There wouldn't need to be a line drawn for content that goes for free online and content that goes in a magazine. The content is simply different. It's similar to video game coverage, where companies like IGN have game reviews on their site, but also send out magazines for each of the systems. There are very, very few magazines out there now that don't have a website counterpart. There doesn't need to be a cut and clear categorization for what goes where, you just put the content where you want it.
It's also important to keep in mind the things print can accomplish that web cannot, and capitalize on it. I'll use the tutorials as an example. We have them available on this site, in addition to a slew of videos on YouTube and the APK DVD. That said, I definitely don't want to bring my laptop or a DVD player with me to train, which has left me with memorizing tutorials before I go out to practice. If I had a magazine, I would have it readily available.
Another example: exposure. If I have a laptop with me surfing APK anywhere, no one's going to notice or care. Looking over a stranger's shoulder is rude. On the other hand, if I have a magazine with me that has some intriguing stuff going on the front page, that's direct confrontation.
Another example: physicality. I don't know a single person who would prefer reading content on a screen instead of an actual printed copy. It feels better, it looks better, it goes anywhere. It's why books are still around and going strong.
The design industry for the last decade has been continually screaming, "PRINT IS DEAD, BAIL TO THE INTERNET!" but in many respects it's crying wolf. For the news industry, yes. Print is dead. News needs to be received while it's current, and the internet allows a constant feeding tube. Magazines, however, are not just news. Real, timeless content can occupy that space. When you take away the need for speed, the playing field suddenly tips in favor of print.
