91–100 of 241 posts
But this is hardly new. I believe a lot of magazines released their article in print first then in their web edition for a wider public access.
Only thing that is wrong here is this offensive reminder that iOS users now have privilege over everyone else. Smart move, Wired. It is an excellent advertisement for Apple News, but not so much for publisher themselves, I believe.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, the whole ad-blocking on ios is a ploy to get the ad-starved publishers, and thus the masses, off the web-based internet and onto in-app content silos such as Apple News.
If they're wildly successful, the only ones left on the traditional internet would be those not producing content for money.
Does that mean I'll be able to experience the internet the way the old-timers reminisce? Before Eternal September[0]?
I've always felt bad I missed thosed times, and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large, I think that would be something I'd like to experience :)
This could backfire. Surely this should result in a Google penalty against Wired.com for publishing thin content? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604719?hl=en If Wired wants the article to be exclusive on Apple News, fine, but in that case it should not be on the website. Keep it exclusively on Apple News. There is no content on this page beyond a headline.
It should be fine if they add it to their robots.txt file. It could alongside the other interesting exclusions: http://www.wired.com/robots.txt
Do you ever wonder what the conversations were like which led to decisions like this?
I have a silly question: If the conspiracy theorists are right, the whole ad-blocking on ios is a ploy to get the ad-starved publishers, and thus the masses, off the web-based internet and onto in-app content silos such as Apple News. If they're wildly successful, the only ones left on the traditional internet would be those not producing content for money. Does that mean I'll be able to experience the internet the w…
There was AOL of course, but that was mostly mocked by people on the "real" internet.
>and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large
Actually, it might be a huge improvement. Technofiles will never go for this, but after a point technology in a societal context can have not just diminishing returns but even spoil good things (like going to a concert in your 20s without being glued to a smartphone screen).
Do you ever wonder what the conversations were like which led to decisions like this?
Pretty much Apple pays a deal to Wired for this exclusive treatment. But why Wired tries to show an empty article that humiliates everyone else is beyond me.
I imagine their bounce rate will be very high if they continue doing this. Other news sites have done similar things such as make you participate in a survey before reading the article. In order for me to open this article before September 22, I would have to copy that link, paste it into an email to myself, open Mail on my phone, and open the link from my own email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Open standards tend to trump closed platforms over time. The opposite is true, and what is happening to the Internet is another example. Telephone, Radio, and Film used to be open but they have since been cornered by cartels. Tim Wu explains this excellently in his book, "The Master Switch."
I will check out that book, thanks. But the history of the web shows how an open network killed the content silos of AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, etc. Yes, now things seem to be swinging back, perhaps due to the popularity of mobile apps and poor user experience of the mobile web.
I believe this is the primary driver. We already have Facebook introducting "free limited Internet" to developing regions of India [0] and mobile carriers in the U.S. already allow certain apps to be excluded from data usage. The open Internet is not a guarantee, and the next generation of web users may not know the 'wild west' we did.