[imitchellg5]

IMHO, it's Apple that is being ridiculous. I sent this email to Steve.

So, Apple have made a legal decision based off of an unverified claim with apparently no process or argument? I assume that since, according to the NYT lawyer, in-app web views are unlicensed "website framing," all iPad Twitter clients will be pulled from the store? Might as well pull the Facebook app as well, since it falls into that category. Love the store!

NYT is free to ask Apple to do anything for all I care, but Apple should not make a decision like this that is detrimental to the developer on an outside source's whim.

[imitchellg5]

Oh, it's back on the App Store.

[Phileas]

You don't understand publishing law - I've run into this myself, when I owned a publishing company.

Fact is, the second you get a complaint, any complaint, you pull content. That's your only defence against the accusation that you knowingly distribute illegal content, which can get expensive quick. So, you pull, you investigate, you make changes if necessary, you reinstate. Or not, as the case might be.

To send a mail to SJ will get you a tired sigh, if you're lucky.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I can. The 128k, iMac, and iPod.

Well, I personally don’t really think the iMac was perfect until it got FireWire, but that’s just me. As for the Macintosh…

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The 128K was very limited[.]

Absolutely. I was only a couple months old when it came out, but I was of the understanding that the ‘Fat Mac’ was the first truly useful Mac, because the 128KB of RAM in the original was just too constrained for much real work. (Excel needed 512KB, for example.)

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The key here is that the OS and applications are designed for low powered hardware vs. a netbook which will most likely be running an OS designed for high powered hardware. Running Windows XP, or even Ubuntu, is painful on a netbook.

And don’t even get me started on the awful keyboards and trackpads that 99% of netbooks ship with. Also, 1024×600 is too small to be useful for a modern, full-blown OS; XGA is the very lowest that’s usable. (Take it from someone who ran Tiger on a Clamshell iBook for a year — those extra 168 vertical pixels make a huge difference.)

Originally Posted by turtle777 

There is exactly two groups of people that are not impressed with the iPad:

Windows fanbois and hardcore geeks.

They make up about 10% of the user base.

Apple decided to f$&k it and not cater to those groups. Best decision ever.

Totally. I think there’s a huge amount of faulty logic surrounding the iPad; specifically, “I use a full-blown computer is quite an advanced way, thus the iPad is useless to me; thus, the iPad is useless to everyone”.

I used to make the mistake of assuming that if something comes to me naturally that it must be easy and come naturally to everyone else, and that if something was right for me, it must be right for everyone. Getting older I’ve realised that this is absolutely not the case at all, and changed my outlook accordingly. I think the iPad’s critics need to make the same adjustment.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What ?

That would mean *ANY* app that accesses the internet had to be free ?

No, you are mistaken. That's NOT the issue here.

-t

I think you are the one who is mistaken. Its not that it accesses the internet. Its a more specific policy. Look it up.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I think you are the one who is mistaken. Its not that it accesses the internet. Its a more specific policy. Look it up.

Well, since it's back in the app store, it seems like the NYT doesn't have a case.

So, makes me think all the people who said this was a stupid stunt were right.

Not sure why you still think they had a case

-t

[Cold Warrior]

I read an update that said the real issue was with using NYT stuff in the screenshots and promo materials. Not any less stupid, but that's the latest clarification.

What would be better is if NYT actually made an app worth using. However, for high-volume news consumers though, RSS is the only way to get what we read from dozens of sites.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I read an update that said the real issue was with using NYT stuff in the screenshots and promo materials. Not any less stupid, but that's the latest clarification.

“You there! Giving us the free advertising! Cease and desist at once!” Brilliant.

What would be better is if NYT actually made an app worth using. However, for high-volume news consumers though, RSS is the only way to get what we read from dozens of sites.

Word.

[Phileas]

If you have terms of use, like "no commercial use of our content", then you need to enforce these terms. If you don't, they become unenforceable, meaning anybody and their dog can start reselling NYT content.

So as stupid as all this sounds, the fault here lies with the, no doubt inexperienced, developers who used NYT content to advertise a commercial product. And that's a huge no.

It looks as if e required changes have been made and all is well again.

[turtle777]

Oh, come on, all this justifying.

Bottom line: NYT acted like f*cking morons, and they realized just in time to no have it completely blow up in their face.

There are no real merits, just back peddling.

-t

[slugslugslug]

Their terms of use are stupid. Especially for RSS. They are just publicly putting those URLs and that content out there. Nobody has to agree to those terms of use. The fact that they may be present in the feed items—or, more likely, in a separate page that the feed links to—doesn’t mean that anybody has agreed to them. They kind of don’t understand why people use RSS.

[slugslugslug]

Also, if the problem was actually about use of their content in promoting the app, I guess they might have a bit of a claim. But then they should have had the developer pull the ads, not the app. And they’re still dumb, since their content (which still appears with ads in Pulse) was getting free promotion.

But yeah, the app itself and the fact that it was being sold, were not commercial use of their content.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, come on, all this justifying.

Bottom line: NYT acted like f*cking morons, and they realized just in time to no have it completely blow up in their face.

There are no real merits, just back peddling.

-t

It has nothing to do with justifying and everything with what's enforceable by law. The rule of thumb for terms of use is: Use them or lose them. Or perhaps, enforce them or they become unenforceable.

I agree that this leads to stupidity, but there you go. There's currently no workable alternative.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, since it's back in the app store, it seems like the NYT doesn't have a case.

So, makes me think all the people who said this was a stupid stunt were right.

Not sure why you still think they had a case

-t

I'm not justifying anything. I was merely stating the rules of the App Store and why Apple decided to pull it. If a company complains about their information being aggregated by someone else for their profit, Apple will pull the app. Just because the NYT decided not to be assholes doesn't change the rules.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

Nobody has to agree to those terms of use. The fact that they may be present in the feed items—or, more likely, in a separate page that the feed links to—doesn’t mean that anybody has agreed to them. They kind of don’t understand why people use RSS.

Just because something is published as an RSS feed doesn't mean that it comes without restrictions. You can put any restriction you like on any content that you publish, in any format.

Again, this does lead to occasional idiocy as showcased here, but the truth is that the developers made a, no doubt innocent, mistake putting the NYT in a position where they had to either enforce their terms of use or risk losing them.

The fact that the app was offline for less than 24 hours tells me that everybody worked together to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible.

[Spheric Harlot]

Nm.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

back peddling.

One of my least-favorite Zimphirisms.

The metaphor is about cycling backwards - back-pedalling - not about selling body parts.

[turtle777]

-t

[driven]

I downloaded the newly re-available Pulse. Not very impressed for the $4. If I am unfortunate enough to click on a New York Times article then it pulls up the whole bloody, slow web-page in mice-type. Pulse is not really an RSS reader in the true sense.

I just deleted the NYT feed from it. Not sure how much use I'll get out of this app. I'll most likely continue to use Fluent News. I wish Apple offered app refunds.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by driven 

I downloaded the newly re-available Pulse. Not very impressed for the $4. If I am unfortunate enough to click on a New York Times article then it pulls up the whole bloody, slow web-page in mice-type. Pulse is not really an RSS reader in the true sense. .

You can choose whether to have content delivered as a web page or as RSS content. Ifvyou don't like one, just switch to the other. For me, the ability to see the actual web page is one of the biggest benefits.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Just because something is published as an RSS feed doesn't mean that it comes without restrictions. You can put any restriction you like on any content that you publish, in any format.

Yes, but who’s agreeing to the restrictions? There’s no method of assuring that anyone gives a shit. And it’s not a copyright issue, because an RSS reader isn’t copying the text any more than a web browser is when you go to the page. You can try to restrict it, and some jackass judge may agree that you have the legal right to, but it doesn’t make any sense, given the way RSS works. The only remotely reasonable way to put restrictions on RSS is to require a membership and use authenticated feeds. But that’d still, by definition, be a restriction on end users, not client software.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

You can choose whether to have content delivered as a web page or as RSS content. Ifvyou don't like one, just switch to the other. For me, the ability to see the actual web page is one of the biggest benefits.

Agreed that it's a nice benefit. But the NYT is the ONLY link that won't let me read an RSS version. It's ALWAYS the full page. No other option for them.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

IMHO, it's Apple that is being ridiculous. I sent this email to Steve. NYT is free to ask Apple to do anything for all I care, but Apple should not make a decision like this that is detrimental to the developer on an outside source's whim.

I don't know much about the controversy, but based on how you describe it you're exactly right. Unfortunately, one thing you find out about corporate policies is that regardless of legal merit, lawyers can threaten things even against major corporations like Apple and often gain compliance just by the mere threat of lawsuit alone. It even happens in cases where the corporation knows it's violating the terms of federal law by doing things like denying service to a client - if the opposition has a persistent lawyer who's threatening to go to court, that lawyer can get a corporation to do nearly anything. (In that example I'm referring to DMCA enforcement issues specifically.)

[Phileas]

I think there are a couple of misunderstandings in this thread.

This not about Pulse delivering NYT RSS content to readers. If the NYT would want to restrict, that they would not publish a public RSS feed in the first place.

This is, or was, about Pulse using NYT content to advertise the app itself.

Publishing, if you own a book store, or an app store for that matter, you are protected by law against the possibility that the goods you're selling are libellous. The law doesn't expect a book store owner to scan all books he's selling, to make sure they comply with the law.

That protection only holds until the second you receive a complaint. If you do not pull whatever content is deemed libellous you're, potentially, sharing culpability. As a result most stores have a policy of pull first, investigate second.

[bigjara]

Hey apple cant win everybody over. As long as they get a good majority, im sure their happy.

[vmarks]

If you aren't passionate about using good tools, then you're forever going to be using mediocre ones. The people who are passionate about creating good tools often need that passionate user feedback loop.

So if you're cool with whatever, that's what you en up getting, and are poorer for it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd say then that the problem is not in his having an opinion, but with the notion that an opinion like this is something worth getting riled up over.

I know that this sounds condescending, but I remember when I used to care about the Mac/PC/whatever wars/battles/debates/whatever, but since becoming more immersed in IT I've become jaded and unattached to my tools. Whatever represents the least amount of work for me and produces the best results I'm cool with. If it's the iPad, great, if not, great. I reserve my passion for the stuff I build/program/create and the techniques I use to do so. To me, hardware and operating systems and the stuff that drives this sort of stuff is not terribly exciting anymore from an ideological standpoint.

I don't know if I'm the only one.

[Shaddim]

Actually, I sort of agree with the OP. We have an iPad and it's nothing really special. It's too big, too hot, and it's kinda sluggish. I guess I'm used to having a small ebook reader along with me, but lugging around an iPad is about the same as carrying my 13" MBP. There isn't as much weight, but you can't just put it in a pocket and go.

Edit: I'm not impressed with their bookstore either, and epub support is rather poor.

[subego]

I think the smaller and lighter a computer you have, the less point there is to an iPad.

Pre iPad, my next laptop was going to be an Air. Now I'll definitely get a 15".

[driven]

There are many shorter trips now that I can leave my laptop at home. (Esp holiday trips). No more security hassle at the airport. No more battery life worries. Certainly a game changer for me.

[subego]

There are a few specific things it can't do, or doesn't do well, but it's otherwise become the only computer I use.

For me, I'd say the two things are:

It's light enough that I can pace with it. It took a bit, but now I can do it without my arm going numb. This obviously isn't just a weight issue. Even a feather-light netbook doesn't have the right form factor for using while walking.

Never goes to sleep/Instant wifi. To me, this is huge. There used to be a bunch of times where I'd go "I should look that up", but it was just too much of a pain in the ass to wait for a hard drive to spin up, or reconnect with a network. Now, it's just not an issue. Not to mention the thing is unobtrusively lying on the centrally located coffee table, or in my hand already.

[besson3c]

No offense subego, but to have something lying around on the coffee table in your house to look something up sporadically sort of affirms a theory I had initially, and that is that in the minds of most people the iPad will just be a toy for gadget/Mac geeks or people with ample disposable income.

What I've been more curious about is whether it becomes more than just a toy as its prominent function, and for more diverse audiences (i.e. not just for gadget geeks).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the smaller and lighter a computer you have, the less point there is to an iPad.

Pre iPad, my next laptop was going to be an Air. Now I'll definitely get a 15".

This. My iPad is my new portable. previously, my next computer was going to be a high end laptop. now, my next computer is going to be a micro-sized desktop.

[driven]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No offense subego, but to have something lying around on the coffee table in your house to look something up sporadically sort of affirms a theory I had initially, and that is that in the minds of most people the iPad will just be a toy for gadget/Mac geeks.

What I've been more curious about is whether it becomes more than just a toy as its prominent function, and for more diverse audiences (i.e. not just for gadget geeks).

Well, my wife keeps hers on the coffee table. I couldn't pay her to sit down in front of a computer before and check her e-mail. Now she actually uses it. She's not a geek by any stretch. In fact, she's extremely computer illiterate. Yet, she loves the iPad.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by driven 

Well, my wife keeps hers on the coffee table. I couldn't pay her to sit down in front of a computer before and check her e-mail. Now she actually uses it. She's not a geek by any stretch. In fact, she's extremely computer illiterate. Yet, she loves the iPad.

If you couldn't pay her to check her email, I'm assuming that she doesn't count on it for work, and it is mostly for social/entertainment purposes?

[driven]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you couldn't pay her to check her email, I'm assuming that she doesn't count on it for work, and it is mostly for social/entertainment purposes?

She uses it for e-mail. She just didn't like walking to the computer, waiting for it to boot up, sign in, go to the mail program, etc.

Now she just picks it up, clicks "mail" and off she goes.

Sorry that she doesn't fit your image of an iPad user.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by driven 

She uses it for e-mail. She just didn't like walking to the computer, waiting for it to boot up, sign in, go to the mail program, etc.

Now she just picks it up, clicks "mail" and off she goes.

Sorry that she doesn't fit your image of an iPad user.

I mean, she doesn't count on email in general for work purposes?

She actually *does* fit my image, that is exactly my point. I suspected that it would catch on to some extent for entertainment and fun and just to have, but I was not so sure whether it would "change the world", and "be Apple's most important device ever". In order to do that it would have to really catch on in other places too. For instance, as a point of sale device, an information kiosk, something used for portable data entry, for creating content/media, programming, word pro, office work, scientific work, a console for sys admins, whatever else...

To me, changing how we entertain ourselves is not as revolutionary as literally changing the face of all computing.

[driven]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I mean, she doesn't count on email in general for work purposes?

She actually *does* fit my image, that is exactly my point. I suspected that it would catch on to some extent for entertainment and fun and just to have, but I was not so sure whether it would "change the world", and "be Apple's most important device ever". In order to do that it would have to really catch on in other places too. For instance, as a point of sale device, an information kiosk, something used for portable data entry, for creating content/media, programming, word pro, office work, scientific work, a console for sys admins, whatever else...

To me, changing how we entertain ourselves is not as revolutionary as literally changing the face of all computing.

No. She does not need/use e-mail for work at all. Mostly to communicate with kid's baseball teams, PTA, scouts, etc. (and me of course!)

I am about to deploy (initially) up to 8,000 iPads for a certain company. They will use it for CRM and for their delivery drivers as a portable catalog/POS/work order device. They will replace a current Windows Mobile deployment. I can't say who just yet. (Project is in play).

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No offense subego, but to have something lying around on the coffee table in your house to look something up sporadically sort of affirms a theory I had initially, and that is that in the minds of most people the iPad will just be a toy for gadget/Mac geeks or people with ample disposable income.

What I've been more curious about is whether it becomes more than just a toy as its prominent function, and for more diverse audiences (i.e. not just for gadget geeks).

I think I have to repeat the part about how with a few exceptions, it's otherwise become the only computer I use.

Originally Posted by subego 

it's otherwise become the only computer I use.

Did I mention it's otherwise become the only computer I use?

Seriously though, I think you underestimate the value of easier access to the internet. My example wasn't meant to be exclusive.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by driven 

No. She does not need/use e-mail for work at all. Mostly to communicate with kid's baseball teams, PTA, scouts, etc. (and me of course!)

I am about to deploy (initially) up to 8,000 iPads for a certain company. They will use it for CRM and for their delivery drivers as a portable catalog/POS/work order device. They will replace a current Windows Mobile deployment. I can't say who just yet. (Project is in play).

That's what I'm talking about, very cool! Let us all know how this goes, when you can... Not just whether you get the gig, but how well the tech works on site.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think I have to repeat the part about how with a few exceptions, it's otherwise become the only computer I use.





Did I mention it's otherwise become the only computer I use?

Seriously though, I think you underestimate the value of easier access to the internet. My example wasn't meant to be exclusive.

What do you use your computer for?

The iPad definitely can be a solid replacement for people that just need a computer to access the internet, it's the rest which I'm not sure about, and I'm not sure whether internet access alone will propel it to be the apparent successor to desktop and laptop computers like it seems to be heralded.

It's not like I don't it is lacking something in particular that can't be addressed... I realize that such a shift will not happen overnight or even this year, I'm just not entirely sure whether it has the momentum yet - i.e. whether people are ready to give up their desktops/laptops. I'm in no hurry to do so myself.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

... lugging around an iPad is about the same as carrying my 13" MBP. There isn't as much weight, but you can't just put it in a pocket and go.

...

WTF are you talking about?

Carrying around an iPad is totally different (and better) than toting around any kind of notebook, including Apple's own MBA.

Access to content via the iPad is instantaneous while you at least have to lift the lid on a notebook and wake it up (this assumes a Mac-In my experience, Windows machines still don't wake from sleep reliably). It may seem like a small difference but that is one of the defining characteristics of the iPad. The difference in weight is also a huge factor. If you think the iPad is too heavy, time for some pull-ups.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What do you use your computer for?

Which computer are you talking about?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The iPad definitely can be a solid replacement for people that just need a computer to access the internet, it's the rest which I'm not sure about, and I'm not sure whether internet access alone will propel it to be the apparent successor to desktop and laptop computers like it seems to be heralded.

It's not like I don't it is lacking something in particular that can't be addressed... I realize that such a shift will not happen overnight or even this year, I'm just not entirely sure whether it has the momentum yet - i.e. whether people are ready to give up their desktops/laptops. I'm in no hurry to do so myself.

I don't understand your focus on it as a replacement. It's more of a compliment.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand your focus on it as a replacement. It's more of a compliment.

Well, I agree... For now...

Hasn't Jobs stated that he sees the iPad as the future direction of all of computing though? Also, do you think that Joe Sixpack wants and can afford a full fledged computer, and something that complements it?

I think Apple is counting on this new form factor and the promise it brings to forge a whole new direction of computing. Whether we are ready for that or the technology is ready for us is the part that I'm ambivalent about.

[mkerr64]

ya i guess not too many people like it...
Apple: 3 Million Magical iPads Sold

as if.

[driven]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's what I'm talking about, very cool! Let us all know how this goes, when you can... Not just whether you get the gig, but how well the tech works on site.

We've got the gig, but there is a lot of code to be written and a lot of things to happen to make this a success. I'll try and update when it's done. We are looking at 6-8 months. That said: There is lots of interest from other companies in using the iPad. (More than I've ever seen for any other mobile device, including the iPhone.) It's looking quite promising, but as usual, I hope the "interest" is more than just tire-kicking.

[imitchellg5]

Can I just say that after using the iPhone 4 a few times, the iPad's screen is much less attractive, especially for iBooks...

[driven]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Can I just say that after using the iPhone 4 a few times, the iPad's screen is much less attractive, especially for iBooks...

I can't imagine reading a book on a screen the size of the iPhone. I just can't. My poor eyes.

[Phileas]

The iPad has all but replaced my laptop for use at home, so much so that I am leaving the MBP at work four night out of five. My wife hasn't used her old MB for weeks now.

With the addition of dropbox and Pages it does everything I need it to do in the evening. I've even started taking it to client meetings to present from.

[mattyb]

I didn't want to start a new thread, apologies if this is a bit of a digression. I'm very close to getting an iPad, and those that use it have convinced me 99%, but I'd like to know what you miss, stuff that the iPad cannot do.

Just for info what I use my iMac for :

CVs, letters, writing docs with Word usually, I suppose that I could use Pages.
Reading pdfs, chm files.
Playing music.
Watching films, documentaries with Quick Time or VLC.
Editing films made with camcorder in iMovie.
Spending far too much time trying to make my photos better with Aperture.
Surfing with Firefox.

Do you miss Flash? TBH I wouldn't have a clue which sites use Flash or not that I visit, so I don't know if its important for my browsing habits or not.

[Spheric Harlot]

Install Click2Flash on your iMac for an idea.