Slashdot Mirror
The NYT's OS-Restrictive Video Policies
ro1 writes to mention a story on Linux.com about the NYT's confusing video policies. Essentially, if you're running Linux you can only see videos running on the front page of the site; videos elsewhere on the site require Windows or OSX. Roblimo has a video tour of the NYT site to explain the issue in detail. (Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)
*snort* Production? Using vnc2swf does not make you a producer
Seriously tho' - roblimo's correct. It's an utterly absurd situation. A linux user should not have to change their UA string (illegal in some jurisdictions) just to watch videos. Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?
Nicely done anyway - and using flash a little flash presentation is a good way to get your point across to the non-techies around (I imagine even a senior editor at the NYT could understand the problem after watching that video).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Well considering slashdot's attitude towards NYT concerning their registration policy.* Why should we concern ourselves with their video policies?
*BugMeNot for example.
For everyone using firefox, here's a nice little extension to get past this stuff. You can also set it as a googlebot and get all their articles for free.
How does any client side bug set their policy. Their policy clearly leaves out Linux users, and I am refering to their system requirements page. Also, how would they go about detecting a bug with the clients Linux/Flash player in the first place. This seems like an if-else where Linux falls into the else.
The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.
In the NY Times defense however, it's their site, they can do what they want, provided they give their Linux using subscribers a refund on their subscription fee.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I'm 'Needless Paranioa' and I aprove of this message.
I'm sorry, but what? All I can see is that their current online video authoring package isn't very good, and they don't want to have people who's OS doesn't support it thinking that there's a bug with their site.
Ok, it's not a good plan to not have it working in linux, but lets be honest, how many of the people working at nyt have anything but windows at their desk? I'm guessing none, with possibly a few macs about the place.
For that matter, how many users will be on linux? Not many I'll wager. Sad, but almost certainly true. Therefore this problem will effect only a very small minority of their readers.
The chances are that most people here use linux (me included). However, we are still in the minority, and we don't have persuasive reps loaded with free pens going round selling authoring packages and other web software to newspapers.
While that's the case, linux will get the short straw.
The NYT is not alone. I was signing up for a UFB Direct online bank account and the application froze. I called the 800 number and they immediately said, "you used Firefox, didn't you?". Yes I did and they only support IE. For goodness sake they are a ONLINE BANK and they don't support a browser with 10%+ market share? Can you imagine if they had someone at a brick and mortar store and they threw out every 10th person who walked through?
I call shenanigans!
Apparently this is NYT's way of saying that if you're smart enough to be using Linux, and diligent enough to go beyond the front page, then New York Times isn't meant for you! It could be their strategy to cater to only the dumber sections of the poulace, perhaps?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
As a web developer I'd like to say that it would take more effort to restrict browsers/operating systems than to accomodate for them.
Seems as though they have their priorities a little backwards.
Stupid f**king people these days.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
I recommend letting the NYTimes know you're not happy about them not supporting Linux (and preferably Ogg Vorbis/Theora) in a language that everyone can understand...
president@nytimes.com; publisher@nytimes.com; public@nytimes.com; feedback@nytimes.com; clarosa@nytimes.com; schools@nytimes.com; wedinfo@nytimes.com; society@nytimes.com; nytnews@nytimes.com; executive-editor@nytimes.com; managing-editor@nytimes.com; news-tips@nytimes.com; the-arts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com; editorial@nytimes.com; oped@nytimes.com; circulation@nytimes.com
I just set my User Agent in Firefox 1.5.0.5/Ubuntu Linux 6.06 to Opera 8.0/Win 2000, after whitelisting the site with flashblock, the video played perfectly in the Videos section, and I wasn't shooed away by any browser detection.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
I called the 800 number and they immediately said, "you used Firefox, didn't you?". Yes I did and they only support IE.
What does it tell you when your bank only supports the least secure browser and won't do business with people who prefer more security?
)9TSS
So obviously it is such a common problem that it is one of the first things they say. Hopefully this message will filter through to the higher-ups there and they are (considering?) working on a solution.
Warhammer forums
It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it. ...
IT'S THAT SIMPLE!
Uhh... yeah, thanks, but it's not really THAT simple.
Are you religious? Yes, no? How would you feel if you got barred from a restaurant based on whether or not you're religious?
What sort of car do you drive? How would you feel if you paid for a carpark but then got turned away because they don't accept your type of car, despite the fact that you could easily have fit into one of the parking spaces?
I thought this http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ was the standard.
Why should everyone just meekly accept everything that is thrust upon them?
So then just put "I'm a catholic" (or whatever your religion is...) into your user-agent, and when NYT's videobot refuses you, sue away!
Seems to be standard here, too.
It is probably the same mentality at the NYT that many streamers have. The NYT has its free stuff and it has it subscription stuff. I suspect they think they are being shrewd by only allowing open media on the "free" front page.
But is it shrewd? A radio station wouldn't make it _hard_ to tune in their broadcast because that would be counterproductive to the value of their station for ad revenue, right?
Yet internet streamers often act like every copyrighted word from their announcers is archive gold to be sold and resold for decades and they would be insane to allow access to a program like mplayer where the savvy user knows how to save their invaluable content. Well, I've got a shock for them. What they often stream is no more valuable than what is being broadcast on the radio or TV and people are no more likely to save every byte than people are to tape radio or TV all day. And, sadly, it may be that if ad revenue can't pay for stream, perhaps stream isn't a useful medium?
Now that I've got my MythTV setup running and MythStream compiled in, I can see that proprietary embedded streaming isn't going to cut it for me. EVEN IF they accommodate something like linux RealPlayer, in the living room I'm going to be listening to stations where I can add a static URL to my MythStream page and click on it with a remote.