Publishers Upset Over Apple's Opt-Out Terms for Inclusion in iOS 9 News App

[SteveBlobs]

I'm not one to hold back criticism of Apple, but this seems pretty reasonable to me. These news content creators are already offering their stories on RSS for other people to aggregate, why should they care if Apple goes ahead and does that? And say, worst case scenario, that they don't want to be in the News app and they don't see the email immediately, honestly, what great harm is done? Once they become aware of the issue they can always ask Apple to take them out of the News app at that point.

On the flip side, the News app will be a whole lot more practical with a whole bunch of news sources in there from the get go and the consumer is much more likely to get articles that interest them.

So I guess I'm not sure what the whole kerfuffle is about.

 

[Rogifan]

MR refers to blogger(s). But they only mention one in this story. Are there any bloggers besides Mike Ash complaining?

 

[Berserker-UK]

But... isnt this what RSS feeds are for?

Yes, but they're also meant to direct interested readers to the owners site, for the owner's financial benefit if they so wish. Instead, Apple gets all the iAd revenue and none of the legal risk.

Of course, the owner may gain a few additional readers, so it's not completely one-way.

 

[SixtyK]

There are hundreds, if not thousands of apps, widgets, programs, accessories, etc. that already do exactly this, but since it is Apple, then by golly we have to outrage all the things.

 

[TheBuffather]

This is absurd. A public RSS feed is public. Do these publishers also have a problem when Google includes them in searches, or Flipboard and the numerous other RSS-Twitter-Etc based scrapers include their content? What a foolish line to tow.

 

[DC Wallaby]

The RSS feeds that Apple will be using to add content to Apple News is the same RSS feed that I, a regular guy, can parse and add into my own app right?

Yes! Exactly this!

Does Apple even NEED to send out notices to these people to let them know that their public RSS feed will be used by Apple's new News service? If anything, Apple's taking an additional unnecessary step to give people more control over their content. And what do they get for the effort?

 

[Rogifan]

Yes, but they're also meant to direct interested readers to the owners site, for the owner's financial benefit if they so wish. Instead, Apple gets all the iAd revenue and none of the legal risk.

Huh?

https://developer.apple.com/library...ion/General/Conceptual/News_Publishing_Guide/
Monetization of Apple News Format content is made simple with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Keep 100% of the revenue from the ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you.

 

[6836838]

How arrogant!

 

[Thunderhawks]

i smell a lawsuit

Yes, and a long one that gets expensive and government involved.

Half baked idea by Apple.

You are opting out wrong!

 

[Rogifan]

Yes! Exactly this!

Does Apple even NEED to send out notices to these people to let them know that their public RSS feed will be used by Apple's new News service? If anything, Apple's taking an additional unnecessary step to give people more control over their content. And what do they get for the effort?

Seems to me the problem is the tone of Apple's email. Perhaps they would have been better off not sending anything at all.

 

[Rogifan]

Yes, and a long one that gets expensive and government involved.

Half baked idea by Apple.

You are opting out wrong!

What could people sue over?

 

[sbailey4]

If it's a public RSS feed, then is there really a problem with what's Apple's doing? They're just using content that's publicly available content and providing it to Apple users. They're not charging for it, nor are they redistributing content that's supposed to be behind a paywall.

To me it seems the email was just to let the publishers know that Apple is using the content that's already being provided and allowing the providers to opt-out if they wish. As long as Apple isn't claiming that they created the content (and giving credit to the creators) then I don't see what the problem is.

I agree and this is how I understood it as well. Don't see a problem with it and looking forward to using the app.

 

[Analog Kid]

Basically, Apple sent a courtesy email saying they will be using publicly available information which they can already use without permission so the sources are aware of something that they expect to happen anyway, and that causes an uproar?

Does Firefox send out emails to publishers saying "our browser may be displaying your website in the future, but if you'd like us not to then email us back?"

 

[HenryDJP]

I must be missing something here. If the authors can simply OPT OUT then what exactly is the problem? Are people just looking for anything about Apple to argue over?

 

[dannyyankou]

What are people whining about now?

 

[Cmd-Z]

Guess it's easier to ask for foregiveness than permission.

 

[SgtPepper12]

I know these are hard times for content providers in general, but they should really quit whining over everything. YOU provided an RSS feed and it's my freedom to parse it any way I want. That's how the internet works, sorry that you didn't know what you've signed up for. Jesus.

 

[kcirtap00]

i smell a lawsuit

For using publicly available RSS feeds exactly as they were intended?

 

[coolfactor]

The RSS feeds that Apple will be using to add content to Apple News is the same RSS feed that I, a regular guy, can parse and add into my own app right?

From my limited understanding of how Apple News works, there's two formats to get information published in Apple News: (1) RSS feeds, and (2) Apple News Format. In order to be featured in Apple News, a publisher must (1) first sign up, and then (2a) submit RSS feeds or (2b) wait for and use the Apple News Format to create rich content.

It sounds like there might be some misinformation about how this works being spread by confused publishers? Can someone point me to a claim that Apple will be crawling a publisher's website and ingesting their RSS feed(s) without their express permission?

 

[Aragornii]

If these are publicly available feeds does Apple even need to notify them? Seems like they are going above and beyond by giving notice to publishers for a chance to opt out.

 

[Rigby]

A tempest in a teapot by publishers. They publish a public RSS feed and then get upset when Apple links to it?

Well, Apple doesn't intend to just link to it, but display the content and their own ads next to it. Essentially, they are planning to earn money using other people's content. And it is, after all, still copyrighted content. I think Apple is clearly out of line in assuming that publishers would agree to that by default.

 

[luciferuk]

RSS feeds are in the public domain!

So what, theyre taking your publicly streamed content and aggregating it in an app, literally SO WHAT?

Making a 'big deal' about this is tantamount to writing into Google and asking them to blur out your house in google maps, yawn. This is truly tiresome.

Get off of the internet or do it right if you want control of your publishing rights fools.

Apple recently sent a mass email to news publishers to introduce them to Apple News, an upcoming Flipboard-inspired app for iOS 9 that will deliver curated news and magazine stories with custom layouts, photo galleries, videos and animations optimized for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

The email has ignited some controversy in the news and blogging community over the past week, according to the BBC, which reports that some writers are disappointed about Apple's decision to automatically include a website's RSS feeds in Apple News unless they specifically opt out by replying to the email.Some bloggers argue that not all publishers are guaranteed to see the email, which could easily be overlooked or buried in a spam inbox, leading to their content being featured on Apple News without their knowledge or explicit consent. Apple also has permission to place advertising next to or near a publisher's content without providing any compensation, and will pass on any legal fees to publishers.Apple News is highlighted as one of the main features on the iOS 9 preview page, so it is no surprise that Apple is attempting to have as much content available on the platform at launch as possible. It is clear, however, that many publishers would have appreciated the terms of Apple News being set on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. Apple so far has not commented on those concerns.

Article Link: Publishers Upset Over Apple's Opt-Out Terms for Inclusion in iOS 9 News App

 

[Luis Mazza]

If it's a public RSS feed, then is there really a problem with what's Apple's doing? They're just using content that's publicly available content and providing it to Apple users. They're not charging for it, nor are they redistributing content that's supposed to be behind a paywall.

To me it seems the email was just to let the publishers know that Apple is using the content that's already being provided and allowing the providers to opt-out if they wish. As long as Apple isn't claiming that they created the content (and giving credit to the creators) then I don't see what the problem is.

I'm sending Apple an e-mail telling them I'm now selling copies of their free published software, unless they tell me I can't and opt-out, because ya know... It's public anyway.

Great logic!

 

[ElRojito]

If it's a public RSS feed, then is there really a problem with what's Apple's doing? They're just using content that's publicly available content and providing it to Apple users. They're not charging for it, nor are they redistributing content that's supposed to be behind a paywall.

To me it seems the email was just to let the publishers know that Apple is using the content that's already being provided and allowing the providers to opt-out if they wish. As long as Apple isn't claiming that they created the content (and giving credit to the creators) then I don't see what the problem is.

I'm confused as well -- if I were a publisher I'd be totally cool with this. You mean my content that I write is going to be seen by MILLIONS of people without any work on my part? Sounds awesome to me.

 

[Kaibelf]

That's hilarious. Nice try Apple.

Nice try what? Using the feeds that are open to the public anyway?