Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 241 posts

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#141

Post by dandelion_lover »

mendelk wrote: post #92

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…

>>I think that would be something I'd like to experience

So what prevents you from exploring I2P? I think this network is exactly what you need :)

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#142

Post by stevenh »

mootothemax wrote: post #139
coldtea wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eternal September? The internet was still great from that regard (tons of people "not producing content for money"), no big central control, no FB/Google/Twitter/etc, until around the time we got Google. 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 wi…

>The internet was still great... until around the time we got Google. Not that I necessarily agree with your assertion, it's worth emphasizing the reason that Google took off: search just plain sucked before Google came on the scene. Personally, my only real issue with Google is the decline in precise search result quality since they got rid of the + operator.

You can search for a precise phrase using quotation marks. You can also prevent Google from returning assumed synonyms of a word by putting that single word in quotes.

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#143

Post by DanBC »

stevenh wrote: post #142
mootothemax wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The internet was still great... until around the time we got Google. Not that I necessarily agree with your assertion, it's worth emphasizing the reason that Google took off: search just plain sucked before Google came on the scene. Personally, my only real issue with Google is the decline in precise search result quality since they got rid of the + operator.

You can search for a precise phrase using quotation marks. You can also prevent Google from returning assumed synonyms of a word by putting that single word in quotes.

Hang on, if I search for "sausages" does Google only return sausages, or does it return chorizo, hotdogs, bangers etc?

What's the difference between "sausages" and 'sausages', or does this not make sense for single words?

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#145

Post by amelius »

rndstr wrote: post #140
smsm42 wrote: post #107

Couple of minutes ago I didn't know about Apple News and didn't care about a superstar architect. Now I still don't care about a superstar architect but already hate Apple News and Wired for presenting me with a link to an article I can not read.

I just made a mental note not to click on any wired link in the future.

Or buy any Apple device (to the extent you can actually "buy" one, in the meaning of owning it after you have paid for it).

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#146

Post by chinathrow »

threeseed wrote: post #86
SyneRyder wrote: post #33

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

Also in there:

http://www.wired.com/2007/07/fbi-spyware-how/

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#147

Post by daenney »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #70
stevesearer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure they only take a cut of ads sold through their iAd system and take 0% cut for ads sold directly by the publication.

Yes and no. This is basically a little bit disingenuous. Today, most publications will use something like DoubleClick to manage their ads, sell a bunch directly to specific companies, setup bidding on some others via another provider hooked into the same system, and then use Google AdSense for the remnant inventory. From my reading of it, on Apple News, you're required to use iAd to manage the inventory. iAd allows y…

That does not appear to be true:

> Earn 100% of the revenue from ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you.

https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#148

Post by chkuendig »

codewithcheese wrote: post #93
threeseed wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some interesting disallows there such as Disallow: /topics/Brooklyn_Police_Department. Can anyone comment on why this is?

That seems to pop up semi-frequently, It's basically a voluntary "right to forget" provided by the publishers.

http://f.cl.ly/items/1o2k3u2J343O3y3X290J/Image%202014-04-07...

http://harpers.org/robots.txt

https://twitter.com/waxpancake/statuses/453024948475293696

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#149

Post by rimantas »

exodust wrote: post #106
btown wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost certain that Apple's long game is to make this the norm. If there's one surefire way to get people addicted to ad blockers, it's to make them available on mobile devices. Once enough content creators start moving content behind News-walls, then Apple can roll out desktop versions of News. And as people then start asking each other "how do I get ad blocking in my browser as well," Apple's well positioned t…

"It's brilliant" Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers into their exclusive native eco-system is nothing but typical tech giant arrogance. Wired publishing stories that when clicked from Google go to place-holders with pointers to native should be penalised by Google search, and I hope they are. There is nothing o…

I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages. As soon as Apple adds this to iOS they are sudenly the bad gays. And before they did add this I am sure there were those not happy about that and ranting about the walled garden.

One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much each "modern" this site in this regard.

Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

#150

Post by rimantas »

sangnoir wrote: post #130
rimantas wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think Apple is interested to be the advertising platform?

You don't have to wonder: Newsstand and iAd already exist. It's not a hypothetical.

Newsstand does not exist any more. iAd… I guess it still exists, but I wonder how long will it last. Ads are very unpopular among iOS users. I doubt Apple was thinking about making much money from it, more like they gave an alternative way to make money to developers.
Post reply on HN