Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYT Update Breaks iPad App, Annoys Subscribers

Posted by timothy on from the hothouse-flower-in-the-walled-garden dept.

jbrodkin writes "The New York Times, which recently started charging iPad readers $20 a month, has a lot of angry digital subscribers after an update broke the NYTimes for iPad application. The update was designed to make it easier for readers to subscribe to the Times through iTunes (irony!) but instead left readers unable to access any articles. Worse, the Times didn't bother to fix the app over the long weekend or reply to users who complained on Twitter. It's not the first time developers have broken an iPad application with a poorly constructed update, but reader complaints noted that the size of the New York Times and the high price it charges make this gaffe particularly galling. Angry users have driven the app's rating down to less than two out of five stars."

140 comments

  1. First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First!

  2. I'll second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that.

  3. Complain elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is simply not newsworthy.

    1. Re:Complain elsewhere by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      This is simply not newsworthy.

      That's why you won't ever read about this in the New York Times. At least that's the excuse they've using for years to cover up anything that makes them look bad or doesn't push their agenda.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    2. Re:Complain elsewhere by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  4. New game for iPad by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    Angry Users... all chattering like a bunch of parakeets

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:New game for iPad by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Angry Users... all chattering like a bunch of parakeets

      And actually paying for the privilege.

    2. Re:New game for iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Angry Users... all chattering like a bunch of parakeets

      And actually paying for the privilege.

      Conclusion: what a bunch of douchebags!

    3. Re:New game for iPad by berashith · · Score: 2

      I would like this game... you can fling ipad owners from a catapult into a giant concrete paywall of NYT. I dont care if the wall crumbles or the users just go splat.

    4. Re:New game for iPad by maxume · · Score: 1

      Angry Nerds!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:New game for iPad by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

      wish I had mod points

    6. Re:New game for iPad by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

      Ah, Yes! Life on the bleeding edge.......

      I always let someone else try before I dive in (unless the update was forced).

      --
      Rick B.
    7. Re:New game for iPad by node+3 · · Score: 1

      I think you've just found Slashdot's new masthead.

    8. Re:New game for iPad by Altus · · Score: 1

      Didn't they block the Safari on iPad from accessing their website, instead telling users they had to download the app and pay a subscription?

      I have no problem with the idea of subscription news (though I'm not sure I would pay it) but once you start offering it you had damn well better make sure your updates don't break it. I'm sure they would have received even more grief if they just stopped delivering the physical version to paying customers.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    9. Re:New game for iPad by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      That was the NY Post. Don't get me wrong... their paywall is a big, giant mess... but that specific action wasn't them.

    10. Re:New game for iPad by Altus · · Score: 1

      Gotcha.

      I guess if the app broke but users could still access the web site (specifically on their iPads), that is really not so terrible. Some kind of refund might be appropriate but this reaction seems a bit over the top.

      I guess its just that once you get used to something better, taking a step back to a lesser interface is pretty difficult.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  5. $20 a month by Ceiynt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and they call MMO fees too expensive.

    1. Re:$20 a month by danomac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, only thing missing is being told "Shit happens, get over it" as an official reply.

    2. Re:$20 a month by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You can't write off MMO fees.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:$20 a month by Hatta · · Score: 0

      The NYT is written by rich people for rich people, what do you expect?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:$20 a month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Steve Jobs doesn't own the NYT... yet.

  6. Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Worse, the Times didn't bother to fix the app over the long weekend or reply to users who complained on Twitter"

    They possibly did put a fix in place, but it will be sitting in apple's review queue for a week or more with a status of "Waiting For Review" before its actually reviewed, approved and able to go live.

    Not responding to users is another story though.

    1. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Guess who else tried not to work on the long weekend?

      All those people complaining about their app not working. Wonder how many customers were asking for their help, and given the cold shoulder?

    2. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The review queue is probably in a dark basement, at the bottom of a set of broken stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ' Beware of the Leopard '.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by Lennie · · Score: 1

      That is one of the reasons many just use hybrid apps with webtechnologies and use HTML5-offline-cache.

      You don't update the app, just the part of the app that matters. And the developer decides when the update happends.

      easy peasy

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're a total idiot that knows nothing about the app submission/review/release process. Having an important big-fix update from submission to available can take under 24 hours. Keep spreading the Apple-hate for your own personal reasons.

    5. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by Lord_Jeremy · · Score: 1

      That would be Beware of the Snow Leopard

    6. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And this, friends, is why you never ever release a major update to any software on a Friday, much less a Friday before a long holiday weekend.

      If their engineers were so clueless as to choose that date, then they deserve to have to work over the weekend to fix it. And if they were so passive that they let their management demand that they release it on that day, they deserve to have to work over the weekend to fix it. Starting to see the pattern here?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      You think the New York Times doesn't have an account manager at Apple who can help them expedite this kind of thing ? These are high profile, highly visible clients for Apple. They'll have someone a just phone call away at all times.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    8. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      And if they were so passive that they let their management demand that they release it on that day, they deserve to have to work over the weekend to fix it. Starting to see the pattern here?

      It's a communications issue as much as anything.

      Where you've got management that doesn't really understand what they're talking about, they often gauge how important something is by how worked up people get over it. When an engineer says "We shouldn't release something on a Friday immediately before a holiday weekend because if it goes wrong it'll ruin a lot of people's weekends", the manager may say "I'll take that chance. Do it."

      When an engineer goes off on one about how releasing on a Friday is a Really Bad Idea, how it will result in chaos, destruction, dogs and cats living together - you'd be amazed the difference that makes.

    9. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Now call me kooky... but I am pretty sure that GP intended his post rhetorically, perhaps even aiming for a quick +5 funny. Nobody really intended to assault the Church, so take a breath and relax.

    10. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by danbuter · · Score: 1

      If it was Microsoft, I would agree. Apple seems to be actively anti-business lately, so this might not be true.

    11. Re:Fixing the issue isn't quite that easy. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      When an engineer says "We shouldn't release something on a Friday immediately before a holiday weekend because if it goes wrong it'll ruin a lot of people's weekends", the manager may say "I'll take that chance. Do it."

      When an engineer goes off on one about how releasing on a Friday is a Really Bad Idea, how it will result in chaos, destruction, dogs and cats living together - you'd be amazed the difference that makes.

      IME, that makes little difference. The average PHB will still take the chance. OTOH, if you can convince him that relasing on Friday will cost him MONEY, he will come to his senses and wait.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  7. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Well, it's one thing to have a crappy update. But having a crappy update that locks out the people you're charging $20/month ... well, that's pretty sad.

    I wonder if the NYT fully realized what all is involved in maintaining software like this.

    If I was paying $20/month, I'd be pissed at them if I was locked out for several days. Of course, I wouldn't pay that to access any site either.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by poetmatt · · Score: 0

      let's get back to the REAL irony:

      if they never tried to make this ridiculous paywall they'd have a: more money in their pockets and b: people wouldn't be blocked from crap that either they do or accidentally do.

      which one do you think is better for business?

    2. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever you were trying to say did not come through well. Are you saying "not paying $20 a month for a paywalled subscription saves the consumer money" or are you saying "NYT would have more money if they didn't spend money to develop the paywall"? Also your item b doesn't make any sense at all; perhaps you didn't type what you meant there.

    3. Re:Wow ... by dmmiller2k · · Score: 1

      Many people get it without paying $20/month. Home Delivery Subscribers automatically get online access included free with the subscription price (which, BTW, was not raised when NYT put up the paywall). Android devices were unaffected by this change, BTW. Only the Apple Fanboys.

      --

      "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    4. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's trying to say that the paywall isn't actually profitable for the NYT - I'd be inclined to agree with such an assertion (if he is indeed making it) at first glance. Therefore, not having it means they wouldn't be losing money on it.

    5. Re:Wow ... by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      This is correct. Traffic hit a giant decline post-paywall , not that you need to be a genius to figure that out if you look at last time as well.

      So yes, more could have been spent on being a good website that covers real news.

    6. Re:Wow ... by Altus · · Score: 1

      Never mind the unbelievable amount they apparently spent developing the paywall.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    7. Re:Wow ... by eepok · · Score: 1

      They're charging $20 a month, yes, but they were locked out for 3 days, so throwing around that monthly figure is misleading. It's not like people aren't getting their "$20's worth". They've just lost $1.94 of service. Overpriced, but not that big of a deal.

  8. It's always been bad by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

    I would love to love the NYT app on my iPhone, but it's always been bad. The common lockups, CPU eating and random failures to update took way too long to fix. And now that it's pay, I love the way it downloads the headlines for articles I can't read before the ones I can.

    1. Re:It's always been bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still crap. Not only that but it's tilt sensitivity is way too high. I tilt the phone a bit and I'll need to wait while the app struggles to rotate the article and then back again.

      They need to get some better developers maybe? Who did they hire to do this? The NPR app is WAY better... and I'm sure they have less funding for such things.

    2. Re:It's always been bad by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I agree. The whole purpose of having a NYTimes app was to make accessing articles faster and look cleaner than via the website. (Yes, the NYT's motivation is also to enforce the paywall, but let's stick with my needs). But while I appreciate the articles showing up better than the website's rendering, that really is only of any use if I can actually get the app to load and show the articles. When the app takes forever to load, refresh its article listings, and display said articles, then it is of negative use to me.

      So I stick with the website, which has the added bonus of making paywall circumvention a snap.

    3. Re:It's always been bad by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      The app is/was dreadful in all those respects. However, deleting and reinstalling clears up the horrible lag...at least for a while.

      Now most of my irritation stems from swiping to move to the next article. It's horribly annoying because when you're reading with one hand, it will continually switch articles and forget where you were in the article!

      Thumbs don't swipe straight up and down. They pivot from the joint. So of course it'll constantly hit the border and cause an article switch. No option to disable either.

      Does anyone even read by just swiping to the next article? Who is this feature for? I would think that the vast majority of users read articles they're interested in, not whatever happens to be next in some arbitrary line. So why include this?

    4. Re:It's always been bad by opusbuddy · · Score: 1

      This has been and continues to be one of the worst apps in the App Store. It was broken before they started charging, stayed broken and now is broken worse, from what I hear. After wasted complaints to their Customer No-Service, editor, publisher, ombudsman and Apple powers that be, I finally gave up on the app and just read it in Safari on my iPad (I sign on with the id tied to our Sunday paper subscription). Since I can double-tap on the article, I can get rid of much more of the crappy advertising and annoyances than I could in the app. App is useless. Throw it away, like I did.

      --
      If this were easy, they wouldn't need us to do it!
  9. Ask apple for a refund by juancn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ask for a refund. Apple will grant it to you, but it will still charge the Times it's commission.

    1. Re:Ask apple for a refund by dmmiller2k · · Score: 1

      Then what? Pay for the app again later when the it's been fixed? Apple will get its commission twice.

      --

      "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    2. Re:Ask apple for a refund by juancn · · Score: 1
      If you want to, but the commission is paid by the app seller. The idea is to punish the seller, I don't care if Apple makes some extra money.

      Assume that you paid $10 for the app, Apple gets $3, the seller $7. If you ask for a refund, Apple will refund $10 to you, and take $10 from the seller. The seller only got $7 on the first sale, so it ends up paying $3 for the fsck-up.

    3. Re:Ask apple for a refund by keytoe · · Score: 1

      Ask for a refund. Apple will grant it to you, but it will still charge the Times it's commission.

      I'm pretty sure this is no longer true. Otherwise, your competitor could simply put you out of business with a concerted purchase/return campaign.

      --

      Culture is more than commerce

    4. Re:Ask apple for a refund by juancn · · Score: 1

      It would have to get quite a few Apple accounts with different credit cards. It would probably get banned before being successful.

    5. Re:Ask apple for a refund by Amouth · · Score: 1

      not always true - i've tried to get a refund for a bad app once.. basically got an all sales final stone wall.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    6. Re:Ask apple for a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask for a refund. Apple will grant it to you, but it will still charge the Times it's commission.

      Refund what? You still have paper delivery and/or working login to www.nytimes.com.. the app is free with the digital subscription.

  10. oh noes, the newspaper is broken by alen · · Score: 2

    it was a 4 day weekend for a lot of people since they took friday off and probably went somewhere far away from work. can't fix an app if all the developers are gone

    not like there aren't any other news apps in the app store. just ask for a refund from the NY Times for not getting access to a paid service, not a big tragedy

    1. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by Pope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the bigger WTF: who in their right might would push a huge update like this before such a huge holiday?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by sjpadbury · · Score: 1

      If everyone was going to go away for a long weekend, maybe that wasn't the best time to be releasing an update then, hmm?

      --
      We're all full up on Crazy here...
    3. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by alen · · Score: 1

      the same geniuses who mortgaged out that cool skyscraper in NYC a few blocks from where i work, that's who

    4. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by drolli · · Score: 2

      Well. Pay your critical developers/administrators a premium, dont be a PITA if they need some holiday or some flexible worktime for their family trough the rest of the year, compensate them in a generous way for over hours, agree on a person beforehand (and compensate appropriatly) who is in standby or has his laptop with him/her, who has the knowledge and authority to rollback the app version, and you will be fine.

      Oh... and: dont roll out new versions just before a holiday. A good time to roll out new versions/chance something is one day before the end of the holiday.

    5. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the bigger WTF: who in their right might would push a huge update like this before such a huge holiday?

      Have you never worked anywhere?
      Every goddamn marketing droid will promise that every new function the customer or boss have ever wished for will be available just before the holiday/vacation/whatever. There is something with being done with a milestone before going home before the weekend that they can't resist and none of them have a clue about testing things before they are put out in the real world.

    6. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did they push it on the Thursday, or did they push it a week ago and Apple approved it on Thursday?

    7. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      it's a newspaper. this should be familiar territory for them. My paper's not delivered one day, or the paper boy doesn't sleeve it and it rains, or he leaves it in the mud, I call the 800 number and they credit my account. Should be straightforward for everyone to get a credit for 4 days in July. 20 $/month *4/31 = $2.59 each. How many subscribers do they have?

    8. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by delinear · · Score: 1

      Exactly this - we have a policy of no live deployments after 3pm and no live deployments on a friday whatsoever unless the client is willing to pay for out of hours support, yet we still get account managers promising clients exactly this at least once a fortnight (to which we usually tell them to go back and tell the client no, because we've been bitted too many times before). It's all well and good the client saying they're happy to accept the risks, but they have to then actually be willing to, y'know, accept the risks.

    9. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      so you draw lots or something and have at least one developer ON STANDBY during the holiday.

      Of course the complete MAROON that pushed this update over the 4th of july weekend should be either demoted to a safer job or promoted outside the day to day workflow.

      Managers should know that people do have these portable computer things and they do operate outside and everything.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    10. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. You can mark that you don't want the update to go live until say, July 05, 2011. Then if they had pushed it a week ago, no worries, it doesn't go live until after the holiday. If it gets approved really fast, and everyone is still around, you can push it live earlier. When you have paying customers, it seems pretty irresponsible to just let an untested update go live "whenever it's approved" right before a 3 or 4 day weekend.

    11. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 1

      That's why the smart companies get themselves a fancy European office and do deployments at 03:00 am Eastern with wide awake support engineers.

    12. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Why is releasing something just before a holiday bad? You have a lot fewer users that would be affected by any issues, and you'd have staff (hopefully, at least!) to check for any issues from users that *are* still using the app, and you have all the time in the world to fix said issues before most of the users come back. Though they might still need to install the fix, you'd at least get a jump on fixing it.

    13. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      or did they push it a week ago and Apple approved it on Thursday?

      It doesn't matter. If you choose a distribution channel that has an approval process, you should know enough about its approval timelines to make sure that something like this doesn't happen. This should be no surprise to someone in a time-sensitive market with approval processes like news. This is just gross negligence on the part of the Times.

      Besides, if your name is on it, you should take responsibility for it. The Times chose to put up a paywall and issue an app. They chose the distribution channel with all of the approval issues that were involved. They obviously did not test the deployment well enough. They, and they alone, are responsible.

      --
      That is all.
    14. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing for reasons you mention, when the deployment is supported over the weekend. In other words, when there are responsible people around to respond to problems.

      It's a bad thing when those people are not around, because then problems won't be resolved for days.

  11. Re:Must Read READ ReAd... News.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nice Goatse dude.

  12. Apps! by Ptolom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't stand all this app bullshit. They seem like websites, only you have to pay for them, they only work on one platform, and they all have they all have different interfaces and different ways of working. What's wrong with an RSS feed?

    1. Re:Apps! by foobsr · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with an RSS feed?

      Even those accustomed to acronyms have difficulties to properly convert 'RSS' into a convenient sound, whereas even the dumbest ass can do so regards app.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:Apps! by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Well I read rss feeds in pulse, good stuff.

      I do not read NYT anywhere

  13. Lemme get this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People are actually paying $20 a month to read news they can't even consider trustworthy?

    I can make stuff up, and spin whatever the AP and Reuters printed the day before. Can I have your $20/mo ?

    1. Re:Lemme get this right... by Tr3vin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:Lemme get this right... by Altus · · Score: 1

      That will be 20 bucks a month. There is an app you can download.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:Lemme get this right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No $20 for you. The Times has actual original reporting and of a generally high caliber. It's an increasingly scarce commodity, so let's wish them well and hope they get this straightened out asap. Btw, their Android app was semi-broken for months and just recently was updated and usable again.

  14. Re:Must Read READ ReAd... News.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damnit, mod this guy up before GP gets any one else.

    My eyes, dear god my eyes, I'd managed not to see that until today!

  15. The future niche of NYT by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    If content of the site is not googleble from the site on the first page: the site is virtually non-existent.

    To get to the first page,one needs to have many first readers for starters, and many secondary readers who read it from their favorite seond-tier site links.

    Even assuming that NYT paywall did not affect much the number of first readers (which it actually did), it's obvious that second,etc-tier readers necessary to link it and rise the PageRank are non-existent.

    NYT days as a mainstream source are counted. Their niche is the same size as Barron's - who remembers Barron's?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:The future niche of NYT by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Their niche is the same size as Barron's - who remembers Barron's?

      I subscribed to them for years. Before instant access to financial data became available online, it was a great source of info...and they're still not bad: http://online.barrons.com/

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    2. Re:The future niche of NYT by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in your experience, how many times barrons popped up on the first page when you were looking for economy related subjects on Google?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:The future niche of NYT by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I don't equate google searches to accurate, timely, or the best financial data...especially since I tend to be a contrarian in the marketplace. So, while I see your point about NYT and Barrons readership, Barrons has served as all (but not source) of those for me.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  16. Rating by jginspace · · Score: 2

    > "Angry users have driven the app's rating down to less than two out of five stars."

    Reminds me of of the Noscript - Adblock fiasco. Registered members at addons.mozilla.org all drove Noscript's rating down to one star but then Mozilla decided in their infinite wisdom that they should delete all those votes. If this campaign continues the same will happen here.

    1. Re:Rating by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      I am, to this day, surprised at how many people still advocate that malware piece of shit, NoScript. It should have been kicked off Mozilla's Addon website and Maone banned for life. Oh well.

      But I'm sure you're right; the reviews will be removed and the votes discounted. This also happened when EA's Spore was vote bombed on Amazon, because of the heavy DRM. In the end, retailers (like Apple's App Store, Amazon, and Newegg) have no real incentive for actually allowing negative reviews to stand, and it surprises me whenever they don't censor the one star reviews. Mozilla, on the other hand, I had higher hopes for, and it saddens me to see that they acted like apologetics; but they, too, have more incentive to be permissive and soft, since they are dependent on people uploading add-ons, in order to stay relevant. If they ban people for minor infractions, the add-on authors will simply set up their own competing site, with more permissive rules.

      In the grand scheme of things, it's not all that important whether a few loud mouths are censored or not, because every controversy eventually blows over, and the loud mouths can always complain elsewhere. What bothers me is the illusion of free speech that such sites maintain, by allowing some negative reviews to be posted. If you see 96% of 1000 people voted a product 4/5 or 5/5, you're much more likely to trust that rating, versus a rather suspicious 100% positive feedback rating. One rating indicates heavy censorship of negative feedback, while the other leaves some doubt as to whether censorship is occurring or not.

      I don't support vote-bombing products on Amazon or Newegg, because a) it's stupid, b) it's usually done by rabid fanboys, and c) it doesn't give an actual, unbiased picture of how satisfied the owners are with their purchase, but the censorious reactions are somewhat annoying. It just goes to prove that you should never trust anyone who's got something to gain by lying to you -- what would seem to be common sense, but is usually treated as paranoid cynicism by most people.

    2. Re:Rating by delinear · · Score: 1

      I was just wondering about that, on the one hand you have a client who needs ratings to get subscribers and possibly has cash to spend to secure that, on the other hand you don't want to tarnish the integrity of your rating system. I expect the ratings here to be under some close scrutiny for the next few months, anything "odd" is likely to be flagged instantly - it'll be interesting to see how it plays out and whether NYT can weather the storm if they are being heavily voted down.

    3. Re:Rating by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Apple would likely not make the change to artificially increase the NYT rating unless they royally wanna piss off the FTC who is already hot about falsified product ratings and ratings pumping schemes.

      --
      I8-D
    4. Re:Rating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am, to this day, surprised at how many people still advocate that malware piece of shit, NoScript. It should have been kicked off Mozilla's Addon website and Maone banned for life. Oh well.

      Such vitriol. Are you unable to look at a) the software and b) the incident dispassionately?

      What happened was that Noscript added its own site to Adblock's whitelist so that you'd see ads on it even if they would otherwise have been blocked. Is this bad? Of course. Should it never have been done? Yes. Were people right to raise a stink about it? Certainly.

      But it's not the end of the world. Shit happens every day, and if you get your panties into this much of a twist over something that's ultimately as irrelevant as this, you'll never get by in the real world, kid.

      And you're cutting off your nose to spite your face when you're recommending against Noscript now, too: it's still a useful piece of software. There's no alternatives, and the problem that did indeed exist was remedied. Life goes on. Now, maybe you'll say now that you'll never ever trust the Noscript creator again, but if that's the case, you still a) are unable to handle the real world, and b) should perhaps not install software from people you don't personally know and have an actual reason to trust to begin with.

      As for the reviews: Mozilla was right to delete them. Reviews are supposed to review the add-on, not be used to publicly raise a stink. It's fair to let the latter happen when there's a problem, but after that, it's good that Mozilla's cleaning up again, too.

    5. Re:Rating by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      Such vitriol. Are you unable to look at a) the software and b) the incident dispassionately?

      I've been diagnosed as bipolar, so I'd probably say that I'm psychologically incapable of looking at things dispassionately. On the positive side, it makes life much more interesting for those around me, as long as they're at a sufficiently safe distance.

      As for the reviews: Mozilla was right to delete them. Reviews are supposed to review the add-on, not be used to publicly raise a stink. It's fair to let the latter happen when there's a problem, but after that, it's good that Mozilla's cleaning up again, too.

      I understand what you're saying, and I generally agree; but shouldn't the feedback system be for everyone, rather than just the satisfied customers/users? For example, when Spore was released, its Amazon rating was vote-bombed by angry gamers, because it had restrictive DRM. It greatly annoyed me that these "single issue voters" were ignoring everything but the DRM, leaving people to wonder if it was truly a good game or not, because the vote-bomb completely pushed everything else out of the discussion. One way that Amazon could have solved this issue is to have indicated two categories for voting: quality and satisfaction. A high quality item that had odious restrictions -- such as a fun game with restrictive DRM -- could then be properly rated, instead of the current system, where one has to indicate both quality and satisfaction with the same vote. The same problem exists on Newegg, too, though Newegg reviews do tend to be a bit more verbose and technical.

    6. Re:Rating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am, to this day, surprised at how many people still advocate that malware piece of shit, NoScript.

      Citation needed. I've heard people who don't like to use it because it's too high maintenance for their taste, and people who just don't understand how to use it properly. It's not malware, and it's not a piece of shit.

      For those who didn't get to partake in the adblock vs. noscript fiasco, here's what happened:
      Both addons will auto-redirect you to their website each time they update, so that they can get advertising revenue from you.
      Adblock was pulling a fast one- they were not blocking ads on their own site even if ads from the same exact source were blocked on other sites (particularly- they were blocked on NoScript's site).
      NoScript was also pulling a fast one- they were not blocking their own auto-redirect but they were blocking AdBlock's redirect.
      The result was that each addon was preventing the other company from getting ad revenue. So then we had the ensuing war of escalations where each began pushing multilpe updates out to try and get around the other, and pissed a lot of people off. The fanboys lined up on each side and started flaming and astroturfing, which is why Mozilla got sick of it and just started deleting all the bullshit ratings. Well, eventually the lovers kissed and fucked for a while and everything was better.

      Use either program, they both work great and neither one is malware. noscript is an all-inclusive solution which will also block ads, adblock just blocks advertising that you don't want to see. Using both in combination will give you one of the most secure and ad-free web experiences possible right now.

      The parent is either a Fanboy, a Troll, or a shill for the advertising industry.

    7. Re:Rating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NoScript only blocks ads that depend on Javascript, if it blocked all ads then users wouldn't install Adblock alongside it and NoScript wouldn't have felt the need to add itself to Adblocks whitelist.

      And NoScript does seem to break some sites even if you whitelist everything on the page, but for those situations I use a clean profile running in private browsing mode.

  17. Weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought all Apple apps "just worked" shouldn't the updated have been vetted by Apple first or does the NYt get a free pass? or did the Apple update cause the fail - again then I thought all Apple apps just worked?

    1. Re:Weird by magarity · · Score: 1

      I thought all Apple apps "just worked" shouldn't the updated have been vetted by Apple first

      Sure it did; there wasn't any problems caused to the phone or other apps. Oh, functionality within the one app? Is that Apple's care?

    2. Re:Weird by muffen · · Score: 1

      Oh, functionality within the one app? Is that Apple's care?

      Considering the number of apps Apple has denied on the AppStore due to functionality within the one app, I'd say yes to your question.

  18. Why the walled garden is so great by Spykk · · Score: 1

    This just goes to show the problems allowing apps that have not been vetted by Apple to be installed on your device. If this had been an app for an iOS device this would never have happened.

    What's that you say? This was an iOS device? I guess the garden's walls are for keeping users in rather than keeping bad software out.

    1. Re:Why the walled garden is so great by sootman · · Score: 1

      News flash: nothing in the world is perfect. Film at 11.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    2. Re:Why the walled garden is so great by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      What's that you say? You're one more idiot with a myopic viewpoint who spouts the phrase "walled garden" to try and feel intelligent and superior? I guess all that intelligence has managed to lift you out of the "i want to be seen as cool" stage in your life?

    3. Re:Why the walled garden is so great by getNewNickName · · Score: 1

      All I expect from Apple during its vetting process is to determine if the app contains a trojan or virus, is legitimate and is not selling out my privacy without my consent. And even then I don't expect Apple to catch all the "bad" apps immediately. Why would you expect Apple to find specific bugs within an app? It's not reasonable to expect more than a cursory validation from any app marketplace.

    4. Re:Why the walled garden is so great by Spykk · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you people often tout filtering out poorly written software as a selling point to Apple's philosophy of forcing all applications to go through them. This anecdote contradicts that stance. It is silly to expect Apple to debug every update that gets pushed their way and that is really the point I was trying to make.

  19. Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    All I see is a bunch of jokes (nothing wrong with that), and crapping on Apple for something they weren't involved in (de rigueur for Slashdot) - not one post about the stupidity of pushing an update out on a Friday.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that there are sysadmins who moderate the comments on Slashdot? If so, you were wrong.

    2. Re:Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I see is a bunch of jokes (nothing wrong with that), and crapping on Apple for something they weren't involved in (de rigueur for Slashdot) - not one post about the stupidity of pushing an update out on a Friday.

      How long did it sit in Apple's queue before they vetted it on Friday? I'm guessing NYT submitted it a few days prior. The real question is "why didn't NYT test it a little better first?". Also, depending on the update, the nature of the service, and the size of the IT team, a Friday update can be ideal since it allows you extra days to fix a problem while minimal numbers of users notice over the weekend.

    3. Re:Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posted by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Tuesday July 05, @12:03PM:

      ...not one post about the stupidity of pushing an update out on a Friday.

      I see at least half a dozen posts made before yours that bring up this EXACT point. Either you're just slow or you don't know how to read. Neither one is flattering on you.

    4. Re:Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      like this one up above?
      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2298004&cid=36661632

    5. Re:Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I see is a bunch of jokes (nothing wrong with that), and crapping on Apple for something they weren't involved in (de rigueur for Slashdot) - not one post about the stupidity of pushing an update out on a Friday.

      Try reading? I saw several comments above yours that all reference the weekend/timing.

      But the thing you have also failed to read is that updates have to be approved by Apple.... like this one. So Apple approved this failure, they are involved, but they also probably had to approve the fix, potentially delaying it. They also could have played a part in the timing, not approving hte update until right before the weekend, even if it was submitted a week ago.

    6. Re:Not many sysadmins on Slashdot, apparently by Artifex · · Score: 1

      Hmm, this makes me nostalgic for a game of "you must be new, here."

      Oh, look, it's even Tuesday.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
  20. Re:Thanks for the food.... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    O neat, you quoted me! Now I have to ask, why do you do this? seriously whats the motivation?

    --
    Good-bye
  21. Re:Must Read READ ReAd... News.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haven't you seen the TV ad - so they can watch it instead of reading it - reading is too hard for the sheep

  22. NYT articles inaccessible due to programming error by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Funny

    and nothing of value was lost...

  23. Hilariously Out Of Touch by rabtech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The NYT wouldn't dream of just shoving printed copies of the paper out the door without checking the plates, checking registration/color alignment, etc. Yet that same attention to detail is nowhere to be found when it comes to their digital app.

    I'm just one guy writing small iOS apps in his spare time and I sure as hell don't release an update until I've installed in on every device I own and handed a beta to anyone I can wrangle into testing. Then when it goes live I immediately download and run it just to make sure everything is working.

    The first rule of software: don't annoy your users.
    The second rule of software: all crashes annoy your users.
    The third rule of software: anything (eg updates) that goes from working to non-working really annoys your users.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    1. Re:Hilariously Out Of Touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first rule of software: don't annoy your users.
      The second rule of software: all crashes annoy your users.
      The third rule of software: anything (eg updates) that goes from working to non-working really annoys your users.

      The zeroth rule of software: do not corrupt or lose your users' data.

      At least there's no scope for the NYT app to do that. So we're really just talking about an annoyance here. A one-month subscription refund and everyone will be mollified.

    2. Re:Hilariously Out Of Touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one:

      Never push an update out before a holiday weekend!

    3. Re:Hilariously Out Of Touch by eepok · · Score: 1

      Their digital app likely doesn't affect many people by comparison to their print or web versions. Wiki says their website has 30 million unique users per month. How many subscribe to the app? How many use the app daily?

      Moreover, did the app subscribers have access to the web version? If so, how much damage was actually done?

  24. Respond to Twitter? by eepok · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Worse, the Times didn't bother to... reply to users who complained on Twitter. "

    Oh lawdy lawd and heavens to Betsy! They didn't respond to Twitter complaints. How cruel this world!

    Does it really matter if they didn't respond to Twitter complaints? It's not as though Twitter is an official communication channel. Did user email into customer service get bounced? Was customer service phone lines answered and promptly hung up?

    If not, suck it up. It was a three-day weekend based on a national holiday. You should EXPECT services to be unavailable.

    Lastly, I'm pretty sure most organizations that even bother with Twitter see its users as a bunch of functional fools facing their own individual corners and yelling into a broken microphones, anyway... just like the rest of us.

    1. Re:Respond to Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Twitter is used by many companies as an official communication channel. It appears you're attacking twitter by automatically qualifying it as unofficial, childish and dumb. And it only makes you look like you're the latter two as well.

    2. Re:Respond to Twitter? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      If not, suck it up. It was a three-day weekend based on a national holiday. You should EXPECT services to be unavailable.

      Perhaps, but in this case, you're paying for access to the material which is (a) created and distributed on said national holiday and (b) has a nominal 24 hour life span of relevance. You sure as hell should expect to be able to access your material.

      As for complaints via Twitter, (FTFA) "The Times has kept readers up to date on mobile app problems thorugh its NYTimesMobile Twitter feed . In fact, an update also ruined the iPhone app last week, and the Times used its mobile Twitter feed to let readers know that a new version had been released to fix startup problems and to advise readers to remove and reinstall the app."

      If you're getting official updates via twitter, it's a small leap of logic (even if false) to believe that the twitter feed might be one place to register a complaint.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Respond to Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not, suck it up. It was a three-day weekend based on a national holiday. You should EXPECT services to be unavailable.

      Err, no. This depends on the type of service, granted, but I work in an environment where if we take a long weekend and critical systems go down then tens of millions of people lose power.

      A customer service line for an olive oil of the month club being unavailable during a long weekend, sure. The NYT? Not unless one expects the entire planet to stop generating news in consideration of the U.S. holiday.

    4. Re:Respond to Twitter? by eepok · · Score: 1

      In other news, Twitter-users and subscribers to the New York Times iPad app have mod points.

    5. Re:Respond to Twitter? by eepok · · Score: 1

      Ya, but are we required to satisfy those who leap in logic or just the rational? I just went to the New York Times main page, clicked on "Contact Us". Customer Service is the first group (http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/contact/directory.html#cs):

      ****
      Need to contact someone about our Web site? Make sure you've read our help and FAQs.

      For general help questions, please use our help form.
      For questions about digital subscriptions, crosswords or other paid products, please see the Help With Online Paid Products page.
      For a possible correction, or to reach the Web site's editorial staff, you can send an e-mail.
      To reach Martin Nisenholtz, the Sr. V.P. of Digital Operations, you can send an e-mail.

      Delivery or Print Subscription Issues

      Place orders, temporarily stop service or inquire about billing or service by calling 1â'800â'NYTIMES (1â'800â'698â'4637), by sending an e-mail or by visiting homedelivery.nytimes.com.
      Send an e-mail to the Sr. V.P. of Circulation.
      ****

      And there's this from their iPad FAQ:
      ****
      28. What if I have feedback or questions about the NYTimes iPad application?
      We are very interested in hearing from our readers. Please submit feedback and/or questions to ipad@nytimes.com.
      ****

      The only reference to Twitter is specifically regarding sharing articles through Twitter.

  25. This is why apps suck by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

    If it was just web-based, you wouldn't tend to have these kinds of problems. For 99% of these "apps" it's just a built-in browser with some pre-defined bookmarks. Seriously - drop the "app" thing, NYT, and just focus on your website.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:This is why apps suck by brooklynwry · · Score: 1

      I've subscribed to the NYT for years. I read online. I've read the app. The app is hands-down a better experience than the website (plus you can take it on the subway/airplane/wilderness). I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, but anything that is improperly engineered can fail - regardless if it's an app or a website, that's besides the point. It's not by virtue of it being an "app" that it failed, it's by virtue of an error in the construction. An error in the code of an app will crash the app. An error in the code of a website will crash the website. Whether we choose to call one bit of code an app or another a website, neither is immune from human error.

    2. Re:This is why apps suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to shoot in the head every single moron who uses the word "experience" in relation to a computer.
      That is all.

  26. Coincidence? by brooklynwry · · Score: 1

    In other news, the NYT has posted a smattering of job openings for iOS engineers in recent days. Coincidence??

  27. Re:Thanks for the food.... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    Enjoy your dinner of ash, for that is all you have sown.

    --
    Good-bye
  28. Re:oh noes, the newspaper is broken - FIXED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fix found here.

  29. iPad owners and NYT readers... by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    Are the same demographic, so the NYT can rudely bend them over a table, and they will come back for more while apologizing for all the mean things they said.

  30. Re:CmdrTaco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't YOU tell me how it is done then?

    Well if you're going to mention dicks, you may as well up the ante and say NIGGERDICK.

  31. because he eats urinal cakes? by hxnwix · · Score: 1

    He likes his urinal cakes nice and sudsy, so he tries to piss us off.

  32. why would they respond on twitter? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    Go to their website numbnuts! I have never figured out why people go to twitter to get help like this, here is a hint, there are millions of people shoutting into thin air as it is on twitter, the account your following is ran by a robot script, so if you happen to have good luck you might get heard by a computer that doesnt give a fuck anyway!

    Are people really just that dumb?

  33. Take Advantage of their poor paywall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Get a new browser app for your iPad, such as Mercury.
    2. Set Mercury to change its user agent to something that isn't the iPad Safari.
    3. Browse the NYT website with all the workarounds for their poorly designed paywall like you would on a desktop.

  34. Re:CmdrTaco by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    Parent post is why I stopped playing madlibs.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  35. Worse, it only gives you a tiny subset of features by swb · · Score: 1

    I could almost tolerate the iPhone app, but it presents a Fisher-Price reduced subset of stories and features. What's worse is that iPad app isn't much better.

    There appear to be a lot more stories on the web version of the paper, plus you have access to add comments and get the blogs that are missing. Why it's so hard to make an iPad app to access a snapshot of the web site I don't know.

    How about a simple app that just lets me read a PDF of the paper?

  36. It used to be a good app by imuffin · · Score: 1

    When I started using the NY Times app about a year ago, I really enjoyed it. I travel internationally a lot and often don't have a data connection. What the app will do is download all the stories so I can read them even when the phone is offline. A few months ago, the NY Times changed the app to only allow free users to access "Top Stories" and "Most Emailed." That was frustrating, but I continued using the app because I still got some good content, and I could still read it when offline. But a few weeks after that, it started getting buggy. Even stories that were in "Top News" would tell me I had to subscribe to read them. I didn't investigate thoroughly because it's just not worth it. There are plenty of other free news apps out there that do the same thing. I'd rather read the NY Times, but not for $20/month. The other services have content that's almost as good.

  37. No problem ... by garry_g · · Score: 1

    Given Apple's track record on approving app updates, a corrected version should be out in 2-3 weeks ...