“This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
wired.com
wired.com
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604719?hl=en
If Wired wants the article to be exclusive on Apple News, fine, but in that case it should not be on the website. Keep it exclusively on Apple News. There is no content on this page beyond a headline.
Time limited exclusive content on puff pieces just isnt a priority for me.
I mean, wired is given ng the content away free. I don't have a "human right" to read this.
Is it a slippery slope? Perhaps. What if real news gets walled off like this? US presidential debates being on cable only (or TV only for cord cutters) seems a bigger problem to me.
There's a lot of nuance to this issue, but I lean towards wired being fine. Though, I don't think the headline should have been displayed on the main page of non apple news devices, I don't know if it was. We all got there via a hacker news direct link.
They were complaining that they still posted the article, sans content, on the web, and suggested that should be punished for diluting web content. (they appear to have since removed that web-based article)
That line of thinking also begs the question whether only freely accessible information should come up on web searches, which would rule out any links to many professional journals which survive by subscription and/or fees per article. If you're punishing Wired for putting articles behind walled garden then it makes sense to punish all walled gardens and Google search becomes a search engine cataloging only free articles.
There is certainly a discussion to be had where major sites are allowing Google to spider paywalled posts such that the content comes up in results based on hidden-to-the-rube words, but that's for another time.
[1] http://genius.com/Genius-founders-rap-genius-is-back-on-goog...
It could alongside the other interesting exclusions: http://www.wired.com/robots.txt
http://f.cl.ly/items/1o2k3u2J343O3y3X290J/Image%202014-04-07...
And what about sites that show content when the referrer is Google but show paywall otherwise?
Google explicitly allows this. https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en
There are a serious number of iOS devices out there, considering Apple's history with books, movies, and even music, who isn't to say they simply see this market as a win win, win in there is more money to be had, win in that it damages google; whom Jobs didn't like one bit for copying so much of what the iPhone brought to the table
Today, most publications will use something like DoubleClick to manage their ads, sell a bunch directly to specific companies, setup bidding on some others via another provider hooked into the same system, and then use Google AdSense for the remnant inventory.
From my reading of it, on Apple News, you're required to use iAd to manage the inventory. iAd allows you to do direct sales through it's own system. And then all the rest are remnant and handled through iAd. Apple locks out all other players from that large part of the ad market, including Google. Knowing Apple... especially Google.
It's a brilliant two-pronged strategy to lock content providers and consumers into the Apple ecosystem.
There's just a conflict of interest in doing it any other way. A DSP wants to play multiple SSPs against each other to get the highest priced ads for its content while preserving the user experience (DSPs often include features that allow you restrict the number of times an ad shows to the same user, etc). The SSPs are looking to get the best results for their advertisers at the lowest price.
It's not a brilliant move because platform lock-in is too easy to avoid thanks to the myriad of ad tech providers in the space. Apple will get some app developers and small sites with this, but 95% of the market has evolved past a solution like this into something far more "enterprise".
> Earn 100% of the revenue from ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you.
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...
Quoting:
How can I monetize my content?
You can monetize your Apple News Format content with
iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Whether you sell your
own ads or have iAd sell on your behalf, you’ll earn
revenue from every impression in your articles and channels.Way more likely is that Apple is paying them a nice chunk of cash for the exclusivity to help market their News app. Same thing they did with HBO Now for the Apple TV, and with various albums for the iTunes Store and Apple Music.
That said, I imagine you're right and Apple just paid for the exclusive for marketing purposes.
iOS9 penetration is already past 50%(1). New versions usually get mass adoption very quickly.
(1) http://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/21/apple-ios-9-50-percent/
If you are a publisher there are scripts and tools you may use to detect ad blockers. I would recommend running one.
It's brilliant and will completely change the balance of power in online advertising. Google will not be happy...
Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers into their exclusive native eco-system is nothing but typical tech giant arrogance.
Wired publishing stories that when clicked from Google go to place-holders with pointers to native should be penalised by Google search, and I hope they are. There is nothing on the Google results page to indicate the link is anything less than the content.
Native app "content browsers" are all about less control for users. Native has always been about that. Sometimes less control works for users. No distractions, just minimal concentrated function. Other times, like with news articles, users are missing out on basic things like bookmarking; sharing the link - there isn't even a link; accessibility is out the window; copy and paste is out the window; discussion and comments are all but closed/extinct; no choice of browser to access the article. It's not good news for users.
I'm reminded of a quote:
"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things — terrible, yes, but great."
-Ollivander
I agree the path mobile seems to be heading down is terrible.
One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much each "modern" this site in this regard.
The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking.
Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the "business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the cross-hairs, but the web itself.
We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users and developers/publishers.
Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it some much needed extra functionality.
"One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above"
The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.
Im not understanding Wired's motivation here, but I'm not too concerned because Wired isn't the most intelligent publication in the first place.
The users may accept to install a few apps (Apple/Google/… News), but not one for each website.
</rant>
Most of the world doesn't.
Saying that you will only do business with those who has Apple-equipment is leaving out most of the market, and doing so would be suicide for most businesses.
Technically true, but most of the world doesn't matter. Only the part which has disposable income does. The more disposable income, the more it matters.
Last I heard, Apple had around 50% market share in the US and going up. And I'm betting that it's the 50% that matters most.
Only in the same sense cable monopolies are brilliant.
It's the same with content. If I go to read your article and you block it because I'm blocking ads, I'm not going to tell anyone about it and I'm not going to share the link. You then don't get the ad revenue from that sharing, so it's a net loss for you.
(And of course, if I go to read it, and it says I need a special app, I'm also not going to read it or share the link.)
If the conspiracy theorists are right, the whole ad-blocking on ios is a ploy to get the ad-starved publishers, and thus the masses, off the web-based internet and onto in-app content silos such as Apple News.
If they're wildly successful, the only ones left on the traditional internet would be those not producing content for money.
Does that mean I'll be able to experience the internet the way the old-timers reminisce? Before Eternal September[0]?
I've always felt bad I missed thosed times, and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large, I think that would be something I'd like to experience :)
There was AOL of course, but that was mostly mocked by people on the "real" internet.
>and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large
Actually, it might be a huge improvement. Technofiles will never go for this, but after a point technology in a societal context can have not just diminishing returns but even spoil good things (like going to a concert in your 20s without being glued to a smartphone screen).
Not that I necessarily agree with your assertion, it's worth emphasizing the reason that Google took off: search just plain sucked before Google came on the scene.
Personally, my only real issue with Google is the decline in precise search result quality since they got rid of the + operator.
What's the difference between "sausages" and 'sausages', or does this not make sense for single words?
Depressingly accurate.
Alas, the probable trajectory is not all-out war on Google, but rather a number of plausible threats followed by a hammering out of market boundaries followed by a tacit non-compete between the players.
Correlation but not necessarily causation.
Advertising will survive in some form, hopefully better for all of us than the current mess.
Well, what it actually means is that folks who monetize their content in ways other than ads could begin to have an advantage. For example, Red Bull Media monetizes their content with drink sales. PBS, NPR, and Think Progress monetize their content with donations.
Apple and others are entitled to keep their strategies unsaid, unconfirmed. Which leaves only speculation, which turns into observation when we see Wired's lead website story is nothing but a signpost to Apple native land. A happy land with double rainbows, shooting stars and perfectly trimmed hedges.
So what prevents you from exploring I2P? I think this network is exactly what you need :)
However, the mobile (and adjacent, such as Apple TV, etc.) story is pretty bad, I completely avoid it. I had an iPad which was a gift so I used it for a while, but as soon as I got Android tablet and smartphone I switched and never looked back. As for content services, I'd never go near Apple ones, I've tried to use iTunes, no more, thankyouverymuch.
BTW, last time I looked Apple TV 2 on ebay costs double of Apple TV 3. Because jailbreak.
News publications launch exclusive online content 1990-94: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/carlson/1990s.shtml
The opposite is true, and what is happening to the Internet is another example. Telephone, Radio, and Film used to be open but they have since been cornered by cartels. Tim Wu explains this excellently in his book, "The Master Switch."
However, if you view these things (and many others) are part of the same progression of the human species, things look quite a bit brighter.
John Walker (founder of Autodesk) called it the Digital Imprimatur over a decade ago. The scenario he predicted was off a bit in a few areas, but the general problem he describes - of rent seekers trying to turn the internet back into something closer to cable TV - is frighteningly close to what has been happening in the tech industry.
I believe this is the primary driver. We already have Facebook introducting "free limited Internet" to developing regions of India [0] and mobile carriers in the U.S. already allow certain apps to be excluded from data usage. The open Internet is not a guarantee, and the next generation of web users may not know the 'wild west' we did.
I certainly hope this is the case, because it scares me how much content is being centralized in Facebook in particular.
I noticed that on the iOS9 beta, with my region set to Canada, the News app was unavailable, but on the springboard search view, the embedded news items were from (two) Canadian sources. So it seems like they're working on it.
Forcing me to do something I have no interest in and will never make use of is a good way to alienate me.
That's at least going to lose them viewers who don't want to bother.
Eventually I did register. And then the above requirement came, and that was the final nail in the coffin.
Such a strange decision by quora. No wonder they're so irrelevant.
this is but another social experiment/AB test/growth hacking thing (and I'm giving them already valuable data just by posting here).
they will go the route radio went years ago, they will setup ads like news stories and blog articles and get to the point to where it will be hard to distinguish until you have absorbed a good part of the material.
You may be surprised.
So very few of those auto-installed apps ever see any use. iTunes (or "Apple Music", or whatever it's called now) might be the only exception.
I don't know whether there are any other stats out there, but I suspect that for most people, there's no need to install a custom podcast app, for example, when the default one works just fine for them.
[1] https://www.macstories.net/news/the-numbers-from-apples-wwdc...
When we start seeing articles about presidential debates, wars, and other major events handled that way, it's time to pay attention.
Analysis: The problem with this strategy is that Apple is going to have to scale to all the content in the world, in foreign languages, on obscure or controversial topics on a million blogs. Super niche content will fade, starved of app revenue and have to rely on native IOS ad with unblockable ads for distribution.
I continue to think the end of this is going to be some sort of 'content tax' (everythings a paywall) and people will complain about how they don't get any free content any more but the rest of us will get a respite from the increasingly egregious ads that were trying to monetize content.
I think out of the set of possible Internet users, you can differentiate somewhat a group who reads their news on an iDevice. So Apple achieves a certain demographic, and they cater to them with a more curated news experience. Banking on the idea that the people involved will prefer it over the existing channel. Presumably they are already a good group to market to, after all they bought an expensive device and consume news on it, so Apple works to parlay that value into an income stream.
The alternative of having some sort of alternate version of Wired if your user-agent says "iDevice" is much more difficult to control/authenticate relative to the advertiser's expected market.
The next step would be to add blocking vs money as an option. Lets say you buy 1500 "Apple Points" and for 5 points you can "block" (in the sense of it is completely not there) an Ad from your Media. Now when a page comes up and your AdBlocker fires, it consumes 5 points. Perhaps Apple gives 2 points to the media provider to compensate them for not having an ad shown, and keeps 3 pts for itself. Once the user runs out of points and ads start reappearing they can buy more in the Apple Store.
What this does is allows people to convert over from paying with Ad clicks to paying with Apple pts. If you make the conversion rate of Apple Points to dollars fungible, then you can tune the experience to get the most value for the publisher and thus insure them of an income stream, even if all their readers/viewers/players block all of the ads. That then would become the base line value (based on user views) for a property. Robots of course would not have Apple pts and so could be more easily distinguished.
Its a clever plan, I don't know if they can pull it off but something to watch. The current Ad / AdBlocker nonsense is going to reach crisis level here pretty quickly.
Thank - you've succinctly put into words what's been bothering me about this whole affair.
Economically, I am in the long tail (middle class 3rd worlder) and I think I've found the disconnect between me & the anti-ad folk. They are bothered by ads, and think if ad-supported sites shut down, nothing of value will be lost. Whereas I am not bothered enough by ads to feel strongly about it, and I don't want the ad-supported sites I frequent to disappear. I most likely won't afford to pay subscriptions in a post-ad world.
I don't mind individuals blocking ads, but I fear the entire ad-supported ecosystem will be destroyed if a critical mass is reached.
Apple builds the nice looking robots, Google builds the brains.
I think "adequate" is a better description of Apples efforts. Discoverability is still awful on the App Store, after many years.
I miss the Wired of ten years ago. Now whenever I pick one up I am immensely disappointed by the hype and marketing. I remember it being more rigorous with respect to both journalism and technical acumen.
Edit: or not, per other post regarding adblock coming soon to apple.
This is what I said ten years ago! In truth Wired has always been a lot of hand-wavy hype wrapped around bits of legit interest. I think you just outgrow it eventually.
EDIT: it looks like Facebook Instant Articles also takes 0% of publisher-served ads [1]. So it looks like this Apple News push is merely an attempt to match Facebook's product (and Wired screwed up messaging / accessibility here).
I'm still curious as to if anybody can add commentary / context from an advertising point of view.
IMO these events indicate a future where portals serve publisher content in a way that improves user experience (fewer ads, faster page load times) while the publishers catch up (rather than replace) their own native web experience. Publishers will want to own their distribution if it does them well. These plays (Apple, Facebook) may be less about poaching display dollars from Google than 1) cutting low-quality advertisers out of the network and 2) increasing hub engagement. I doubt the hubs monopolize the market but I'm definitely no expert
[1] https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/facebook-instantarti... LOL the FB site is running on wordpress ...
Nobody in his sane mind wants ads, unobstrusive or not.
Instead, it looks like Wired have officially "jumped the whale".
Disclaimer: My own startup released iOS and Android news apps this month that are in the same space as Apple News: https://recent.io/
The client you are using does not currently have access to this resource but may in the future as specified by the Expires header in the response. The user should either switch to a supported client as specified in the response body to access this resource or the current client should retry at the specified date. The current client MUST NOT retry the resource before the specified date.
WHEN method is unnecessary, use GET to retrieve status.
"418 I'm a teapot" is also unncessary, just use 500.
What a short sighted protocol.
HTTP ERROR 418 YOU'RE a teapotBut this is hardly new. I believe a lot of magazines released their article in print first then in their web edition for a wider public access.
Only thing that is wrong here is this offensive reminder that iOS users now have privilege over everyone else. Smart move, Wired. It is an excellent advertisement for Apple News, but not so much for publisher themselves, I believe.
Apple: "We will feature Wired in the WWDC keynote, and give it a prominent place in the News app when people are choosing sources. In exchange, we want a few exclusive articles."
Wired: "OK"
If there's no well known work around for the paywall, this type of content from Wired shouldn't be on HN. On a personal note. it saddens me to see Wired deliberately making the world wide web suck.
As much as I don't like what Wired and Apple are doing in terms of using the web to promote native exclusivity, RSS should be open to all by default.
As for robots.txt in web pages, I agree that Apple News should be respecting those.
So it's exclusive to the apple eco-system and probably pay-walled. I think I get it now.
Any extra friction, including extra click to go to Apple News — more churn.
Shouldn't that be "may be" instead of "is being"?
The submitted title was "This story is exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday". We changed it to an exact quote from the article and put it in quotation marks.
p.s. Please don't use uppercase for emphasis: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Most typographs disagree with using italics:
> If you’re using a sans serif font, skip italic and use bold for emphasis. It’s not usually worth italicizing sans serif fonts—unlike serif fonts, which look quite different when italicized, most sans serif italic fonts just have a gentle slant that doesn’t stand out on the page.
> If you’re using a sans serif font, skip italic and use bold for emphasis. It’s not usually worth italicizing sans serif fonts—unlike serif fonts, which look quite different when italicized, most sans serif italic fonts just have a gentle slant that doesn’t stand out on the page.
Deleted comment
If I can’t get TeX or markdown, at least proper emphasis should be supported.
I don't know if a war on ads is coming. I mean, the Browser Sexurity Handbook details how 3rd party cookie policies are pretty schitzophrenic across browsers already (MSIE requires a privacy policy, Safari requires a "visit" to a domain which can be accomplished by POSTing into an iframe, Firefox does something else, and Chrome thankfully just works).
But regardless, we should be moving past ads and to deals. Past eyeballs and to saving people time. Past destination sites and to tools that help people. Past building online personas and to improving real world experience. Ads means "here please click maybe you'll like this and eventually pay money for something." It's not the best we can do.
Before the web, people used to have more real connections in real life. Look at pictures from before 1990 - people were out and knew others from their neighborhood! Now they compulsively check their phones every time they emit a sound because of some notification, and verbal communication has devolved into kthanxbai lol... and the lol is almost never an actual laugh. Think about it.