Horrible Reading Format Expensive to purchase, especially considering that the format the magazine is delivered in makes it almost impossible to read. I constantly have to zoom in and out to read the magazine on a 10 inch tablet, there are pages that in landscape and portrait but cannot be read because the newsstand app will rotate if you try to read the page the correct direction. The experience could be improved if the publisher actually tried using it. I especially appreciated that the magazine is simply scanned, with no thought given to the fact that it is now in a digital medium. Links cannot be clicked, there is no rich media, and it still costs about the same as the paper version. The website for the magazine is a better experience on a digital device and most of the content there is free. Also the amount of ads in the magazine are ridiculous, you could sell the advertising for twice as much if it was clickable - and then cut the amount of ads in half.
Save a tree, snub an idiot Really? There is no shortage of trees. What a shortsighted and ignorant post. No maybe arguing that the subscription price online is the same if not more in certain cases would be better. Seriously though, there is a reason that loggers don't just mow down our forests anymore! It isn't just because of over-logging, but also due to the fact that the side effects of clear cutting forests are too great. Not to mention the displacement of thousands of species of wildlife and even the endangerment & extinction!
Way too expensive Last November, 2011, I got one-year subscriptions in the print-editions of Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Maximum PC, each at $5 (yes FIVE US dollars) each delivered to my home. So, Google, and other e-magazine providers, expect me to save the publishers a lot of printing/delivery money and then pay $$$ for a tablet so that I pay 5 times the cost to receive the same magazine but in electronic format. What the heck do they think we readers are? Idiots with money-growing trees in our backyards? I wonder if those who commented "Excellent price" really did their homework shopping for magazines!
Not sure I understand this. Its more expensive for the publisher to not print or mail a magazine. This is why you shall FAIL as a company for not shifting with the times. BTW most of the REAL articles are on the WEB before it ever hits the magazine. Most sites add new content daily, hmmm this magazine every 30days. I guess they will be realistic about digital content pricing when they are ready close thier doors.
99 cent September Issue - GOOD! Previously I complained about the pricing being to high. With the print edition we could get a year for $12 which included the cost of paper and shipping. Well I just noticed that the September 2013 issue is 99 cents. I purchased it. If you can keep prices like this or cheaper on the digital issues, which are much harder to share and theoretically much cheaper to distribute, I'm all for that. Unfortunately this is for the individual issue. For some reason the yearly subscription is more than 99 cents per issue. I bumped my rating from 1 star to 3 stars. I'll make it higher if you can match the $6 yearly subscription price of the iPad release. Platform price discrimination is really the only thing holding Popular Science back in the digital realm.
People complaining 4.99 is too much... 4.99 is the price for ONE magazine. It is expensive if you were to buy only one physical copy in a store also. For cheaper price you would subcribe two way - monthly or yearly. 1.99 for monthly subscription equaling 23.88/year (I'm sure people have their reason for month-to-month subscription.) or14.99 for yearly subscription equaling 1.25/month