Slashdot Mirror
NY Post Goes App-Only For iPad Users
bfwebster writes "Browsing the web this morning, I discovered that the New York Post is blocking iPad users from reading its website via Safari. Instead, iPad users must download and use the NY Post App instead. That app previously required a paid subscription (which is one reason I didn't use it); however, the version I downloaded this morning isn't making any demands for payment. Yet."
Just spoof the user-agent string...
Oh, wait. Sorry. Enjoy the walled garden!
No, the walled garden got built awhile ago. The moral? Don't buy into walled gardens.
So all the smartest people in the world (Apple Users) will now be the best informed. ;)
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
I use the "Atomic" web browser on my iPad and iPod Touch
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
If it's not important to you, ignore it and move on. Why do feel the need to let everyone know you don't care?
I don't comment on the news in your hometown and say I don't care. Since it's not important to me, I don't read it and don't comment.
The iPad is fully capable of displaying typical web sites, why create the additional overhead of superfluous software?
Just spoof the user-agent string...
Oh, wait. Sorry. Enjoy the walled garden!
You can leave a garden (so-called by the owners) as easily as enter it. Since iPad users are prevented from leaving, it could as easily be referred to as a jail by its inmates.
Those who would pay for confinement inside a walled jail must really fear the outside world...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Why is it, nobody appears to be aware of iCab Mobile? It's available for the iPhone and iPad.
A full-featured web browser with tabbed browsing, ad blocking and USER-AGENT SPOOFING.
Details on iCab Mobile on iTunes
Has been available for quite some time.
safari and ipad ... do you also have a target painted on your back?
All the posts thus far are taking shots at Apple. That seems really misguided. It's the NY Post that is restricting people from accessing the same content over the same internet, simply because of the device. They're the ones making you download an app to get the content you want, probably allowing them to get higher-profit ads. This isn't Apple's fault, for not letting you spoof the user agent string. No one should ever have to spoof a user agent. All it should be used for is to tell the server what you're running so it can serve you better. The NY Post is using it to ignore the fact that you have a perfectly functioning and capable client in order to suit their desires. I know that in the tech world, we often jump to tech solutions to problems. But that doesn't fix anything, really, nor for most users. The target of ire here should be the NY Post and their abuse of internet standards and openness. The focus should be on getting them to behave better, to set a precedent so others don't do the same thing. A work-around that will help the 1% of us tech users is insignificant. OT: New poster here. How do I add linebreaks in my posts? Simple carriage returns seem to get eaten.
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Not the New York Times, the New York Post. It's a Rupert Murdoch, Enquireresque, Gotham City mashup.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
so reading it is an own-goal anyway.
I'd imagine the reason is so
a) they can track you better, or
b) actually, that's probably about it.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
i like the *choice* on how to access something.
The "walled garden" is the least of your problems.
part of rupert murdoch's IQ lowering propaganda empire
and no, this isn't a swipe at conservativism, it's actually a swipe at china's power:
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
I use the "Atomic" web browser on my iPad and iPod Touch
For how long will "Atomic" remain available?
Not good if your using an ipad/iphone in a work environment where they've decided to block you from installing arbitrary apps...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
This might be interesting if it weren't for the fact that the content of New York Post's online edition is worth far less than the paper it's printed on (which is zero).
It's even lower-quality than most Murdoch properties, and seems to be an American version of the UK's Sun tabloid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
If it is awkward to read the news, then I'll simply head elsewhere.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Possibly because the intersection of the set of "People who use an iPad and browse dumb sites like the NY Post" and "People who understand what a User-Agent String is" is pretty much a null set.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Imagine if lots of sites started requiring their own custom apps. Pretty soon your device (computer, ijunk, etc) would be filled with just that garbage, and the browser would be relegated to homebrew and marginal sites.
Bad idea, even worse than the ten billion toolbars that everyone already wants you to load into your browser. (I immediately delete any toolbar, they are unwanted, unnecessary, and very annoying.)
For science, right?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You are publicly admitting, on a highly-trafficked public web site, that you read the New York Post?
What's the point? Why not just do a rich website and support ALL your consumers with a single source - the ubiquitous web page?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Given this is /., I'd say it has more to do with people that make such claims not owning an iOS device. A /. user that has ever touched an iOS device and knows not about this deserves his account be closed and his bitcoin collection taken away.
You can leave a garden (so-called by the owners) as easily as enter it. Since iPad users are prevented from leaving
But iPad users can leave any time as well. They can if they wish use other browsers that allow manipulation of the user-agent string.
If you are talking about something else, iPad users can always jailbreak. It's not illegal, and does not void the warranty (just to head off the ignorant among you out there that will come back and claim it does).
Those who would pay for confinement inside a walled jail must really fear the outside world...
Those who would fear to enter a well-cared for garden just because the entrance is a little far from the shady benches, must be complete and utter morons, caring only about ideology and nothing about practical matters.
Enjoy your mobile hairshirt!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To me this reads like it is meant as a move against Apple over the reader feature that is built into the upcoming iOS5 (which works surprisingly well).
For the forseable future. It's been in app store for a couple years. They are using an official, apple documented, API to spoof the string.
No harm, no foul.
Gone!
The people making these decisions are idiots. This isn't accomplishing anything they couldn't already do on their website - they can require subscriptions, put up a paywall, and so on. Moving the content to an app doesn't fundamentally change anything.
If the business model didn't work with the web version, it will fail with the app version. The problem isn't in how the content is being offered - it's either a problem with the content itself, or with the business model behind it.
#DeleteChrome
With stories like these - and NYTimes are not the only ones who do it, I've seen some other websites where you get a very minimal mobile version which tells you to install the app for any "advanced" operation - it seems to me sometimes that the last few years were some kind of a "peak freedom" on the Net, and we're going downhill now.
Consider the history. Back in the day there were provider-specific networks like Compuserve and AOL. Then we moved onto the Internet, but it became browser specific very quickly; most people here doubtlessly remember "designed for IE" labels on websites, and those who are a bit older might also remember "designed for NN". It took us over a decade to get to the point where any random website is highly likely to display correctly in any random web browser - and now that we're finally here, we have companies deliberately ditching that openness. Sad.
even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.
I use the "Atomic" web browser on my iPad and iPod Touch
For how long will "Atomic" remain available?
Um, for as long as the developer wishes it to be? What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
I'm a former Macintosh worshiper. I subscribed to Guy Kawasaki's email list when he was an official Mac evangelist. I have bought, sold, installed, repaired, played with, tweaked, upgraded, and done just about everything else to a Macintosh from System 6 through OSX. I loved the superior quality, excellent interface, and freedom to play. I loved the sheer geekiness of being a Macintosh person, not a PC person.
Then Apple opened their stores, squeezed out the independents, and began creating tied-down, lowest-common-denominator devices that were more style than substance. To quote Lester Bangs, Apple turned computers into an "industry of cool."
Screw Apple, screw the Macintosh, screw the iPhone, screw the iPad, and most of all, screw Steve Jobs. Screw the walled garden. Screw the NY Post. Screw them all. Give me tweakable, fun, unrestricted technology or get the fuck out of my face.
What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
Apple has proven by its actions that it has no commitment to freedom. Apple changed its App market policies often, and done so for the better only when responding to immense public pressure and doing damage control. I think Apple's track record speaks for itself.
For the forseable future.
I have no such confidence in Apple.
This just means you can move up to a better paper. You should thank them.
sig not found
What makes you (and far too many nerds here) think otherwise?
Apple has proven by its actions that it has no commitment to freedom. Apple changed its App market policies often, and done so for the better only when responding to immense public pressure and doing damage control. I think Apple's track record speaks for itself.
In other words, there's no reason to believe Apple will remove browsers that allow one to change their user agent string other than your paranoid fantasies.
Apple doesn't look at an app and think, "oh no, this gives the user freedom to do something, this must stop!" There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
I disagree with his take on C.
I interpreted it as, "Durr, because New York Post readers are stupid."
Or Post readers who care enough to visit the site or read the paper enough where this would be a problem...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
C'mon, that's not difficult. The only reason Apple needs is some sort of agreement, probably involving money changing hands, with any content publishing industry. The only rule they need to add to the software requirements is that any web browser needs to state the correct device and OS version in the user agent string. It's not exactly a stretch to assume that's possible. Apple likes its agreements with third parties, even if they screw the customers.
That being said, this entire thread is a joke. This is an article about a web site doing browser sniffing, and it devolves into attacks and defenses on Apple has a company. This has nothing to do with Apple, this is a story about the New York Post doing browser sniffing. They are trying out a business model where they target users on specific devices and try to force them to use a native application to access the content instead. If people start spoofing the user agent to get around the content then that just shows the business model isn't perfect. If Apple introduces regulations that favor the business model after people show they don't like it, THEN (and only then) will Apple be an ass about this. They've been an ass in the past, and they probably will continue to be in the future, but they haven't done anything wrong with regard to this specific issue and there's no reason to either attack them over it OR defend them over it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
There has to be a reason behind their decisions. You can't come up with an actual reason, so you just wave your hands and cry "Apple hates freedom!" Pathetic.
C'mon, that's not difficult. The only reason Apple needs is some sort of agreement, probably involving money changing hands, with any content publishing industry.
I said "actual reason", not imaginary reason.
The only rule they need to add to the software requirements is that any web browser needs to state the correct device and OS version in the user agent string.
No such rule exists, and there's no indication such a rule is likely to ever exist.
It's not exactly a stretch to assume that's possible.
No, but it's a huge fucking stretch to assume it's even remotely likely.
Apple likes its agreements with third parties, even if they screw the customers.
[citation needed]
Apple makes the agreements it needs to in order to gain access to important third party goods and services. Music, movies, TV shows, etc., and cell networks. And not a single one of these "screw the customers".
That being said, this entire thread is a joke.
Yes, it's a farce, but that hasn't stopped the "Insightful" and "Informative" mods about how this is an example of Apple's so-called "walled garden".
This is an article about a web site doing browser sniffing, and it devolves into attacks and defenses on Apple has a company. This has nothing to do with Apple, this is a story about the New York Post doing browser sniffing.
Yet even *you* engaged in attacking Apple. And your lumping together of "attacks and defenses" is unreasonable. The attacks are non sequitur (as you've just stated), but the defenses naturally follow from the unwarranted attacks.
They've been an ass in the past, and they probably will continue to be in the future, but they haven't done anything wrong with regard to this specific issue and there's no reason to either attack them over it OR defend them over it.
Um... There's no reason to attack them. The attacks are the reason to defend them.
After all, if they were doing this on Android (which they just as easily can)...
But no one IS doing this on Android, and they WON'T, because a phone company and/or manufacturer who did would find their market share ebbing away.
Do you really not understand the difference between Apple and... the rest of the world, and why some of us dislike them enough to avoid their locked in shiny?
Do you even know what is being discussed here? This has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of Apple or the phone company. It's the NY Post which is doing the thing being discussed, and they can quite easily do the exact same for Android tablets as they are doing for the iPad.
It may surprise you to know this, but there are hundreds of millions of iOS users. The vast majority of them are quite happy with their device. There are tens of millions of iPad owners, again overwhelmingly happy with their iPad.
Apple is one of the most well respected companies in the world. They are the second most valuable public company ever to exist, and their products are highly regarded.
The population of anti-Apple nerds, which are rife on sites like slashdot, are an extremely small minority. Of the hundreds of millions of satisfied Apple customers, only one of them is Steve Jobs (potential name coincidences aside. only one of them is *that* Steve Jobs at any rate).
So, although you may live in a sheltered echo-chamber and anti-Apple sentiment, like I said at first, it may surprise you to know that there are plenty of people other than Steve Jobs who might have something nice to say about Apple.
Maybe you could redirect your rage at the school system which produced you.
Or better yet, discover girls, move out of Mom's basement, find some more important machine to rage against.
How dare an organization demand payment for news product that they invest capital to generate! Oh let me guess you can get it somewhere else free. Indeed. From one of the thousands of blogs, but then again there is no standard for that. You get super slanted surface skimmed coverage in most but not all cases. In this country where a man can hardly afford to buy an IPad how can he be expected to spends pennies a day to pay for content. Next you will be will be complaining about paying taxes while demanding new roads and schools, life is so unfair. No I do not work at a newspaper
And:
"Possibly because the intersection of the set of "People who use an iPad " and "People who understand what a User-Agent String is" is pretty much a null set."
Would have more accurately conveyed yours.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Not to the same extent. I'm not making a claim about whether he's saying NY Post readers are stupid, I'm simply not addressing that part, whereas RyuuzakiTetsuya is saying that he's *not* making a claim about iPad owners and only about NY Post readers.
I'm only addressing part of ColdWetDog's post. Ryu was saying that part was completely not relevant.
Instead of reading the New York Post I'm reading "The Origin of the Species" off Project Gutenberg with the Stanza app. It's a really great book, and it only takes as long to read as -like- 100 perusals of NY Post issues. But the best part is that Darwin isn't poking me in the eye with a stick covered in shit.
-- thinkyhead software and media
And do you even know why such assfucking happens only to Apple users? Yep, you guessed it right - because they like it so.
We might have meaningful discussion once your eyes clear off the haze resulting from the ass-banging by Steve Jobs. Let us know when that happens.
Well, we can't all make such meaningful contributions like your stellar example above, what with the ad hominem and absurd sexual aspersions.
Have you read that Murdoch piece of crap? It is for utter morons and people who need cheap sources of newspaper.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
nuff said
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I'm not defending the NY Post (or its readers). I'm just addressing the tendency on slashdot to act like Apple users are stupid, of which ColdWetDog's post is an example of.
It is possible to interpret his post without any malice towards iPad owners, I just don't find that very likely, especially given the context and the deliberate choice of wording.
For the forseable future.
I think "forceable future" pretty much describes Apple's approach to the iPhone and its customer base.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Srsly, it's the NY Post
Jesus H. Christ folks. I'm trying to make a half assed amusing comment using Venn Diagrams and you guys go all extraterrestrial. Sometimes I wish we could draw in stick figures like XKCD - ASCII obviously isn't working here (and Unicode apparently never will). Relax all, have a nice dose of your favorite mind altering substance.
If you want to go all pedantic and confusing, I would suggest the current Bitcoin thread. It has everything you need.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And I like the iPad. I gave one to my mom. My stepdaughter keeps telling us to get one and I keep thinking about it, I just can't figure out what I would do with it and I'm trying to avoid putting a computer on every flat surface in the house just on general principles.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Of course there are always those who would rather tell themselves that if Apple doesn't want them to do something then they shouldn't be wanting to do it in the first place.
Amen. I've noticed that effect on many occasions. It's not just Apple users, of course, the human mind has an almost infinite capacity to rationalize, rather than think rationally, but it's prevalent among that crowd. Back in my G1 days, I was running Cyanogenmod, had overclocked the thing to the point where it was useful for multitasking, and was happily driving around running nav and playing music and making phone calls. Then I had an iPhone user ask me, "so why would you want to multitask anyway?"
Now, the answer was obvious to both of us, so it wasn't actually a serious question. What it was a state of denial: the iPhone can't do it, so therefore it simply isn't worth doing. Now I understand why Apple didn't allow multitasking in earlier revisions of the iPhone: not enough performance to keep the experience as smooth and seamless as their users expected it to be. And yeah, even overclocked that G1 got a bit jerky at times (times change though, currently I have a G2 running CM7: the thing is so fast that I usually underclock it.) That was a worthwhile tradeoff to me, but I realize that it wouldn't be for many people. So I'm not dinging Apple here, really I'm not. But there's a significant number of iPhone users who are like Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein when he looks at his own deformed shoulder and says, "What hump?"
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
dear anonymous coward:
the only thing i get from your post is that you have a serious stalking problem
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
oh, I thought you were saying just exactly that iPad users were stupid, not trying to dismiss that common meme.
I was saying that the Venn Diagram overlap of people who use iPads and the people who read the New York Post tends to be very low because they're reading the Post.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Yeah, I think we are pretty much in agreement, just looking at the same thing from a different angle.
Apple doesn't look at an app and think, "oh no, this gives the user freedom to do something, this must stop!"
replace "Apple" with "Gnome Project" and your sentence is true :)
Possibly because the intersection of the set of "People who use an iPad and browse dumb sites like the NY Post" and "People who CARE what a User-Agent String is" is pretty much a null set.
FTFY
No, but it's a huge fucking stretch to assume it's even remotely likely.
For certain values of "huge", apparently. Eye of the beholder, and all that. I personally don't see it as that much of a stretch. Nothing that improves Apple's bottom line is ever a stretch.
[citation needed]
Really? Are you willfully ignorant, or is it not by choice? Explain how the iPhone exclusivity deal with AT&T, whereby iPhone customers are not free to choose their own carrier, is good for the customers. This is the same argument that Sony and other companies gave with regard to DRM, that DRM was there to "help consumers manage their rights", instead of screwing legitimate customers for the benefit of the content industry. The exclusivity deal does not help Apple customers, the customers are screwed for the benefit of Apple and AT&T.
Apple makes the agreements it needs to in order to gain access to important third party goods and services.
Hey man, you can justify it all you want. If Apple requires user agent strings to be accurate, I'm sure you'll be saying that they needed to do that in order to "gain access to important third-party goods and services." Namely, the money of third-parties going into Apple's account. Apple didn't need to make an agreement with AT&T, they could have opened up the iPhone to all carriers and all of them, every single one, would have been scrambling for it. I would love to quote a number for you about how much AT&T paid Apple for that privilege, but the contract between them that affects you as their customer is not public. You seem pretty OK about that, though. You're trying to get people to come up with actual scenarios whereby Apple would make a change like this, but those agreements are not, and never have been, public.
And your lumping together of "attacks and defenses" is unreasonable.
It's not "unreasonable" to call fanboys fanboys. The Apple-bashing fanboys pile on, and the Apple-defending fanboys are right behind them.
Um... There's no reason to attack them. The attacks are the reason to defend them.
And why do you feel the need to defend them? If the attacks are not based on fact, why not just ignore them? Why is it worth your time to defend Apple? If no one bothered to defend them, the attacks would stop.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
> I'm trying to avoid putting a computer on every flat surface in the house
Ah, so you do use windows?