Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple News

NY Post Goes App-Only For iPad Users 218

Posted by samzenpus
from the jumping-through-hoops dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NY Post Goes App-Only For iPad Users

Comments Filter:
  • Not to worry... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:33PM (#36491886) Journal
    Just spoof the user-agent string...

    Oh, wait. Sorry. Enjoy the walled garden!
    • by Superken7 (893292)

      It's not about the walled garden at all. It's more like "there's an app for that". Maybe Safari won't do it, but I'm sure there are a couple browsers out there that can.

      While circumventing something as simple as an User-Agent string protection can be, I'm sure it "works" for the majority of people since only the geeks will know or care about how to get around it.

    • Re: Walled Garden (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:44PM (#36491972)

      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 [apple.com]

      Has been available for quite some time.

      • Re: Walled Garden (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @01:45PM (#36492356) Homepage
        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.
        • by Tharsman (1364603)
          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.
    • by thechink (182419)

      Install Atomic Browser on the iPad, it has the ability to change the user agent string.

    • Re:Not to worry... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tharsman (1364603) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @02:31PM (#36492704)

      Actually, you can with one of many available browsers in the App Store. With Opera Mini you don't even need to tweak anything, the site just does not seem capable of identifying it as an iPad browser. With Terra, my personal favorite browser (and free) for the iPad, allows me to set a permanent setting to identify as iPad Safari, OSX Safari 5, Internet Explorer 6 or Firerfox 3.6. There are a bunch of others with many different features that Safari does not have, like user agent change, full screen mode, ad blocking, social media integration, themes, bookmark syncing, download managers and built in emailing of files, etc etc.

      iOS may be a walled garden, but the walls are nowhere near as tall as some Apple bashers like to think.

  • by TheMiddleRoad (1153113) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:34PM (#36491896)

    No, the walled garden got built awhile ago. The moral? Don't buy into walled gardens.

    • by Tharsman (1364603)
      Or use the store inside the walled garden to get any of the many free browsers that allows user agent spoofing. Better yet, though, stop supporting The New York Post. If you support their asinine business model, you are just asking for your platform of choice to get the same treatment.
      • Connect the dots. Apple and content makers want more control over content distribution. This free and open web we enjoy makes their skin itch.

        • by Tharsman (1364603)

          Right. That's why they include a web browser, allow other web browsers, insist on supporting HTML5, keep working on increasing the speed of their javascript engine, and keep approving third party web browsers.

          It has also even come out that Apple is actually helping Facebook with their "Project Spartan", an HTML5 app distribution that "will compete with Apple's App Store."

          Yea, I can see the conspiracy very clearly through all that.

      • by Kalriath (849904)

        User agent spoofing isn't possible in iOS 5. It's an accident that it works in iOS 4.

    • by fermion (181285)
      One can either be in a walled garden that is crumbling, or a garden in which the walls are being built not logically, but in panicked fits. The later is the MS model and results in all of the drawbacks with few of the benefits. All walled gardens will crumble and a new freedom is the use of other browsers. There is no reason for any ipad user to run safari. Other browsers like iCab and Atomic Web can not only be used but also be placed on the dock. There is no way to set another browser to autoload, bu
      • I didn't realize that you cannot change the default browser. We actually own an iPhone, mom mom's old one. It sits in the corner, gathering dust. Sometimes the kids play angry birds.

  • by arcite (661011) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:34PM (#36491902)
    So all the smartest people in the world (Apple Users) will now be the best informed. ;)
    • by node 3 (115640)

      So all the smartest people in the world (Apple Users) will now be the best informed. ;)

      Well, the status of "smartest" and worst informed user population has already been taken...

  • by thomasdz (178114) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:37PM (#36491928)

    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

    • by Raenex (947668) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:46PM (#36491980)

      even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.

      For now. Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.

        Especially restrictions set for the benefit of third parties (usually phone service providers).

        • by node 3 (115640)

          Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.

          Especially restrictions set for the benefit of third parties (usually phone service providers).

          Beyond things that have to do with network restrictions and the one example where congress gave Apple shit over DUI checkpoint apps (both of which are reasonable actions on Apple's part, and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand), care to list any examples? And it would be especially helpful if they were in any way pertinent to the topic at hand.

      • by Tharsman (1364603)
        What Apple defined restriction is this "working around"? All these browsers use a documented WebKit control API to do their user agent spoofing.
        • by Raenex (947668)

          What Apple defined restriction is this "working around"?

          By Apple? Currently none, as far as I know. The restriction is being imposed by the NY Post. However, Apple may decide it's something they want to support, since they love the app model.

          All these browsers use a documented WebKit control API to do their user agent spoofing.

          Using documented APIs hasn't stopped Apple from banning apps before.

        • by Kalriath (849904)

          It's not documented. And it's not actually meant to work. In iOS 5, it doesn't.

          • by Tharsman (1364603)

            Sending the server the User agent is part of a standard HTTP request. Here is apple's documentation on how how to create your own mutable NSMutableURLRequest_Class request. It has been supported since iOS 2.0

            http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSMutableURLRequest_Class/Reference/Reference.html

            Just use setValue:forHTTPHeaderField to set the "User_Agent" for the request.

            Here is an example on how to use it:

            - (BOOL)webView:(UIWebView *)webView should

      • by node 3 (115640)

        even within the "walled garden", there are other browsers available which will let you spoof the user-agent string.

        For now. Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.

        You still seem to have a problem separating fantasy from reality. There's absolutely no reason to think Apple is going to boot other browsers for allowing this beyond nerd paranoid fantasy about how Apple is some sort of despotic iron-fisted overlord.

        • by Raenex (947668)

          You seem to have a problem of ignoring Apple's history: http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+banned+apps [google.com]

          • by node 3 (115640)

            Your fantasy isn't that Apple has banned apps, it's that they will ban any app discussed on slashdot in a positive light. There's absolutely no reason, other than your paranoid fantasy, to think Apple is going to pull browsers that allow the user to change their user agent.

            • by Luckyo (1726890)

              His "fantasy" is that apple will boot an application because it competes with their moneymaking scheme.

              Which it does, and has done many times in the past.

              • by node 3 (115640)

                His "fantasy" is that apple will boot an application because it competes with their moneymaking scheme.

                Um... How, exactly?

                Which it does, and has done many times in the past.

                For example?

    • by assertation (1255714) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @01:26PM (#36492234)

      I think the point was that people who use other systems don't have to keep reading about alternative software, hacks and jailbreaks to do what other people do. No disrespect.

      • I thought the point was - the more you abuse your customers the higher value they will ascribe to your services. Texbook cognitive dissonance, next you will have to insert your newscorp cd or something.
        • by node 3 (115640)

          No, the point here is obvious: slashdot nerds will bend over backwards to make anything about Apple fit their irrational hatred of Apple and the notion of some sort of offensive "walled garden". You are correct, however, in citing "cognitive dissonance", you've just applied it to the wrong target.

      • by Tharsman (1364603)

        The alternative browsers need no jailbreaks or hacks. They are readily available in the app store, there is almost always one the top 25.

        What the new york post is doing here will propagate. It wont be long until they do the same to Android users and force them to pay for some Android app.

        The true story here is not one about iPads, iOS or Apple. The story here is one about pay-walls and stupid news media conglomerates insisting on setting any roadblock they can in the way of the imminent death of printed n

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • by node 3 (115640)

        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?

        • by aeoo (568706)

          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.

          • by node 3 (115640)

            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.

            • 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

              • by node 3 (115640)

                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 ab

  • by Osgeld (1900440) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:52PM (#36492022)

    safari and ipad ... do you also have a target painted on your back?

  • by Calos (2281322) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @12:59PM (#36492066)
    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.
    • by Calos (2281322)
      And just to clarify - I don't like Apple's ecosystem and I wouldn't buy into it, because I like to tinker. Most people don't. Sometimes I lost sight of that fact, posting on and reading tech websites. But it comes rushing back when talking to family members and friends with technology problems. They don't know how things work, they don't care, and they don't want to have to mess with it. To many, what Apple offers is attractive for precisely that reason. And because of that, I can't, in good faith, cl
      • by zuperduperman (1206922) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @11:30PM (#36496240)

        > . They don't know how things work, they don't care, and they don't want to have to mess with it.

        To be honest, this is a little bit of a myth. Yes, most of them don't care until they one day happen upon a restriction that bothers them. For example, my mother who wanted to copy an audio book from her friend's computer onto her iPod Touch. Suddenly she is calling me up saying "I thought I could plug in my iPod and just copy it there but it doesn't show up and iTunes has scary messages about deleting everything!". And all I can say is "there's no good reason for it, but Apple doesn't want you to copy anything onto your iPod unless you do it through iTunes on your own computer. That way they make more money." And then she suddenly cared. So in most cases it's not that they don't care - it's that their lack of technical knowledge shields them from the reasons to care.

    • OT: Select 'Plain old text' instead of 'HTML Formatted'. You can still use HTML tags, but CRs don't get filtered out.

    • by Osgeld (1900440)

      apple markets and pushes their app technology like rabid dogs, your stupid, not with it, or a Luddite if you do not have it as an Apple brand App... so yea I kind of blame apple

      • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @02:01PM (#36492480)
        And if the NY Post did the same thing with mobile IE so that you had to buy the WP 7 app and subscription it's all MS' fault too. If it did the same thing with Android browsers, it's all Google's fault?
        • by Osgeld (1900440)

          I said I kind of blame apple, not it was entirely their fault, so reading comprehension = fail

          is it purely the fault of an addict that they are hooked? or does the makers and sellers have a big chunk of influence? This would not even be an article unless there was huge marketing pressure for companies to make apps, no matter how retarded

          and where is that pressure coming from?

      • by node 3 (115640)

        You blame Apple... for something the NY Post has done entirely on its own?

        • by Osgeld (1900440)

          fucking read! I said I kind of blame apple due to their pressuring the app market like rabid dogs, its like killing the junkie and letting the pusher walk away ... they both play equal parts

          • by node 3 (115640)

            I did read, you are applying blame to Apple for something the NY Post has done.

            • by Osgeld (1900440)

              again they have equal parts blame

              NY times wants to be hip and down with apple, apple marketing says fuck the web go with an app

              I cant make it any simpler so either your one of the sheeple that loves apple no matter what or your stupid

              • by node 3 (115640)

                again they have equal parts blame

                Um, no. The NY Post is making the restriction, not Apple. Apple has nothing to do with it. In fact, Apple offers apps on their store which circumvent this restriction.

                NY times wants to be hip and down with apple, apple marketing says fuck the web go with an app

                Interesting. Care to point to a specific example of Apple marketing saying anything like this? Where they've said, "web sites should block access to mobile Safari and require users to download an app instead"?

                I cant make it any simpler so either your one of the sheeple that loves apple no matter what or your stupid

                Making it simpler won't make it any more correct. The NY Post has done this entirely on their own. Funny you should use a term like "she

      • 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.

      • by Kalriath (849904)

        And then if you try to do it as an app, they reject it because "we don't want your stinking web clippings".

    • by Shihar (153932)

      People are taking shots at Apple because who the hell reads the NY Post? If one newspaper does this, who cares? The bigger issue the WHY this newspaper was able to do this. The answer is Apple's 'walled garden' approach. The Apple alternative browser market is a wasteland due to people being rightfully terrified of Apple's response. Apple doesn't play nice with people that offer competing functionality. This is the same company that pulled a camera app that let you use the volume key as the shoot b

  • 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.

  • i like the *choice* on how to access something.

  • The "walled garden" is the least of your problems.
  • NY Post (Score:5, Informative)

    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:

    The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."[31]
    Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch's business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[32]
    Ian Spiegelman, a former reporter for the paper's Page Six gossip column who had been fired by the paper in 2004,[33] said in a statement for a lawsuit against the paper that in 2001 he was ordered to kill an item on Page Six about a Chinese diplomat and a strip club because it would have "angered the Communist regime and endangered Murdoch’s broadcast privileges."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Criticism [wikipedia.org]

    or the power of Saudi Arabia, take your pick:

    WASHINGTON—Accuracy in Media (AIM) is urging a full inquiry into a report that a Saudi billionaire caused the Fox News Channel (FNC) to dramatically alter its coverage of the Muslim riots in France after he called the network to complain. The Saudi billionaire, Al-waleed bin Talal, is a friend of News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch and controls an influential number of voting shares in the company.

    “This report underscores the danger of giving foreign interests a significant financial stake in U.S. media companies,” declared Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media.

    The controversial comments came at an Arab media conference featuring representatives of Time magazine, USA Today, PBS, The Wall Street Journal, and other news organizations. The conference and the Saudi Prince’s growing influence in News Corporation are among the subjects of a new December-A AIM Report that has just been posted at the AIM website (http://www.aim.org). The report raises the specter of Arab money influencing News Corporation and other U.S. media companies.

    http://www.aim.org/press-release/saudi-billionaire-boasts-of-manipulating-fox-news-coverage/ [aim.org]

    do yourself a favor and stop reading the NY Post. it is a tool of a man who is evil immoral corporate influence incarnate

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      I suggest this documentary [wikipedia.org] about Rupert Murdoch. It covers at least some of the story about his relationship with China, but doesn't cover the Saudi issue mentioned at the end of your post.

  • Not good if your using an ipad/iphone in a work environment where they've decided to block you from installing arbitrary apps...

  • 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 [wikipedia.org]

  • 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.)
  • 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?
  • by leenks (906881) on Sunday June 19, 2011 @02:50PM (#36492844)

    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).

  • 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.

  • 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 quickl

  • This just means you can move up to a better paper. You should thank them.
  • by Slur (61510)

    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.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...