Hence, I just don't read it at all. Tomorrow there will be other news and this article will be already history.
Any extra friction, including extra click to go to Apple News — more churn.
“This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
231–240 of 241 posts
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#232Couple 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 can't imagine having to depend on Apple products. They just seem like the most unfriendly, restrictive company ever.
I use macbooks as my work machines for some time, and Mac OS X ecosystem seems to be open enough to allow productive work and most other uses without too much trouble. So they did pretty well there.
However, the mobile (and adjacent, such as Apple TV, etc.) story is pretty bad, I completely avoid it. I had an iPad which was a gift so I used it for a while, but as soon as I got Android tablet and smartphone I switched and never looked back. As for content services, I'd never go near Apple ones, I've tried to use iTunes, no more, thankyouverymuch.
BTW, last time I looked Apple TV 2 on ebay costs double of Apple TV 3. Because jailbreak.
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#233Couple 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.
Wired's already a bad egg in my book for refusing to allow the first part of their articles in RSS and reader apps like Feedly. While every other website shows me the first paragraph in the app before I tap the link, Wired just gives their bullshit "This article first appeared on Wired" blurb
That's extremely annoying behavior. I get where they coming from - if you read excerpts on RSS you don't visit the site for that, so no ad impressions - but I usually just ignore such sites altogether. I have no time to click on every link in the feed to just know what it is about.
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole site. The site is in the best position to know what is publicly available and which is within the walled garden and should adjust their robots.txt or spider responses to match. You pee in the pool, you have to take a time out.
The one issue I have with that thought (without putting much thought into it myself) is the conflict of interest. By punishing Wired, Google is saying that the only approved (by Google) income stream is through advertising (Google's main revenue stream) and that other types of creative partnerships may lead to websites being downlinked (and downranking past the 1st or 2nd page is almost equivalent to delisting). That…
I see your point especially with google almost having a monopoly in web search, however I think its only fair that a site shows the same thing to humans as it does to web crawler bots, otherwise it opens up a huge can of worms and breaks search with tons of site baiting and switching.
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
The one issue I have with that thought (without putting much thought into it myself) is the conflict of interest. By punishing Wired, Google is saying that the only approved (by Google) income stream is through advertising (Google's main revenue stream) and that other types of creative partnerships may lead to websites being downlinked (and downranking past the 1st or 2nd page is almost equivalent to delisting). That…
I see your point especially with google almost having a monopoly in web search, however I think its only fair that a site shows the same thing to humans as it does to web crawler bots, otherwise it opens up a huge can of worms and breaks search with tons of site baiting and switching.
Yeah. I agree, there should be some signal when looking through searches what is paywall content vs what is free. I'd be for Google punishing sites that don't differentiate (at least without putting to much thought into the subject).
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#236This 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.
Google should penalize sites that do that exactly the way they are penalizing sites with banners telling visitors to get their app. If you want your content on the web and have the benefits of it being on the web (searchable, linkable, etc) put it on the web. If you want it "exclusively on Apple News", put it there. But you shouldn't get to have your cake and eat it too.
Google will do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10155421
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole site. The site is in the best position to know what is publicly available and which is within the walled garden and should adjust their robots.txt or spider responses to match. You pee in the pool, you have to take a time out.
The one issue I have with that thought (without putting much thought into it myself) is the conflict of interest. By punishing Wired, Google is saying that the only approved (by Google) income stream is through advertising (Google's main revenue stream) and that other types of creative partnerships may lead to websites being downlinked (and downranking past the 1st or 2nd page is almost equivalent to delisting). That…
Google is only transitively punishing Wired through their exclusivity agreement with Apple News, where they both decided to wall it off, not anything about creative partnerships or Google ads. Plenty of Google results come from sites that don't use Google advertising features, and walled off content can remain just so.
There is certainly a discussion to be had where major sites are allowing Google to spider paywalled posts such that the content comes up in results based on hidden-to-the-rube words, but that's for another time.
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
"I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for ages..."
The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking.
Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the "business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the cross-hairs, but the web itself.
We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users and developers/publishers.
Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it some much needed extra functionality.
"One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above"
The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#239The article was published with a new url: http://www.wired.com/2015/09/bjarke-ingels-2-world-trade-cen...
Re: “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>perhaps due to the popularity of mobile apps 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. [0] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,…
Facebook free zones are just ad supported ISPs, like NetZero of years ago. Until they actually block non-FB content, it is just grousing about gratis, not libre.