it got forwarded to legal

there's the problem - they always try that shtick - kick em to the curb!

That GQ app seems kind of dumb. Do you have to keep downloading (and paying) for the app each month when the new issue comes out? That's the way the app description reads to me. It should be something like $14.99 (or whatever) and auto-download new content each month. Fail.

Ok, so it does look like the monthly content can be updated within the app at $1.99 a pop. Still seems like a clunky way to go about it.

Let's just face it, an iPad is just too awkward to masturbate in front of.

it's only alarming if you're brainwashed to the point where you think the ipad = the future. If it's just another product with some plusses and some minuses, then one doesn't find oneself confronted with strong emotions when sales figures on this or that turn out poor.

It's only alarming if you care about publishing, i.e. if you are Paul Constant.

I'm an off-again on again-GQ subscriber and frequent GQ off-the-newstand buyer, and really, I just don't see GQ working on any electronic distribution format. It's a mash-up of Vogue and Vanity Fair, with an unfortunate splash of People mixed in over a hazy background of homoeroticism. While the Vanity Fair and People aspects can work on an e-reader, the Vogue aspect is lost. The GQ experience is a tactile and olfactory experience of glossy paper and cologne ads, and that experience has a weird appeal. It's just not going to sell well on any e-reading platform, I think. GQ not selling on the ipad just means GQ won't sell on the ipad. It doesn't say anything about the ipad, really, and it doesn't say much about GQ either.

Sounds like maybe Fortune didn't have permission to pass it on in the first place.

@8: That's how I read it as well. Still, they did a horrible job of conveying what they wanted the blogger to do with the excerpts. And it is pretty staggering that they're trampling on TechCrunch's good will by getting into it over something that benefits Fortune, S&S, Kirkpatrick and the book resellers.

I have to agree with Arrington's take on this.

I for one am ecstatic to see such a repressive and censorship laden platform fail... after reading this Gawker story, I really can't fathom how anyone would support such a system

http://gawker.com/5535669/how-apple-is-w…

You know, any story about Arrington or TechCrunch should probably note that Michael Arrington is a lying piece of shit who never let the truth stand between him and publicity whoring. If the world were just, that man would've been run over by a bus long ago.

Not to say he's not telling the truth here. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But you don't look at a broken clock when you want to know what time it is. You send the broken clock to the dump where it belongs.

The only thing alarming about the GQ ipad sales is that 365 people actually bought it.

iPads?

iDontSeeiPads

Maybe I just don't think GQ is any good? Or that the iPad is any good? We're talking about a million iPads, that don't have all the features of a tablet, of people who probably have far different tastes than just GQ. The only meaningful way to measure the success of online publishing is if everyone had access to a the same database of publishers, and we could measure how many people actually cared about what. This, throw publishing all up into the stratosphere of capitalism, and let private companies dictate how we're supposed to consume content isn't a relevant form of communication for the future. It might be for the Steve Jobs of the world, making billions upon billions of dollars selling locked down products that are designed to be outdated in 6 months, but not for people who consume media in a more active way, Jobs merely captures the passive market. Plus, how many of those 365 users are going to bother buying the service for more than a year? This model is completely unsustainable and works for no one.

arrington is an ass (in person), and seattle has enough asses. go home, mike, we've already had our d.chihuly and b.nye experience.