Here's an interesting little new media legal dilemma for you: apparently there are several paid apps in the
iPhone App Store that bill themselves as "readers" for publications like the
New York Times,
CNET, and the BBC, but aren't actually licensed or official in anyway -- they're just pulling RSS feeds. That means people paying for an app like The New York Times Mobile Reader aren't actually getting an app from the
Times -- and, perhaps more importantly, the
Times isn't getting anything from anyone. Seems like Apple should probably just shut these apps down, but that's the interesting part: all these apps are pretty much just custom-built feed readers, and you can generally access all of the same content using Safari. Now, there's obviously a trademark issue involved here, especially if these apps are confusing people into thinking they're official, but we're curious to see how these pubs and Apple handle the situation in the next few weeks, since it's relatively uncharted territory.
P.S.- Let's not even get into the fact that Apple's rated the NYT Mobile Reader app "12+" for "Infrequent / Mild Mature / Suggestive Themes." Oh, the App Store.
posted January 14th 2010 1:23PM
They still biuld the UI for you to be able to read that news. But still it shouldn't be allowed.
@MoonWalkerCTE - or could be offered for free with ad support only. This would be in line with the fact that you could read em via Safari (or any other browser for that matter) the same way, for free with some supporting ads. Apple would be able to say to outfits like the NYT that the aps which are all free simply duplicate what is available via safari for free...
Why shouldn't it be allowed? Opera (the browser) used to have a version you needed to purchase, and all you do with a browser is view other people's content. If Apple allowed other browsers on the app store, should none of them be able to charge?
@MoonWalkerCTE
I agre! This seems fair! You are not forced to pay for the app you can just as well use some other app or the browser.
@mah Also by making a good app he is basically supporting the new yourk times. Since you still need to go to their website to read the whole story.
@MoonWalkerCTE It should be allowed but they should not be allowed to use the term New York Times in the app name. This is copyrighted.
@EGOvoruhk: the difference is you're paying Opera to access ALL content. just like using a customizable RSS reader.
These dedicated 'apps' are stupid, and a rip off. Apple's glad to put them up because they get a cut of the action from stupid users willing to spend a buck on nonsense.
I'm confused here -- I don't own an iphone, but why isn't there just ONE app that will read any RSS feed, and why would you want 10 different ones for 10 different feeds? *scratches head*
@(Unverified)
There are Apps that can read any RSS feed. NetNewsWire being the one that I use.
@(Unverified)
1 Billion apps! From the marketplace filled with enough moron customers that even an RSS reader that only reads one feed is viable!
@sonicyoof
LOL!
@sonicyoof +1 for the troof
Its not like kids 11 and under read the news anways lol.
I can't see a problem with this as long as the publication doesn't have their own App. I get feeds through NetNewsWire and the publications aren't getting any money off of me paying for that App, so what's the difference really?
@BarelakedNadies. yes but they are making money marketing with someone else's trademark. which is wrong.
if it was just an RSS feeder that would be fine
also, Apple doesn't set the ratings, the developers do. all Apple does is require a rating and knock you down if they find out that you lied and underrated an app.
@Charlik
So it's wrong to make 3rd party accessories as well? Because they're making money off of other people's trademarks as well. My car stereo comes with an iPod adapter, but it isn't made by Apple, nor is it certified. Should it not exist?
@EGOvoruhk 3rd party accessory makers PAY to get certified as iPod accessories, and usually have a marker that says iPod-compatible or words to that effect (e.g. "works with iPod"). Not the same by a long stretch...
@BarelakedNadies There's a difference between a general RSS reader, and SELLING a so-called "app" using the name of the organization you're scrapping the feed from.
Apple needs to SERIOUSLY get rid of this cruft.
I like how the news is basically rated PG-13.
As much as I hate that it happened to my org's content, I kinda figure that if we don't like it then we should build our own, better, version. After all, if the content holder gets into the app process they have an inherit advantage over 3rd party apps.
Sometimes I think having a specialized app to consume web content is stupid when all you need is a good web browser. I love the browser on my HTC hero.
@One Love
Agree. A good web browser or one good RSS reader.
Engadget app for iPhone is also unnecessary, IMHO.
@One Love
True, though nothing beats the browser on N900 ;)
I like how Engadget encourages Apple to take action on certain things and then will come back and kick Apple in its @$$ for censoring later. It's pretty damned funny!
@Bosco It's because Apple are being douches when it comes to the app store, but Engadget wants them to at least be consistent douches.
@Bosco
"Censorship" is good hen it fits Engadget's agenda. Banning people for any criticism of Engadget - good. Other companies (actually, one specific company), and it is the most horrible form of "censorship" around.
The reason I put that word in quotes, is I said it once. Nilay jumped all over me, saying that they were not a government entity, and therefore it was not censorship. I agreed (I was using the word in the generic term), but when Engadget used it against a specific company, it is peprfectly fine use of the term.
@NohOne1 What does censorship have to do with these apps?
And yes, if you come into our house and piss on the walls we'll ask to leave. You can debate whether or not it's censorship on your own blog.
@Nilay Patel. You Tell them Nilay!
@Nilay Patel
A little over year ago I was banned for simply saying that Engadget was not real journalism. I made some off-hand comment about "censorship". I was jumped all over by you (I may be a bit wrong here, not sure if it was you or Ryan - if I have the name wrong, my apologies) that you were not a government institution, and my claims of "censorship" were misplaced. I actually agreed with you (or Ryan) that it was not a place of government, so the term censorship did not apply. Which it is all that more funny when the writers around here throw around the term. Don't say you are censoring, but you can throw around the term without any problem whatsoever.
"Do as I say, not as I do"
@Nilay Patel: hmmm.... is it a legal dilemma when Company A uses Company B's name to sell a product to access Company B's content, it said content is free?
Dunno the US legal sitch, but I'd think that the NY Times would be well within their rights to have the 'app' removed, because it's using their name to sell access to their content (which they make available free everywhere else).
aren't licensed in anyway, should be any way.
it would be a totally different story if the app was called "NY Times Reader for iPhone."
the trademark owner has a legitimate gripe if they ask Apple to remove and they don't. Meanwhile, how many employees of the publications do you think are using these apps? I bet many.
O.o Oh Snap!!! more apple drama?!?
You know, this has been going on since the AppStore has been in existence. It's normal.
Feedreaders as apps.
Mapping tools as apps.
Picture viewers as apps
Banking apps
Review apps (like Yelp).
sound tone apps
and anything that resembles as flash app.
Basically more than 1/2 the app store has apps that can be found on the internet, just that Safari is a bloated overhead (on phone standards *AND* just like IE mobile and Chrome) hence why apps are faster though serving the exact same content on the exact same network connection.
What is wrong is companies trying to make a quick buck by having folks pay for apps they can get on Safari. Oh, well, caveat emptor....Imagine paying for the facebook app (luckily it's free!), when you can goto facebook.com on safari and see either the full web version or the mobile (or WAP) version for free. I have to admit, webOS got it right for apps.
Ridiculous. The NYT RSS terms of use do not restrict this in anyway. Furthermore the app is clearly written by a third party k5software. It's just an RSS reader locked to the NYT. They have several apps for news, like cnet. And the NYT has their own free reader up there anyway.
Is there a good app that would let me enter a bunch of feed URLs, and I could view them all from the phone? Safari's redirect solution leaves much to be desired.
@tomsomething Nevermind. That would be a fun project sometime.
Hi I'm a spammer, please email me at: john.agronomu@yahoo.co.uk
Unless the content owner has an issue with it, I don't see why anyone should be upset about it.
"Seems like Apple should probably just shut these apps down..."
Seems like you're just sorta, kinda, probably fishing for words here. These are simple feed aggregators - app types that have been around for ages. The name is simple dev folly or shortsightedness.
Anyone pushing for Apple to remove these apps is just encouraging Apple's evil.
Apple has no moral right to tell users what they can and can't install on their own property. If any user is stupid enough to pay money for a specialized RSS reader when they can buy a universal RSS reader for the same amount of money--well, "a fool and his money are soon parted".
This title should read "unofficial" not unauthorized. You don't need authorization to access an rss feed
@emax
RTFA, the issue here is trademark. These devs are being intentionally deceptive with the "official status" apperance. It's both a legal trademark issue and a violation of Apples TOS for devs of the AppStore.