Shift Calls it Quits

MCS writes "Shift Magazine announced that it is closing down after 10 years. Biggest reason is that within this 10 year period they only turned profit on one issue. I remember at one point that they even had their own TV show -- the magazine was different then it competitors (Wired) as it focused more on the impact of technology and the social generation of those who lived in it. This can be seen in such issues as 'The Simpson Generation' and 'Seven Days without Tech'. Many of these articles are available online at their website Shift.com "

Comments

A Damn Shame

[CrazyLegs]

This has been a pretty fine magazine; albeit a bit hit-and-miss at times. Where Wired and its ilk focused on being the People magazine for a tech generation, Shift found a voice in showing the practical effects of technology on how most of us live. It's a damn shame....

Hmm....

[TitusC3v5]

This story seems kinda shifty to me...better go read the article... :-) I must be a youngster, since this is the first time I've heard of the magazine. Any long time subscribers wanna fill me in?

NOT the economy...

[MosesJones]

Before anyone bleats that this is "the economy" just think for a second.

10 YEARS and only ONE ISSUE turned a profit. This was a cash sink before .coms became standard, it failed to make a profit during the boom, it lost money in the dive, and it lost money at the bottom.

Maybe the "sad" reason is really simple....

Do you know anyone who _ever_ paid money for it ?

Re:Reminds me of Suck.com

[dirkdidit]

Because they don't appeal to the large amount of people. Most people now want to see magazines with beautiful women and the latest war that the US has gotten into. They don't care about how high-speed internet changed Joe Blow's life or about funny geeky cartoons. It sucks but its the way things go I guess.

shameful but i have to say it

[thedbp]

print is dead. and not in the irrelevant way; its just not as viable anymore, especially with delivery mediums like the, ahem, internet cropping up everywhere.

i am a print designer. i own TONS (if stacked and weighed) of LPs. I love the feel of magazines and books and the album jackets and small stapled indie mags ... there is a realness to it, an ingrained sense of accomplishment. something that humans have not yet developed for a sterile medium such as the internet. although we can recognize accomplishments in these new digital mediums, it has not yet garnered that "coziness" that makes people sit under reading lamps, excitedly turning pages in a worn out copy of The Dharma Bumbs. nobody who curls up next to a fireplace with an e-Book on your Palm can deny that it is a wholly different experience even though the text is identical.

so there's the dilema. print has been made unreasonable in terms of cost vs. distribution capability - it is now a luxury, one supported by twice the contents' length in advertisements. but we just don't want to let print, in all its kinky and enticing forms, go.

if you don't believe me, ask joe somebody whether they want a printed computer manual or a manual stored in the OS via Help, etc. Even though the digitized version would be easier to update, with audio and video descriptions or tutorials, a highly integrated/linked system, etc. - most average people will tell you they want a nice big indexed print copy.

its going to be a while before this is bred out of us :)

Re:shameful but i have to say it

[Deacon Jones]

While getting your main point, I think the "print is dead" just doesn't apply everywhere yet.

Perhaps to tech news, which tends to update faster than the medium its on. But for me, and I'm 32, so take that as what you will, print will always be actually preferable for "longer" reads because of the fact that paper is easier on the eyes than a monitor.

I don't care what your resolution is, how pretty your fonts are, and what theme(s) you are using, a monitor will tire your eyes out much quicker than reading a book.

I'm sure this has to do with the fact that monitors project as opposed to reflect, but it makes a big difference to me.

So I'm one of those guys who still prints out the "HOW-To's" not b/c I dont' know how to find or read the digital copy, but b/c my optical senses prefer the printed one.

This is why we still have books, NYT bestsellers lists, and online booksellers.

Re:It was a piece of Shift

[Apostata]

Firstly, allow me to take the foot off the pedal and say that I'm not taking pleasure in other people's unemployment (read: evil).

Secondly, (re: "The big question for me at this point is who will fill the void for a uniquely Canadian view on the intersection of culture and technology?"), if there's a need, it will be filled. That's the nature of the marketplace (and no, I'm not one of those Ayn Rand-toting uber capitalists). One of the problems with Shift (imho) was that it actually wasn't very much of anything: not very deep, not convincingly stupid, not particularly Canadian. The good news (if you're still reading this, and I apologize if my opinion is a bit acidic...I've had too much coffee) is that society always gets what it wants. Dreams do come true; the problem is that the reality of our day-to-day wishes is less profound and exhalted than we'd like to think.

Wired commenced to suck when Conde Nast bought it.

[VT_hawkeye]

I always thought of Wired as a "digital culture" magazine, but its credibility was based on having at least some intelligent technology coverage (more application- than tech-centric), and by employing good writers (and influential people from the industry who could also write).

When Conde Nast bought them, CN turned Wired into pure culture -- a pretty-pictures magazine like Conde Nast Traveler and all their other publications. They slimmed it down, changed to cheaper paper, and quit carrying intelligent commentary in favor of "this is the new cool thing, it costs $n,000 and can be bought at x." When Nicholas Negroponte quit writing his back-page column, I stopped buying Wired, and I've barely looked at it since.

No great loss (sorry)

[Ineffable 27]

Not ahead-of-the-curve enough to be groundbreaking, too trend-spotting for Joe Average. Articles about web sites/pop culture trends everyone in their target demographic had already known about for six months previously. Writers that were too fascinated with their own opinions. Not a lot of depth/analysis. Pretentious layout and cover design. Its death was inevitable, and long overdue. I hope the folks responsible are able to find success doing something more worthwhile, and that actually serves a purpose.

(And I cant believe this warrants a Slashdot article, since I didn't think anyone outside of Canada had ever heard of the magazine!)