Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'Pulse News Reader' for iPad Pulled From App Store After New York Times Complaint

Ok, with all this back and forth on this app and Jobsy showing it, I decided to download it. NOW I KNOW WHAT I WAS MISSING. I like the fact I can add other feeds to it. this may become my newest News reader, as I can get all my information in one place and not be jumping all over the place.

Wish it allowed more than 20 though.....
 
Ok, so a company puts out an RSS feed, which is almost ALWAYS meant to be framed into someone else's website as a news feed. Then they think they can tell someone which technology to use to read that feed?

If you don't want your RSS read, then DON'T PUBLISH AN RSS!

Now NYT claims that it was re-instated in error? Someone obviously has zero grasp about how this technology works. Again, if they don't want their RSS feed read with XYZ reader, guess what - the only way to prevent it is to NOT HAVE RSS.

I wish I had NYT, so I could cancel my subscription. Idiots.
 
notabadname said:
That's like saying books are dead, simply because books are turning to digital distribution. Yes print circulation will eventually disappear. The difference is, books are doing well because of tight control of their copyrighted material. Books never made their content available on the WWW for free dissemination like the press/news media did. At one time, you could not get the content of NYT, Washington Post or USA Today without purchasing the printed material. They will figure out a paid model again were you will pay a reasonable subscription to get the material again, or, like the "old days", you simply wont get it. Plenty of publishers, like Consumer Reports have made the transition, as well as Aviation Week and Space technology and others. The Wall Street Journal also greatly limits their access unless you pay for on-line access or the physical paper, this includes their App.

If you want "detached" journalism, simply look at this site, twitter or Engadget. I will take my News from journalists who have to pass a slightly higher threshold to maintain employment and standards (even for freelance) for major publishers desiring to maintain reputation and credibility.
Keeping track of countless journalists and their credibility is a lot harder than choosing publishers that adhere to your personal standards for journalism. Even if it comes down to Fox versus CNN or NYT versus the Wall Street Journal (personal choices), they all are generally pretty careful about protecting credibility of what they print (or publish digitally). Without them, I think journalism would be more like the countless blogs out there, with no easy way to assign credibility to various "content creators". You would also loose "single source" access to cover a broad spectrum of news and the capital necessary to cover global stories that independent journalists may not be able to afford taking a risk on coverage for.
Click to expand...

Actually, print circulation will see a resurgence, just like Albums. The world will realize a benefit for both markets.
 
So is this app showing just the info provided in the RSS feed, or is it going back to the original article and grabbing the full thing and showing that as a "feed"? Typically, in an RSS feed, when you get to the "read more" is that built into the feed, or is the feed itself longer but cut off by the reader app.

Can someone confirm for sure that they are displaying more text than is actually in the NYT rss feed?

Small White Car said:
But it's NOT their public RSS feed.
Click to expand...

How so? It's an RSS feed, yes? And it's available for free to the public, yes?

What else would it be?

And the notion of "profiting from NYT content" is a bit silly as well, by that logic why doesn't NYT tell apple to stop selling macs - since people are buying the computers and using them to read the NYT website, isn't apple "profiting from NYT content"?

Seems like NYT is trying to insist that all RSS readers must be free, which is a crock.

muskratboy said:
you really think you can take someone's copyrighted material, repackage it, and sell it on your site, with no agreement in place?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Good thing that's not what they're doing. :rolleyes:
 
They probably could have featured the NYTimes as a preloaded feed, but they needed to get permission first. Not smart business on the part of the devs.
 
Looking at this - I have to wonder if this is the REAL reason NYT is complaining so loudly.

http://www.nytimes.com/timesskimmer/

It has a similar look and feel to Pulse. Perhaps NYT had hoped to put out their own version of timesskimmer through the app store? If they do, I'll buy it - JUST to leave an "honest", 1-star review.
 
Syndicating Web Sites with RSS Feeds For Dummies: $24.99

Venti Skinny Caramel Macchiato: $4.55

Realizing the Pulse News Reader is actually your friend: Priceless
 
Pulse's text view only shows what is provided in the rss feed. Always has. For example, for macrumors, text view shows a snippet. Click web and it shows you the full web page. It is nothing like safari reader.

It builds the feed listing by showing text in a box. If the rss feed includes an image, it shows that behind the title.

It is doing nothing different from any other newsreader except format the titles into boxes.

Seems like most people get this, but a few should probably try the app out before making BS up.
 
GFLPraxis said:
This is actually very important. I really hope Pulse wins this.

The point of RSS feeds is to allow them to be subscribed to in newsreaders. If NYT wants to claim that it requires licensing to subscribe to RSS feeds...that could set a bad precedent.
Click to expand...

I think it can be effectively argued that it is not the responsibility of the developers to secure a websites news feeds. If they want to require a subscription, they need to lock the feed ,not blame the app that consumes the unsecured feed.
 
Beau10 said:
They publish it and it's public. That's it. That's the end of their control. If they want to publish a more abbreviated version, then they can do that too.
Click to expand...

exactly. and if they wanted to, they could block their RSS feed to that particular reader. i think they're just trolling for cash (again).

this is how RSS is meant to work! it doesn't matter that the reader is a paid app. your RSS feed directs people to your real content!
 
This is ridiculous. What's next? Threaten to ban browsers? Ban user style sheets? Ban the "Reader" feature in Safari 5?

Once the content is on my machine, I can format how I wish for my "personal user" That's called "fair use".
 
AidenShaw said:
Yes, the walled garden. If you want something on your Igadget, you have to buy it from Apple.

Between that and needing to use the bloated pig called Itunes on my Windows 7 system - not going to see any Igadgets in Aiden's house.
Click to expand...
And yet you keep coming here, chatting about them. What is it, masochism? I detest Windows, the last thing I would do is go to a forum about it and chat.
 
lett me get this right rss is a open sorce medium it allows people to read what is posted on a website if said website allows rss feeds. The times has spat the pacifier out because an app uses content that they publish to the open market. Bah and here i was thinking people were going to moan about the new iphone. Not t worry just block the internet and see what happens bad enough we dont get a full web experience lack of flash for example on these so called magical devices. Last i knew flash was a big part of the web as for rss feeds well there just small news notification systems.
 
The newspaper companies like The New York Times, The Washington Post & all the Tribune Co. newspapers just don't realize that they are fast becoming fossils on the information super highway called the internet.

Why don't they get it? I honestly don't know, 1 is in bankruptcy, The Post is selling Newsweek, and even The New York Times had to be bailed out financially recently!

This is one area where I agree with Steve jobs and his effort to save the free press in America with a device like the iPAD, which is ideal for reading a daily newspaper.

But I'm not sure Jobs can do it because they are idiots just like the record companies and movie studios who will quickly cut off an arm to try to save a hand.
 
This is another example of how suits who run these companies don't even know what the technology does (or doesn't do) that they use. They choose what they want to push out of their RSS feeds. If you don't want something pushed out, don't publish it to your RSS feed. That simple. Also, by nature, RSS is a *FREE* feed that anyone can take and add to whatever reader software they have, and read it. FREE. No money changes hands. Because an RSS reader included some RSS feeds with their software, this is grounds to notify Apple? What, more people using Pulse than the NYT website? Prolly.

This is exactly why I don't have a cable, subscribe to a newspaper/magazine. I'm sick of these companies shoving what they want/or don't want to give me done my throat. Between Hulu, Netflix, RSS feeds that don't care who reads them, and the ability to buy any book, video game, or movie I want and *ONLY* what I want, my life is much better and I save a boatload of money. I've been on the a la carte system for some time now, not beholden to these big media companies who want monthly checks from me for the rest of my life.

NYT, go and have a hissy fit. Go alienate the last 147 paying subscribers that you have left. You are, as they say, OLD MEDIA. Field reporters should form a new union, and sell their stories as a whole, directly to the NEW MEDIA, outlets such as Google, Yahoo, Apple, etc. These companies know the meaning of giving people content and getting them to a website, where they can upsell them on other great products that you may or may not need.
 
This reminds me of the old arguments where people would collect freeware apps off the internet and sell them on CD. If they're free to download and use, why not?

Because they're free to the end-user, not free to 3rd parties to use to leech money.

Contrary to modern opinion, putting something on the internet doesn't mean you forego all rights to it.
 
whooleytoo said:
This reminds me of the old arguments where people would collect freeware apps off the internet and sell them on CD. If they're free to download and use, why not?

Because they're free to the end-user, not free to 3rd parties to use to leech money.

Contrary to modern opinion, putting something on the internet doesn't mean you forego all rights to it.
Click to expand...

Except Pulse is not leeching the NYT's content and redistributing it for a fee. They sell you a RSS Reader.

Your phone then connects to the NYT's servers and grabs the NYT's content. It's you that is fetching this content without interaction from Pulse.

Do people here know what RSS Readers are before they comment ? Think Web Browser. Safari isn't packaging the NYT's content and redistributing it.

Your analogy is a big fail, seriously. Redistribution of copyright material without a license is prohibited by law. Building software to access the Internet isn't, or else we wouldn't even have Web browsers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back