@ Stan: i didn't mean they would put shitty pictures in the digital magazines. i'm sure they will have the same quality pictures. only the file size will be heavily reduced and converted to 72 dpi for easy loading and compactness. for good printing quality, the pics need to be in 300 dpi at the least.
this is more of the technical issue rather than artistry. to upload the original file size in a digital magazine would make it fragile to copyright violation. just imagine if the digi mag uploaded the full sized pic (probably close to 5-8 MB for each full size page picture), people would use these pictures for their own advantages. the quality is superb and prints out great, the readers would make a magazine of their own using these (what they assume as) "freebies" and sell em.
also, how many pictures are there in a magazine and how many pages? if one picture/page (assuming they're in TIFF best quality) is 7 MB, then you will only have 100 pages in a CD. (a CD is 700MB). 100 pages aren't exactly equal to 12 magazines, are they? much less 36 magazines. besides not economical, these pictures would be way to big for your screen in full view.
for the easiest example, try to print a PDF tutorial or a page from a website. that would be the print quality you could expect from a digital magazine. sure they will look good on screen, but not really on paper. would be really sub par to magazine printing quality. because CD/web quality pictures would only have 72 dots per inch (and small. think 800x600 px) while the magazine quality pictures would have 300 dots per inch (big file. think 5000x3500 px or more).
the most used monitor resolution is 1024 x 768 px. so i doubt a digital magazine would make their articles/photos way bigger than that. 5000 x 3500 px is not exactly fast to load on computer as well. especially for those with old and slow computer.
i hope that would explain my point.. x)