NY Post Goes App-Only For iPad Users 218
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."
Not to worry... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, wait. Sorry. Enjoy the walled garden!
Re: (Score:3)
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:Not to worry... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Prolific sperm donors find they have fathered dozens of children"
That's sorta the point of sperm donation, no?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From your sarcastic tone, I presume that there will be no cake?
Re: Walled Garden (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Install Atomic Browser on the iPad, it has the ability to change the user agent string.
Re:Not to worry... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
When iPad users say things like, "I just can't stop using it", that's not what they mean. When you buy an iPad, you are allowed to use other systems, if you so wish.
Those who would pay for confinement inside a walled jail must really fear the outside world...
When you talk like this out in the "real world", don't you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously?
People pay for things they enjoy and that meet their needs. Jails are things that people do not like to be in and are rather unenjoyable. iPads are things people seek out to buy and use, and are quite enjoyable. Well over 20 million of them
"can't"? Inaccurate (Score:2, Funny)
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 wall
And so it begins... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the walled garden got built awhile ago. The moral? Don't buy into walled gardens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Connect the dots. Apple and content makers want more control over content distribution. This free and open web we enjoy makes their skin itch.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
User agent spoofing isn't possible in iOS 5. It's an accident that it works in iOS 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
An Industry of Cool (Score:3)
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, lo
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you simply went from one type of fanboy to another. I take it your username here is meant to be ironic?
Re: (Score:2)
What am I fan of now, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Fan is short for fanatic. You went from an Apple fanatic, to an anti-Apple fanatic.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think you know what that word means.
Re: (Score:2)
Disgust and fanaticism... not in the thesaurus on the same entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Resistance is futile (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Alternate browsers available (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Alternate browsers available (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a history of booting apps that work around restrictions.
Especially restrictions set for the benefit of third parties (usually phone service providers).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not documented. And it's not actually meant to work. In iOS 5, it doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a problem of ignoring Apple's history: http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+banned+apps [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
What "new replacement"? Alternate browsers already exist, and Apple isn't banning them.
Re:Alternate browsers available (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Alternate browsers available (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, I'm not sure which Slashdot you've been reading, but Apple hatred is rampant on this one. I have no problem with people not liking Apple, or criticizing their policies, etc., like you claim you are doing, but much what passes for "Insightful" and "Informative" on slashdot is borderline insane.
Taking this specific story as an example, Apple isn't even doing anything, yet this is cited as a problem with the "walled garden". WTF? It makes no sense. Especially since Apple's "walled garden" has alternate browsers which allow one to spoof their way through the NY Post's paywall.
But then *that* has to be spun yet again, and people stating that Apple will just pull these browsers from the App Store get modded up, even though that makes no sense whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Alternate browsers available? for how long? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
For the forseable future.
I have no such confidence in Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
heh (Score:3)
safari and ipad ... do you also have a target painted on your back?
Re: (Score:2)
safari and ipad ... do you also have a target painted on your back?
You ignorant twit, that's the international symbol of the Red Cross [dilbert.com] ;-)
Blaming the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blaming the wrong people (Score:4, Insightful)
> . 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.
Re: (Score:3)
OT: Select 'Plain old text' instead of 'HTML Formatted'. You can still use HTML tags, but CRs don't get filtered out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Blaming the wrong people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
You blame Apple... for something the NY Post has done entirely on its own?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I did read, you are applying blame to Apple for something the NY Post has done.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
It's not apple's fault that "your stupid". (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And then if you try to do it as an app, they reject it because "we don't want your stinking web clippings".
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me. Start with the core assumption that Apple users are sheep, who are unwilling or unable to think for themselves. Thus, they are defenseless against Apple's powerful marketing, much like unarmed civilians against an attacking army. As the invading army must then take responsibility for the safety of the civilians, so must Apple provide the most ideologically-pure (open source, Free, etc.) products to its sheep. Any mishap is therefore Appl
Re: (Score:2)
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
It's a Murdoch property (Score:2)
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.
one more reason not to buy an ipad (Score:2)
i like the *choice* on how to access something.
You read the New York Post!?! (Score:2)
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:
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Restricted devices... (Score:2)
Not good if your using an ipad/iphone in a work environment where they've decided to block you from installing arbitrary apps...
Why read the Post? (Score:2)
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]
Bad Precedent (Score:2)
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.)
"the version I downloaded this morning " (Score:2)
For science, right?
whoa dude (Score:2)
Apps: the New Bubble (Score:2)
A move against iOS5 features? (Score:3)
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).
Lack of understanding of the web (Score:2)
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.
Peak freedom (Score:2)
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
It's the NY Post? (Score:2)
No need (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the New York Times, the New York Post. It's a Rupert Murdoch, Enquireresque, Gotham City mashup.
Re: (Score:3)
If it is awkward to read the news, then I'll simply head elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)