[mr.human]

I just got my May/June issue of Mac Design. Except it's called Layers: The How-To Magazine for Everything Adobe now. And the cover sports some partly-exploded-PC-laptop-line-art. And the real howler is Scott Kelby's column explaining how nothing has changed--they just needed to get rid of the word "design" in the title because they were driving off photo- and videographers. Ri-i-i-ght.

Since they also have gotten rid of their letters section (of course it's the 'same magazine' still) I'm going to include the email I just sent to Mr. Kelby:

> Ow stop, stop--I can't take it. I'm not angry because I understand that you're
> running a business and have therefore made a business decision. What I can't
> take (in a ROTFLMAO kinda way) is the explanation given. Scott, I've enjoyed
> reading your stuff since I first subscribed to Mac Today. One of the things I
> liked best was your pull-no-punches honesty. And your sense of humor. They
> both shone through your words no matter what the subject was. That's why the
> pure-politics nonsense of your reasons given for changing Mac Design into
> Layers was so surprising. People see through that sort of thing. Look at Colin
> Powell.
>
> First off, the word you were trying to shuck wasn't 'design,' it was 'mac.' We
> can all see the partly-exploded-PC-laptop-line-art on the cover of the 'same
> magazine' we subscribed to. It's OK man, you want or need to sell more
> magazines so you're trying to appeal to a larger installed base. Just be
> honest about it fercrissakes.
>
> Secondly, there is no such thing as a 'completely independent magazine.'
> Unless it's one made on a copier by a single person with no bills to pay. You
> say that you aren't 'owned, funded or underwritten by Adobe.' That may be
> true, but is your putting their name in your masthead truly the entirety of
> the relationship? Sorry if I sound skeptical. I won't even go into the
> coincidence that this happens right on the heels of the Macromedia buyout.
> Good thing you didn't go with the 'How-To Magazine for Everything Macromedia!'
>
> Just so you know, I'll keep subscribing until I see XP screenshots--that's my
> line in the sand. Good luck with your new magazine. I really mean it. And good
> luck with your hilarious explanation thereof. Now I'm being sarcastic.
>
> -Steve Pfauter
>
> PS--I just noticed that our 'same magazine' doesn't have a letters section
> anymore. Oh well.

Here's the link to Scott Kelby's explanation:

http://www.layersmagazine.com/featur...rsmagazine.php

[mr.human]

Also, I just found this quote on the Layers site:

"We're really delighted to see these two creative powerhouses join forces, and we're especially excited that we'll now be able to include Dreamweaver and Flash coverage in Layers magazine" - Scott Kelby, Publisher, Layers magazine.

Hmm. So the stuff you said about not being "owned, funded or underwritten by Adobe" means that you were going to voluntarily exclude coverage of Flash and Dreamweaver from Layers nee Mac Design magazine because you're a "completely independent" magazine who just happened to want to put the name Adobe in your masthead?

Everybody (and I mean everybody) that I know who uses computers is dismayed by the proposed acquisition of Macromedia by Adobe. What's in it for us end-users again? Oh, I remember--now we can find coverage on Flash and Dreamweaver in what used to be Mac Design. Here's a more realistic assessment of the proposed merger:

http://daringfireball.net/2005/04/adobe_translation

and a new one:

http://daringfireball.net/2005/04/fish_head

[CaptainHaddock]

I never thought Mac Design was that good anyway. I like Design Graphics (www.designgraphics.com.au) better, despite the unimaginative name. It's quite Mac-centric, and covers a variety of software—not just Adobe products.

[Randman]

Layers thread.