If only two or three years ago “apps” were still seen as novelties by media companies, these days it’s impossible to avoid them at a party, let alone in a newspaper. But if media apps were once mostly seen as an accessory to the main event, there’s an increasing sense that apps represent the future of media itself, rather than simply a part of it. It’s an argument most recently put forth by both web-curmudgeon Nick Carr and Techcrunch’s Erick Schonfeld, who both argue that the customizable, tailored nature of apps will become increasingly important to how we think of media. Of the two, however, it’s Carr whose argument is more interesting, as he essentially asserts that “appification” will help save media as we know it. Essentially, Carr argues that media companies will increasingly turn to a tiered version of apps to reach as many people as possible. The idea is that a publication like the Toronto Star will offer a limited free app for certain readers, one that costs $2 a week that provides some features and content, and a fully fleshed-out version for $5 week. Doing so will help segment various types of readers and generate revenue. Because apps are designed for specific devices and offer easy ways to pay, they will become like digital versions of the paper or a movie: “objects” with a specific value that you pay for. In many ways, Carr’s argument is compelling because for years the question that has dogged every innovation in digital media has been “yes, but how will it make money?”. Offering customized experiences and interfaces, which are almost always faster and slicker than the web, apps often offer a superior digital experience that is arguably worth paying for. I know even a cheapskate like me would be happy to ditch the Globe and Mail web site and cough up a small fee for the excellent iPad app, especially if it could somehow exclude Margaret Wente’s columns. It’s a win for media companies, too, because it’s all about a sort of vertical silo in which, rather than scattering content for free on the web, they take back control over the delivery and presentation of their stuff–and finally get people to pay for content online. The trouble is, much of what’s great about apps according to Carr and others is largely of benefit to the people trying to make money from content. And hey, bully for them. But when media is locked into objects that people pay for–in this case apps, and in the past newspapers, DVDs etc.–then the democratizing effect of the web on news and media is undercut. The economics of app development mean companies will focus on the most popular devices, meaning that you’ll need to buy specific devices to get specific experiences, or worse, that you need to have an iDevice or the latest toy to get access to all of the news. It’s difficult to imagine something the contemporary world needs less of than the erection of barriers to media. But another issue is that certain kinds of apps break the very vertical silos that Carr feels appification will save. Social news readers like Flipboard and Zite, for example, aggregate and collect news from a slew of sources, producing a personal version of the magazine or newspaper culled from social and news feeds. Using them often makes “single-publication apps” just seem sort of bad and backward, like constrained relics of the twentieth century. If we return to a model in which content is simply one object you pay for, what happens to apps like these that threaten to break the idea of what a newspaper or magazine actually is? Simmering under this call for “appification” is a worrying idea: that the transition to a digital world must preserve and then digitally replicate business models and cultural ideals from the past. It’s no coincidence, either. Carr is a noted critic of many aspects of the web, and his pleasure at the idea of apps saving big media companies and their top-down, centralized approach is quite palpable in his argument. For media companies, the turn to apps-as-media represents a way to make some money. But for the rest of us, it could be something much uglier.
