition. What do they know about Europe in San Francisco? It is, after
all, just a suburb of Denver, isn't it?

I tried to e-mail them I'll miss them and it bounced! And I can see no
mention of the axing of their British edition on Hotwired... funny,
that.
--
_
__ . // _ ,
_(_/__/__(/__(/__/_)_
_/_ giles...@bbc.co.uk
(/ http://www.geocities.com/Paris/9992/

Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/12/97
to

In article <3300FE...@bbc.co.uk>,
Giles Booth <giles...@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

>I opened an old American edition to be met with an article that started
>'In the London suburb of Swindon...' Presumably we can see a return to
>that kind of howler now us Wired-addicts are to be forced back to the US
>edition. What do they know about Europe in San Francisco? It is, after
>all, just a suburb of Denver, isn't it?

That was the source of all the trouble in many peoples' opinion. They
*don't* understand things outside the US, and think that they know what's
good for us. The ex-Associate Editor of Wired UK, Hari Kunzru, wrote an
obituary in today's Connected along these lines, which I assume can be
found somewhere at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Wired US may seem more cutting-edge to many, given the fact America is seen
as being ahead of us, but don't expect in-depth (if any) coverage of the
great things happening in the UK or Europe.

>I tried to e-mail them I'll miss them and it bounced!

Yup, email and voicemail to most staff has been cut off. But if you (or
anyone) have comments, send them to me, and I'll see they get forwarded to
any ex-staff who have their own email addresses.

>And I can see no
>mention of the axing of their British edition on Hotwired... funny,
>that.

Ha. As if.


PHIL GYFORD
fab...@paranoia.com


Jason Finch

unread,
Feb 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/12/97
to Ax...@netcomuk.co.uk

Axis replied to...

> >I have to agree I'm afraid. Everyone likes certain things in a
> >magazine.

...with...



> Of course everyone has a right to like/dislike various styles of
> magazines. But to say 'I couldn't give a shit what happens to the

> staff' of Wired is just plain small of the guy, IMHO. [...]

Erm, I meant "I have to agree [with Axel] I'm afraid" anyway.. while
everyone likes or prefers a particular style over another, I was
agreeing that to say "I couldn't give a shit what happens to the
staff" is less than constructive.

Sorry pour le confusion.

Regards,

Paul L. Allen

unread,
Feb 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/12/97
to

I see several people in this thread have severe comprehension difficulties.
Not surprising from those who defend Wired...

In article <5do4n3$ngk$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
Ax...@netcomuk.co.uk.ANTISPAM-PLEASE-DELETE (Axis) writes:

> Jason Finch <ja...@port80.co.uk> felt sure that it was vital for our
> survival to know that:
>
> >After Paul Allen decided to write:
>
> >> >I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the
> >> >graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.
>
> >... "A message from Axis" plopped into Usenet and proclaimed:
> >
> >> Twat. You have every right not to like Wired, but the above comment is
> >> bang out of order. What a small man.
>

> >I have to agree I'm afraid. Everyone likes certain things in a
> >magazine.
>

> Of course everyone has a right to like/dislike various styles of
> magazines. But to say 'I couldn't give a shit what happens to the

> staff' of Wired is just plain small of the guy, IMHO. I wouldn't wish
> unemployment on anyone,

And where did I ever say that I wished unemployment on anyone? The answer
is that I *didn't*. It is a straw man you and Jason have created between
you. Later posts to this thread attack me on the basis of this straw man
you have set up and not what I wrote.

Let's look at what I actually said again:

I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff,

There you go. I don't care what happens to the staff. That implies two
things, *both* true, but you have ignored one of them and thereby completely
misrepresent me. Just to make it clear to you:

1) I don't care if they stay unemployed forever - and why should I? I'm
not God and I can't care about everyone in the world whilst also
concerning myself with the fall of a sparrow. The number of unemployed in
this country is high and likely to stay so for a long time to come -
*somebody* has to be unemployed and it doesn't worry me if it is them. I
worry about my unemployed friends, former colleagues, relatives and even
neighbours, but I don't know these guys or even remember their names
(unlike some magazine writers who write well and I'd be sorry to see out
of a job). But these guys are likely to get new jobs with other magazines
quite quickly anyway and if they don't there's always the dole - unlike
millions of people in the third world on subsistence or starvation diets
and with no hope at all (I worry about them too, but not Wired staff
because they're not living on a handful of rice a day).

2) This is the interpretation you missed: by the same token I don't care
if they *do* get jobs. From the second part of my original sentence
[dealt with later] somebody with two braincells to rub together would
understand that I don't care if they get jobs on other magazines and I
don't even care if they get jobs on magazines I read. Of course I'm
assuming that they are good enough writers that they wrote pretentious
crap for Wired because they were told to and not because that's all they
can write, but it doesn't really matter - if they get a job on a magazine
I read and turn out pretentious crap they're unlikely to retain it so it
doesn't bother me.

Item two demolishes your unfounded assertion that I was wishing unemployment
on them because I don't care *either way*. I don't care if they don't get a
job; I don't care if they do get a job. Had I wished unemployment on them
(which I didn't) that would have been small of me; had I said I was happy
they were unemployed (which I didn't) that would have been small of me. I
actually did neither of those and merely expressed total disinterest in
their future.

Ah, but what about the rest of my original sentence? Here it is:

as long as the graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other
magazine I read.

As long as *those two* don't get a job *on any other magazine I read*. Not
that they never get another job. Not that they never get another job in the
magazine industry. Just that their job, if they get one, is not on a
magazine that I read. There are hundreds of magazines on the stands and I
read very few of them - all I care about is that those two don't get put in
charge of editing or graphic design of a magazine I read. Selfish of me, I
admit, and it assumes (possibly incorrectly) that they were in favour of
the way Wired looked, but a far cry from wishing unemployment on them.

> and the thirty-odd members of the Wired staff are presently facing that
> reality.

Like I said, I can't get worked up about that one. There are unemployed
people who mean far more to me because I know them. There are millions on
subsistence diets who *individually* mean less to me than the Wired staff do
but the weight of numbers and depth of poverty results in them meaning more
to me than Wired staff ever could.

> It's the same mentality you see at football matches when supporters shout
> 'break his f**king legs!' and suchlike.

Except you're completely wrong about what I wrote. It would appear that
your mentality is what I'd expect of a Wired reader: somebody who prefers
form to content on the basis that they have difficulty understanding content
so require pictures and pretty colours to keep them amused.

If you or Jason were actually intelligent enough to understand what I just
wrote, and big enough to admit your mistakes, I would expect apologies from
both of you. I won't hold my breath though...

--Paul

Axis

unread,
Feb 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/13/97
to

"Paul L. Allen" <p...@sktb.demon.co.uk> felt sure that it was vital for

our survival to know that:

>I see several people in this thread have severe comprehension difficulties.


>Not surprising from those who defend Wired...

Unfortunately for you, the preceding accusation of linguistic
inability seems more appropriate for your good self...

>In article <5do4n3$ngk$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
> Ax...@netcomuk.co.uk.ANTISPAM-PLEASE-DELETE (Axis) writes:

>> Jason Finch <ja...@port80.co.uk> felt sure that it was vital for our
>> survival to know that:
>>
>> >After Paul Allen decided to write:
>>
>> >> >I actually couldn't care a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the
>> >> >graphic designer and editor never get a job on any other magazine I read.
>>
>> >... "A message from Axis" plopped into Usenet and proclaimed:
>> >
>> >> Twat. You have every right not to like Wired, but the above comment is
>> >> bang out of order. What a small man.
>>
>> >I have to agree I'm afraid. Everyone likes certain things in a
>> >magazine.
>>
>> Of course everyone has a right to like/dislike various styles of
>> magazines. But to say 'I couldn't give a shit what happens to the
>> staff' of Wired is just plain small of the guy, IMHO. I wouldn't wish
>> unemployment on anyone,

>And where did I ever say that I wished unemployment on anyone? The answer
>is that I *didn't*. It is a straw man you and Jason have created between
>you. Later posts to this thread attack me on the basis of this straw man
>you have set up and not what I wrote.

I'm afraid this 'straw man' is a figment of your imagination. Perhaps
*you* should re-read the thread.

I never accused you of wishing unemployment on anyone. I said:

>I wouldn't wish unemployment on anyone

^
Notice the construction of the sentence. The subject is the personal
pronoun 'I' which, to most users of the English language, indicates
the first person... not the second person, as you have ridiculously
misinterpreted it to mean.

(succeeding misguided blatherings snipped)

>Item two demolishes your unfounded assertion that I was wishing unemployment
>on them because I don't care *either way*.

An assertion which you seemed to conjure up out of thin air, as shown
above. No such unfounded assertion exists to be demolished.

(more arguments based on this false premise snipped)

>It would appear that
>your mentality is what I'd expect of a Wired reader: somebody who prefers
>form to content on the basis that they have difficulty understanding content
>so require pictures and pretty colours to keep them amused.

Incorrect. As your post has clearly demonstrated, it is *you* who seem
unable to understand the use of clear English. Confusing 'I' for 'you'
is a pretty basic error. In addition, I usually find it far more
useful to judge people's intelligence on the basis of what they say
and write, rather than what they read. An unintelligent man cannot say
intelligent things, whereas an intelligent man can easily read an
'unintelligent' magazine. Personally, I like Wired and find it to be a
stimulating read, but that is not the issue here. The issue is your
proclivity for negatively judging people because they read a magazine
which you personally do not like.

You have made the error of assuming me to be stupid because I read
Wired. What a ridiculous assertion. The only proper basis you have for
judging my intelligence is to read my posts, which is how I have so
far formed my opinions about you. Thus far, I have seen nothing which
would lead me to believe that you own a superior mentality of any
sort. Not only have you taken a stand based on erroneous perceptions,
but your criteria for judging your fellow Usenet posters seem shakey
at best.

>If you or Jason were actually intelligent enough to understand what I just
>wrote, and big enough to admit your mistakes, I would expect apologies from
>both of you. I won't hold my breath though...

A wise position. No mistake was made, so no apology will be
forthcoming.

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/13/97
to

In a rather exuberant mood, Richard Baguley <rich...@paragon.co.uk>
writes

Ah yes, always nice to hear from someone at that nice honest paragon
publishing. Welcome to the fray. As someone who used to write fairly
regularly for IT when it was I&CT I think you'll find I know the
defference between magazines and their intended audiences. I believe
you'll find I never stated they were intended for the same market.
However, even if Wired was intended for one specific market (primarily)
it obviously didn't know the market well enough to make a successful go
of it, did it. Now there's something paragon would know about,
considering the success(?) of IT vs .net

But perhaps when the company which publishes it becomes the paragon of
virtue its name would imply, its sales will soar. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

have a balmy day

Jason Finch

unread,
Feb 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/13/97
to

The divine Paul Allen suggested ..

> >If you or Jason were actually intelligent enough to understand what I just
> >wrote, and big enough to admit your mistakes, I would expect apologies from
> >both of you. I won't hold my breath though...

.. to which Axis retorted ..



> A wise position. No mistake was made, so no apology will be
> forthcoming.

Well quite, I mean I never said anything about unemployment anyway.
That was Axis, and as he so eloquently explained he said "I [Axis]
wouldn't wish unemployment on anyone". You are simply assuming that
Axis was implying that because he wouldn't, you *would*.

My original posting suggested only that to say "I actually couldn't care


a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the graphic designer and

editor never get a job on any other magazine I read." wasn't
particularly
fair because you're flaming a mag where you are obviously not one of
the target audience.

Unless of course this was your infamous straw man making these postings
and not actually you that said that.

Oh, and by the way Paul, I'm NOT a Wired reader thank you. I must just
have been born thick as shit, huh.

Jason.

J C

unread,
Feb 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/14/97
to

> My original posting suggested only that to say "I actually couldn't care

> a shit what happens to the staff, as long as the graphic designer and
> editor never get a job on any other magazine I read." wasn't
> particularly
> fair because you're flaming a mag where you are obviously not one of
> the target audience.

Well I am, and I completely agree with the sentiment. Wired was
boll^H^H^H^H not really very good.

So farewell then...

JC

Geoff

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to

>
>>Lets face it there is bugger all in Briatin to write about.
>
>How about spelling (ouch !) ? :-)
>

I must admit I find it odd how when i am typing away my most common
mistake is getting Britain right!
--
Geoff

Geoff

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to

>>Lets face it there is bugger all in Briatin to write about. This country
>>is almost as crap as a good edition of Space: Above & Beyond!
>
>There is plenty happening out there. Unfortunately a large amount of it is
>obviously influenced by, or spawned from, US developments. But we are
>gaining ground fast; There is an extremely healthy Web design industry in
>this country, and British Web designers are highly sought after in the US
>(eg Online Magic opening a New York office). There are also more and more
>British originated initiatives appearing (eg the Acid Test collective);
>maybe it's simply that Wired UK was too early.
>
>
> PHIL GYFORD
> fab...@paranoia.com
>

I totally forgot about Acorn, their STONGarm processor cannot be so
easily dismissed. But their preoccupation about the NC is not so much
Barking, as the whole of East London up the wrong tree!

As for web pages, I hate to say but so what! OK you need the software to
sell the hardware, but even so its a couple of hundred people tops (OK I
haven't a clue). Its just a couple of people paddling in the wake of
America, Britain following the lead of the US. One of the reasons why I
switched to the US Wired was that it was the same price, and had more of
the same content. One article that was missed out in Britain (:-)) was
some bloke talking about the death of WWW page hype. How a lot of
compamies had come to realise that it was not a viable use of money,
inefficient advertising. Which is no doubt to be welcomed as a sign of
maturity n the markets part.

Got any recommendations for pages these companies have done?
--
Geoff

Richard Baguley

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

In article <2H9MOdAo...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> wrote:

> Ah yes, always nice to hear from someone at that nice honest paragon
> publishing. Welcome to the fray. As someone who used to write fairly
> regularly for IT when it was I&CT I think you'll find I know the
> defference between magazines and their intended audiences.

Bruce, I wasn't implying that you don't. However, I was implying that
comparing Byte with Wired was a flawed comparison. If you didn't mean it
that way, fine. As somebody who has worked on a wide range of magazines
(including .Net, Mac Format, Amiga Format, FutureNet, etc...), I also know
about hitting the market..

>I believe
> you'll find I never stated they were intended for the same market.
> However, even if Wired was intended for one specific market (primarily)
> it obviously didn't know the market well enough to make a successful go
> of it, did it. Now there's something paragon would know about,
> considering the success(?) of IT vs .net

Mu point was that I don't think that Wired UK worked out who it was aimed
at until near the end, when it was too late. I think they didn't judge the
differences between the UK & US markets correctly - a verison of Wired US
tweaked slightly for the UK market was never really going to work - the US
& UK audiences are different...

Personally, I'm quite happy with the way IT is going. Of course, I'd like
to sell more copies, but we don't have the resources that EMAP and Future
have to throw at distribution, promotion, etc...

T Bruce Tober

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

In response to Richard Baguley <rich...@paragon.co.uk>, who commented:

>In article <2H9MOdAo...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
><octob...@reporters.net> wrote:
>
>> Ah yes, always nice to hear from someone at that nice honest paragon
>> publishing. Welcome to the fray. As someone who used to write fairly
>> regularly for IT when it was I&CT I think you'll find I know the
>> defference between magazines and their intended audiences.
>
>Bruce, I wasn't implying that you don't.

Good to hear even if I can't spell "difference".

> However, I was implying that
>comparing Byte with Wired was a flawed comparison.

Not necessarily. More Granny Smiths and Coxes than apples and oranges.

>> it obviously didn't know the market well enough to make a successful go
>> of it, did it. Now there's something paragon would know about,
>> considering the success(?) of IT vs .net
>
>Mu

Oh good, you can't spell either. "-}

>point was that I don't think that Wired UK worked out who it was aimed
>at until near the end,

Rather a disasterous situation for a multi-million pound proposition???

>when it was too late. I think they didn't judge the
>differences between the UK & US markets correctly - a verison of Wired US
>tweaked slightly for the UK market was never really going to work - the US
>& UK audiences are different...

Minor understatement. Then again not having seen the US edition, if it's
the same super hype, supposed avante garde design (and I know, don't
judge book by cover) then I'm surprised as hell even it makes it. then
again, most of the people in the states I correspond with think the us
edition is crap also.


tbt
--
|Bruce Tober, octob...@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-454-4328|
| Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more |

Richard Baguley

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

In article <9HEOezAE...@crecon.demon.co.uk>, T Bruce Tober
<octob...@reporters.net> wrote:


> Minor understatement. Then again not having seen the US edition, if it's
> the same super hype, supposed avante garde design (and I know, don't
> judge book by cover) then I'm surprised as hell even it makes it. then
> again, most of the people in the states I correspond with think the us
> edition is crap also.

I don't know the figures, but it seems to be doing fairly well. The issues
are much fatter than the UK one. It's certainly getting plenty of adverts
and the like..

Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

In article <j4u3ZKAQ...@hene.demon.co.uk>,

Geoff <ge...@hene.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>the same content. One article that was missed out in Britain (:-)) was
>some bloke talking about the death of WWW page hype. How a lot of
>compamies had come to realise that it was not a viable use of money,
>inefficient advertising. Which is no doubt to be welcomed as a sign of
>maturity n the markets part.
>
>Got any recommendations for pages these companies have done?

Try the sites of these design companies...

http://www.sunbather.co.uk/

http://www.obsolete.com/

http://www.fusion-new-media.co.uk/

There's plenty happening out there. People just seem to assume nothing
could happen in rainy ol' Britain, compared to the loud and sunny States.

Phil Gyford

unread,
Feb 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/22/97
to

In article <richardb-190...@staff9.paragon.co.uk>,
rich...@paragon.co.uk (Richard Baguley) wrote:

>> Minor understatement. Then again not having seen the US edition, if it's
>> the same super hype, supposed avante garde design (and I know, don't
>> judge book by cover) then I'm surprised as hell even it makes it. then
>> again, most of the people in the states I correspond with think the us
>> edition is crap also.
>
>I don't know the figures, but it seems to be doing fairly well. The issues
>are much fatter than the UK one. It's certainly getting plenty of adverts
>and the like..

AFAIK, the sales in the US are somewhere around 350,000 an issue (largely
around the West Coast), and it's certainly fatter...

The two March issues break down as follows:

----------- # PAGES -----------

Editorial Advertising TOTAL

UK edition 94.5 19.5 114

US edition 116.3 105.7 222


As you can see most of the extra pages in the US issue consist of
advertising (I was surprised how much to be honest). The December edition
of the US was truly awesome: 314 pages!

I'd always assumed that with this big circulation and the amount of
advertising that Wired US was the only part of Wired Ventures that actually
made any money. But a couple of reports in the papers recently, following
Wired UK's demise have suggested that even the mag costs more to run than
it actually brings in. There's an article at http://www.upside.com/ I
believe.

Ade Oshineye

unread,
Feb 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/24/97
to

Phil Gyford wrote:
<snip>

>
> ----------- # PAGES -----------
>
> Editorial Advertising TOTAL
>
> UK edition 94.5 19.5 114
>
> US edition 116.3 105.7 222
>
> As you can see most of the extra pages in the US issue consist of
> advertising (I was surprised how much to be honest). The December edition
> of the US was truly awesome: 314 pages!
>
> I'd always assumed that with this big circulation and the amount of
> advertising that Wired US was the only part of Wired Ventures that actually
> made any money. But a couple of reports in the papers recently, following
> Wired UK's demise have suggested that even the mag costs more to run than
> it actually brings in. There's an article at http://www.upside.com/ I
> believe.
I suppose it just goes to show that a millenial decadent technophilic
optimism doesn't pay. Rememberkids, just say no.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages