Good to see nobody is blaming Apple for this; there are legitimate problems with Apple's handling of the App Store (though perhaps taken too far sometimes), but this is clearly not their fault.
If users were free to acquire software for their devices without Apple's interference, the authors would have the option to continue distributing the app and take their chances in court with the NYT.
Apple doesn't stand to lose much if they have to remove an app from the app store (even a top selling app), but they stand to lose a lot in a lawsuit. The cost of litigation might exceed what Apple stands to make on the app regardless of whether they win or lose a lawsuit. Therefore the App Store model gives companies leverage to destroy developers' apps and by extension to determine what kind of apps are available to users
You certainly can need a license, if that's the manner in which the owner is distributing it. The fact that it's allowed by the protocol doesn't mean that it's automatically legally permitted.
I think this is a bad idea on NYT's part but that they do have a leg to stand on.
Does a company have the right to dictate how its information is distributed? Even when they make it freely available?
One might argue that the most important part of the story is the first sentence, summary, or lede, and that the NYTimes is forgoing a lot of its own resources if they aren't able to charge people for it. But then -- can they fairly dictate that their RSS information is only valid for non-commercial users, but invalid for commercial users which compete with their own products that support their business?
On the one hand, we might want them to provide this RSS feed. It's better than nothing. It may even be seen as a service for the general public. And we might want to see them succeed as an organization, because we think their function in society is important, etc. So should we allow them to prohibit use of their information for commercial purposes? Even if those commercial purposes are only briefly and independently involved in the whole pipeline of news consumption?
Yes. Pulse is not distributing the New York Times' content. They're distributing a program that asks the Times' for their content. The Times' obliges.
> But then -- at what point can they fairly dictate that their RSS information is valid for non-commercial users, but only invalid for commercial users which compete with their own products that support their business?
They can prevent distribution of their content for commercial purposes, but Pulse isn't doing that. The Times can't prevent receipt of their content, but they can choose not to give it to certain users to begin with.
> It may even be seen as a service for the general public. We might want to them to succeed as an organization, because we think their function in society is important, etc. So should we allow them to prohibit use of their information for commercial purposes?
No. That would prohibit creating commercial web browsers or any other innovation in the consumption of content that creators freely provide. The trade-off isn't worth it. If the Times' can't find a way to survive, I'll donate money to organizations who can. There's no need to sacrifice more of our rights to incentivize journalism.
They're a publicly-traded business; they don't run on fairy dust and unicorn tears.
By now, he certainly is.
It would be nice if Apple stood by the developers that make the iPhone/iPod/iPad ecosystem what it is.