I almost hit the report this post button, badmouthing the site sponsor and all...
First off, I don't know Steve and have had no contact with him (other than to occasionally piss him off on the rec.photo group, but that's another story.) I'm of the opinion that he is positioning "Camera Arts" to be his flagship magazine. (notice this site is not sponsored by View Camera magazine?)
"View Camera" is always going to be a niche publication and has probably run its course in terms of increasing subscriptions. Large format has had a big resurgence due to the marketing of Ansel Adams and the marketing of the Zone VI 4x5 view camera, but I think the growth has run its course, we'll die off at least as quickly as we get replaced by new photographers.
Camera Arts is pitched differently than View Camera. It can, and has published all formats (including large format), different types of work, with more of an emphasis on documentary or photojournalism and these efforts have been really solid. Steve is probably also attempting to appeal to a younger crowd, more "liberal" publishing standards, i.e., more nudity, more scantilly clad fashion shots.
In terms of magazine production, Steve does a very good job of it. Of the 5 magazines I feel I "need" to read, 2 are published by Steve. If it weren't for Steve, you would never see a large format color portfolio that wasn't rocks and trees. Most of the magazines that rate highly among the Apug members are not more than 50% analogue either - Half of Black & White magazine's content seems to be converting Velvia slides to gray scale and printing on an epson. It published the most rediculous review I've ever read. The guy waxed and gushed about some tanning developer for two pages, then mentions that he hasn't printed any of his negs yet, wouldn't use a wet darkroom to do so, but the negs "scanned beautifully". WTF? Steve Anchell edits an all analogue magazine, but the writing is pretty weak. I'd prefer to read Simmons.
Magazines also speak to their time. there isn't enough of an audience who wants to hear about the "half stop underexposure that results from using a leaf shutter at 1/500 sec at small apertures." During the '30s, half of every Scientific American magazine was articles about grinding your own telescope mirror. People who want to do that today will find a niche publication or website.
Like it or not, and for good or ill, photography is becoming a digital medium. 50% of Ilford's sales (the most black and white dependent manufacturer) sales comes from its sales of digital printing paper. In the smaller formats there will be digital capture and output. In the larger, film scans and digital output. People who subscribe to these magazines want to know about both analogue and digital, and its a tough balancing act for a publisher.
As an analogue photographer, I'm glad to see the glass as half full. Next year it will be 25% full.