On May 27 came stunning news: BYTE Magazine, the industry's oldest and most respected personal computer publication, suddenly ceased operations. What happened to BYTE? Why was the entire editorial staff laid off? Will BYTE return? For answers to these and other questions, see Tom's Unofficial BYTE FAQ below. You may be surprised!
NOTICE: This unofficial FAQ is intended to explain to thousands of concerned BYTE readers and other parties what's happening to the magazine. It has not been authorized or approved by McGraw-Hill or CMP Media. It is not intended as criticism of either company. It does not disclose any confidential or damaging information. (Last update: Tuesday, November 24, 1998.) -- Tom R. Halfhill, senior editor, 1992-1998.
What happened at BYTE on Wednesday, May 27, 1998?
Were the layoffs related to BYTE's recent sale?
Did CMP Media fold BYTE Magazine?
Why should I care if BYTE is shutting down or changing?
Was BYTE losing readers? Was it losing popularity?
If BYTE was really so popular, why was it in trouble?
Why were BYTE's ad revenues declining?
Why did BYTE focus on technology and cover multiple platforms?
Doesn't the fall of BYTE prove that people don't care about other platforms?
Will BYTE's competitors fill the gap?
Aren't you exaggerating the myopia of other computer magazines?
But wasn't most of BYTE's coverage about the Wintel platform, too?
Will former BYTE editors start a new magazine like the old BYTE?
Didn't anyone try to save the old BYTE?
Will you work for CMP's "new" BYTE?
What about the stories that CMP behaved poorly during this episode?
Is there a way to tell CMP how I feel about BYTE?
All publication activity at BYTE Magazine ceased on May 27 and almost all BYTE employees received layoff notices, effective Friday, May 29. Out of 85 people in all departments, about 80 were laid off. Those who were retained were mainly in the sales and marketing department. The entire editorial staff was let go, with the exception of one person who was offered a job; he declined. We cleaned out our offices and departed at 5 p.m. Friday, May 29.
Yes. On May 5, McGraw-Hill announced that it was selling its Information Technology and Communications Group to CMP Media for $28.6 million. The group included BYTE, LAN Times, Data Communications, tele.com, and NSTL (National Software Testing Laboratories). CMP Media, which is based on Long Island, New York, is the publisher of Windows Magazine, InformationWeek, Network Computing, EE Times, Computer Reseller News, InternetWeek, and other periodicals. The sale was final on May 30.
On Wednesday, May 27, CMP Media announced a large number of layoffs within the group, effective May 29. BYTE was hit hardest, but LAN Times also lost many employees. All editorial activity at BYTE ceased on May 27. The last issue shipped to the printer was the July 1998 issue.
On October 13, CMP announced the shutdown of LAN Times. Most employees were laid off, including one poor soul who was hired only a week before.
Officially, no. In fact, when CNET reported that BYTE had folded, CMP demanded and got a retraction. CMP has said it will relaunch the magazine under the name BYTE, but it will be a different magazine with a different staff. The most prevalent rumor was that CMP would change BYTE's focus to emphasize software development and relaunch the magazine in the fall of 1998. Obviously, that didn't happen. According to another recent rumor, CMP is postponing the relaunch of BYTE for "two or three years."
Let's be fair to CMP -- BYTE was losing money in 1998. Some kind of change was necessary to turn around the magazine's fortunes. Advertising revenues have declined in recent years, and several turnaround plans were proposed. Of course, we were very surprised that the first step in CMP's turnaround plan was to halt publication, shut down the magazine, and lay off the entire staff. Time will tell if CMP's plan works or not.
If you didn't read BYTE, you probably don't have a reason to care. But a great many people depended on BYTE to keep abreast of computer technology across multiple platforms. They definitely care. Also, it's a historical loss. BYTE was the oldest personal computer magazine, founded in 1975, which was the same year the first kit-built personal computers appeared for sale.
It's important to understand that readership was not BYTE's problem. BYTE's circulation was about half a million, which is quite large for any computer magazine and especially for a publication as technical as BYTE. The subscription renewal rate was nearly 80 percent, which is astronomically high. Most computer magazines won't even tell you their renewal rates because it's often less than half that much. BYTE's single-copy (newsstand) sales were not as high as we would have liked, but they were running near the industry average.
Note that BYTE's circulation of about 500,000 was only for the English-language North America and International editions. That figure does not include the 20 foreign-language editions of BYTE published under license around the world. Most of those magazines (such as Nikkei BYTE in Japan) are still being published. We've heard that CMP renegotiated their contracts.
Oddly enough, BYTE might have been too popular. Most of the proposed turnaround plans would have voluntarily reduced the circulation by various means, including raising the cover price. The reason for this is not easy to grasp for those outside the publishing industry. It's not always desirable to have the largest possible circulation. The cover price of a magazine often doesn't pay for the enormous costs of printing, shipping, and mailing the magazine. The profits come from advertising revenue. That's where BYTE was hurting.
That's the big question. We'd like to believe that a magazine popular with readers would be popular with advertisers, too. But it's not necessarily so. Modern advertisers tend to prefer a very focused audience. It was always difficult to articulate BYTE's focus.
From its start in 1975, BYTE was a technology-oriented, multiplatform magazine. BYTE adhered to that formula for 23 years. But that's exactly the opposite of almost all other computer magazines, which are product-oriented and platform-specific. The vast majority of today's computer magazines will not cover any platform besides "Wintel" (Microsoft Windows on Intel x86), and they will not cover new technology until it's packaged as a product for sale in stores. BYTE's approach was very different.
There's definitely a need for product magazines, but somebody has to cover new technology -- after all, this is a technology-driven industry. And once a magazine decides to cover new technology, a multiplatform approach is a must, because new technology doesn't appear on only one platform. Indeed, new technology often appears first on alternate platforms, then filters down later to the mass platform.
Users of PC compatibles might still be fumbling with command-line user interfaces if the Macintosh had not made graphical user interfaces popular. When Commodore introduced the Amiga in 1985, the leading PC magazine heaped scorn on what was actually the first true multimedia computer. The reviewer smugly dismissed the Amiga as a toylike "game machine" because of its sophisticated color graphics and stereo sound. Today, of course, virtually all PCs have sophisticated color graphics and stereo sound, and games are the most popular software products sold for PCs.
All significant new technologies introduced in the past 23 years appeared on alternate platforms before they became popular on the dominant platforms. Since 1975, BYTE has covered every kind of personal computer: CP/M, Apple II, Atari, Commodore PET, Amiga, MS-DOS, Macintosh, OS/2, UNIX, and many, many more. In recent years, BYTE also covered emerging platforms, such as Linux, Java, Inferno, and network computers ("thin clients"). Most computer magazines won't cover alternate platforms -- or, if they mention different platforms at all, hold them up to ridicule.
No, it only proves that BYTE's business plan was flawed. There are still half a million English-language readers and several hundred thousand foreign readers who need or want the kind of multiplatform technology coverage that only BYTE provided. If you don't need that kind of information to hold down your job, then you're lucky. Other people do.
BYTE never attempted to be the kind of magazine that would appeal to everyone. BYTE readers are technology decision-makers in MIS departments, engineers, programmers, college students, and others who are deeply interested in computer technology. Many people within the computer industry read BYTE to keep up on new and emerging technologies. BYTE was not very relevant to the average PC user, any more than Popular Mechanics is relevant to the average car owner, or Scientific American is relevant to Joe Six-Pack.
What competitors? In terms of editorial content, BYTE had no competitors. The average computer magazine's idea of "new technology" is the latest ink-jet printer on sale at CompUSA. The average computer magazine won't explain how a new microprocessor chip works at the machine level. The average computer magazine views alternate platforms as threats because the average computer magazine is dedicated to only one platform. The average computer magazine is average. Throughout its 23-year history, BYTE never aimed at the bulge of the bell curve.
For the people who really needed the information in BYTE to do their jobs or stay abreast of technology, there are few alternatives. You could assemble a mosaic of similar information by subscribing to several industry newsletters and analyst reports, but each of those might cost $500 or more. Now that BYTE is gone, or at least is changing, those people will be hard-pressed to find the same variety of technical articles that BYTE published every month for a ridiculously low price.
I don't think so. Let's take some examples of stories with which I was personally involved. In 1995, I wrote a technically detailed cover story on the new Intel P6 processor, later known as the Pentium Pro. You'd think the leading PC-compatible magazines would have jumped on the story of this hot new chip. But comparable articles didn't appear in those magazines for many months (or at all), even though the P6 was critically important to the Wintel platform they cover.
For the December 1997 issue of BYTE, I wrote a detailed article on Intel's IA-64 architecture, followed by another article in the June 1998 issue. I'm still waiting for other magazines to run comparable articles. Apparently they're waiting for the first IA-64 processor (Merced) to ship, which won't happen until mid-2000. Do other magazines think big companies plan major architectural transitions at the last minute? Do they think IT departments don't need technical details to reach their decisions?
Yet another example: I was scheduled to write a major article on the new Alpha 21264 processor for the September 1998 issue of BYTE. The article would discuss Digital's claims that the 21264 will run twice as fast as Merced, and it would explain the technology that makes the 21264 such a fast chip. Of course, that article will never appear in BYTE now, but I went ahead and wrote it anyway.
I quickly found two foreign-language magazines that were eager to publish my article (Nikkei BYTE in Japan and c't magazine in Germany). Placing the article in an American magazine took a little longer. It's too technical for most magazines, not Wintel enough for others. Luckily, Windows NT Magazine plans to publish my article this winter. In general, it's difficult to sell any articles that don't relate to the Wintel platform.
Sure. Wintel is unquestionably the dominant platform, accounting for about 90 percent of all personal computers. BYTE had nothing against Wintel; we'd be doing our readers a disservice not to cover it well. Ever since BYTE was founded in 1975, the balance of coverage constantly shifted to keep up with the marketplace. It was necessary for BYTE's survival and for the benefit of BYTE's readers.
Some devotees of alternate platforms would occasionally complain about the large amount of Wintel coverage in BYTE. But the percentage of BYTE allocated for the coverage of alternate platforms greatly exceeded those platforms' actual market share, and almost nobody else covers those platforms at all. This explanation didn't always satisfy our critics. Now that the old BYTE is gone, however, the sudden lack of alternatives may make them realize that BYTE did it better than anyone else.
For example, BYTE's technical coverage of the Mac OS and Rhapsody matched or exceeded the quality of coverage in the Macintosh magazines. And where else could you read articles about the IBM Power3 or the Mips R12000? Thousands of IT departments still rely heavily on non-Wintel servers and workstations. Most other magazines that claim to reach that audience can't see beyond Wintel desktop PCs.
It costs a lot more money to start a new magazine than to fix the problems of an existing one. There are rumors that someone is thinking about resurrecting BYTE in some fashion, but nothing is certain at this point. I think somebody will do it eventually. I can't believe that a technology-driven, multiplatform industry cannot support at least one technology-driven, multiplatform magazine. Not only would I like to write for such a magazine, but I want to read it, too. Like nearly a million other people, I need that kind of information to hold down a job.
We've heard some pretty reliable rumors that at least one publishing company offered to purchase BYTE from McGraw-Hill at a higher price than CMP offered, but McGraw-Hill decided it was too deeply involved in negotiations with CMP to change course. We've also heard that at least one publishing company offered to purchase BYTE from CMP after McGraw-Hill sold the division, but that CMP declined the offer. CMP places a high value on the BYTE name and the BYTE subscriber list -- and with good reason. But I'm frustrated that another buyer didn't get a chance to save BYTE. I believe it was possible for the old BYTE to survive without significantly changing its editorial focus.
I haven't been asked. CMP might not need me, and I might not be suitable for the new BYTE, whatever it turns out to be. Frankly, I don't fully understand CMP's motives or reasoning in this whole affair. But then, I'm a journalist, not a businessman. Maybe CMP had perfectly good reasons for doing what it did. I'm trying to keep an open mind. But I can't help wondering if CMP fully realized what it was doing -- especially since the new BYTE appears to be in a holding pattern, and CMP was forced to lay off scores of its own people last summer. It doesn't look good.
I don't like to hang dirty laundry in public. Anytime a company lays off a lot of people and closes down a beloved operation, there are going to be bad feelings. I think CMP could have handled some aspects of the situation a little better. Some executives at CMP made statements that I believe are less than accurate. I have dealt with that by writing a detailed account of the events to the parties involved. Those parties have accepted my account and have expressed their sympathies. At this point, the less said about this situation, the better. It's easy enough to make enemies accidentally without doing it on purpose.
Yes. Go to BYTE's home page [ http://www.byte.com/ ], which CMP now operates. There's a form that allows you to submit comments to CMP. Please be calm and polite. If CMP receives a large number of well-reasoned comments from BYTE readers, maybe the new BYTE will end up looking more like the old BYTE. Angry messages and name-calling will only make things worse.
I'm not making any major decisions until I recover from injuries to both of my feet that prevent me from working at a job similar to the one I had at BYTE. (I can write, but I can't travel to trade shows or do anything else that demands much walking or standing.) Although my injuries are not serious enough to require surgery, the recovery is very slow, difficult, and painful. I've been hurt since February 1998 and will probably remain disabled through most or all of 1999.
In the meantime, I'm supporting myself with freelance writing. I have monthly columns in Maximum PC (formerly Boot) and HOWpc (a Korean magazine also published in Chinese). Over the past several months I've written articles for Windows NT Magazine, Nikkei BYTE (Japan), c't (Germany), IBM Research Magazine, Microprocessor Report, and other publications. I've also done some freelance editing for Enterprise Development magazine.
When I recover from my injuries, I'll evaluate my situation. If freelancing becomes lucrative enough -- which seems unlikely, given the high self-employment taxes and health insurance rates -- maybe I'll continue doing that indefinitely. But probably I'll find another full-time job. It'll be tough to find a job as rewarding as my last one, though. I miss writing for BYTE. I miss McGraw-Hill's generous benefits. And I especially miss my colleagues at BYTE. They are the most technically competent, ethical, and helpful writers and editors I've ever had the honor to work with.
Comments? Questions? Lucrative work offers? Send e-mail to Tom (halfhill@hooked.net).
For another viewpoint on the fall of BYTE, visit star columnist Jerry Pournelle's web site [ http://www.jerrypournelle.com/ ].
For an accurate and insightful commentary on BYTE's demise, see "An Independent Voice" [ http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/depart/jun98/byte.html ] on the Games Domain Review web site.
Copyright 1998 http://www.wenet.net/~halfhill/bytefaq.html