iPad Pulse Reader app goes from keynote hero to App Store zero thanks to NYT (update -- it's back!)
By Vlad Savov 
posted June 8th 2010 3:33PM
posted June 8th 2010 3:33PM
Update: From what we're reading, it sounds like what the NYT is really complaining about is that its feeds are preloaded into Pulse, and that Pulse is using NYT content and images in its promotional materials, not that Pulse is a paid app. Seems like those are easy fixes -- we'll see what happens.
Update 2: And it's back! As we guessed, it looks like all Pulse had to do was resubmit without preloading the NYT's RSS feed and take some new screenshots of different sites, so that's just peachy. Still, it's insanely troublesome that Apple's first response is to just pull apps without verifying any claims or allowing devs to respond -- your store is still broken, Steve, no matter what percentage of apps you're approving.
Ouchie
Well it's a fair call really. Regardless if it was Apple who some nobody that made it. T&C's should always(at least if you're making a program) be read.
Yes, ouch,ouch,ouch!
@Federaly
Yes, especially when the TOC says not to read the publicly available HTTP or RSS published data on browser X or Operating System Y. Its a no no... and don't look or think about it on LCD displays from maker A, B or C.
@Federaly Shouldn't all paid RSS apps, of which I have tested a half a dozen that do practically the same thing, be removed from the app store as well. All Pulse does is access a public RSS feed and allow easy navigation of feeds. It displays the same content, including the full NYT's webpage. I am particularly bitter about this because I love pulse. It may not be the optimized for getting through tons and tons of feeds but for a more laid back reading experience it is by far the best. I really hope they work this out and get the app back up soon.
@BrandonHarris
lol Steve had a bad day
@BrandonHarris
I think if the claim by New York Times is legitimate, Apple should pay them for the damage.
I mean c'mon Apple bans like 90% of Apps and they sue everyone they want, this was an accidental mistake by Apple and they should pay the way they make other companies pay for their accidental mistakes.
@Warai I think that the problem with Pulse was that the feeds were pre-packaged. I'll bet if they were removed, but could be added manually by the user, that might be satisfactory.
@Kangal This is the most backwards logic I've ever seen. By your reasoning, you wouldn't be able to view the NYT feed on a Windows or Mac computer (or an ipad), just because you paid for the OS. Maybe you think people shouldn't be able to use it on ANY computer unless you got the hardware itself for free? How does that make any sense?
$4 is too expensive for a RSS reader, and the ipad is a joke anyway, but the NYT is completely wrong on this one. Either they make RSS feeds available to the public, or they don't. Putting anything up on the internet that isn't behind a paywall is equivalent to a public broadcast.
@Steveorevo Why is it so hard for people to understand that you are not allowed to steal other peoples content and make $$ off of it? At least not forever?
Fact: its well within any content creators rights to restrict content as much as they want.. that is at their peril.. or profit the market will ultimately decide if they want to pay the NYT organization for a subset of its online subscription for more money than the web version when viewed on an iPad...
Fact: Apple has to respect the wishes of the content provider who feels they are being infringed.. they are not in the position to "dictate terms" despite what the haters/fanbois seem to think.. Apple is still ultimately no different from any other company.. and if this was a "set top box" sold at walmart, and NBC or one of the other content creators said "they wont change their ways, we will sue you if you dont remove it from the store" then walmart would have to remove it as well.
@jabbathewocket
"Why is it so hard for people to understand that you are not allowed to steal other peoples content and make $$ off of it? At least not forever?"
- Nobody is disputing this.
"Fact: its well within any content creators rights to restrict content as much as they want.. that is at their peril.. or profit the market will ultimately decide if they want to pay the NYT organization for a subset of its online subscription for more money than the web version when viewed on an iPad..."
- Nobody is disputing this.
"Fact: Apple has to respect the wishes of the content provider who feels they are being infringed.. they are not in the position to "dictate terms" despite what the haters/fanbois seem to think.. Apple is still ultimately no different from any other company.. and if this was a "set top box" sold at walmart, and NBC or one of the other content creators said "they wont change their ways, we will sue you if you dont remove it from the store" then walmart would have to remove it as well."
- Nobody is disputing this.
Fact of the matter is, the NYT puts a feed out there in the PUBLIC. An RSS reader, paid or not, is not a "commercial use" of the feed.
@jabbathewocket Nobody is stealing content by using an RSS feed. The whole point of the existence of an RSS feed is the ability to access headlines from other software/sites not owned by the content provider. Some of that software is paid (Outlook), some is free (web browser).
The problem here is that the NYT seems to have singled out one piece of software. The reality is, they aren't mad simply because the software costs money. They're mad because the NYT app is a flagship iOS app, and this other program comes along, gets air time, and offers a non-NYT provided means of access to that same information. This is a turf war, not an IP problem.
Pulse is back up. The Times RSS feed is gone now.
@mmurfin87 On top of that, now that we know it's the press images that are the problem, why would they want them removed?? Free advertising/new readers drawn in from the preloaded feed.
I don't really get it.
@josah You should look into the law on this matter.. By putting out "broadcast tv" that does not allow any and all sundry to rebroadcast/repackage it and make a profit off of it (or for that matter to insert their own commercials and rebroadcast it) I point you at the US networks vs canadian television.
Its quite clearcut that pulse developers are using other peoples work to benefit themselves without permission. And yet again the fact that the product is on the itunes app store, means nothing in this context, it would have been just as swiftly removed from the android store, or any other vendor on the planet for the same reasons.
The faster folks realize that its not "ok" to blindly ignore copyright in the quest to get rich quick, the better off they will be. At its most basic this comes down to "dont pay for NYT reader app/subscription we can give it to you for free, just pay us 4$ once" which is not an acceptable use, any more than breaking any other TOS/EULA is.
@jabbathewocket I'm not much the ha-ha type, but do you still stand by everything you've said considering the update to the story has pretty much made all of your reasoning out to be wrong?
/btw, there are several NYT readers on the Android market
I see. So ISP's should be banned to deliver NYT's site also, because they charge people for this delivery.
Or if I made a commercial browser, they would also ban it, because I charge for the software that delivers their free content.
@cripkd
Errr it only stipulates RSS feeds...thats it. Really people getting all angry over a fair call.
@cripkd - not exactly. ISPs charge you for access to the entire internet. If they were SPECIFICALLY charging you a set fee to access these news organizations' RSS feeds, then yes, they would be in the wrong. Same with making a browser, if it charges extra to include those specific sites, only then is it violating the terms.
The crux is, you can't charge money to access the news feeds from certain news providers - the only ones with the right to make money off their feed is the news provider itself.
@cripkd
All the have to do is not include the feed by default...Sheesh.
@cripkd Or Opera or any "paid" application. This is insane and just another snapshot of 'old' media digging its own grave.
@cripkd
Agree. I'm all for intellectual property and privacy and NYT shouldn't use a public service like Really Simple Syndication and make it not so Simple. Instead, they should use pay for use commercial service, or lock down their feed with a secure or login session. There is not even a disclaimer anywhere in NYT's feed, kinda hard to claim foul.
@Vrmithrax Well, I don;t see it charging you for content. They charge you to use their app, which they invested time and money in, right?
They have other feeds in there, so it wasn't made with the purpose of delivering free media for money. You're paying for the confort the app provides you, not for what it actually delivers.
Hey, maybe they render the news in a nicer font, easier to read. Do i have the right to charge for that?
@Vrmithrax Your logic is flawed. RSS is an open and free way to easily distribute information in any shape or form. If you dont like that somebody is selling a software to serve those feeds to people, you shouldnt be using RSS like the NYT does. Its really that simple. But not in apple-land, it seems...
This is a prime example for apples inability to run their appstore in a consisten fashion. There is and has been for years, a boatload of RSS readers in the appstore that cost money and even more for free. And nobody, including the NYT, cared thus far. Suddenly, they scream bloody murder because it was mentioned in public and apple scrambles to swings the censorbat.
This is horsecrap.
@Bahumbug - nothing flawed with my logic: if they are charging for a product, and actively promoting it as using something from one of these outfits (like the NY Times), then THAT is the issue. It becomes a competing product to the NYT application, either directly or indirectly, and is (theoretically) using the NYT's intellectual property for commercial profit.
As others have said below, just remove the built-in RSS feeds to those sites that have the restrictions on commercial use, and the problem should go away. If the consumer adds the RSS feed themselves after the fact, then there is absolutely nothing that guys like the NYT can say or do about it, short of ceasing their own RSS feed. If, however, the application in question is built completely around these protected RSS feeds, and the application relies on them as an integral part of its operation, then there are definitely legal grounds to fight it.
They should have priced it at $.99 or better yet make it free. There are a lot of web based RSS portals out there so there's no point pricing this app at $4. iGoogle anyone?
@robott You're free to use a free alternative. Just because you wouldnt pay for it, doesnt mean nobody would. And apparently, people did pay money for it..
Nothing mysterious about it... Outfits like the NY Times are looking at the iPad (and similar digital venues) as a lifeline to help save them from their shriveling readership and subsequent financial woes. Allowing another competing product to use their feeds to make money would be suicide, so they start screaming and get it pulled. If anyone should make $ off the NYT stories, it should just be NYT (you know, the ones that actually pay the journalists to write the stuff, travel to the story, etc).
@Vrmithrax
I bet back in the day blaskmiths were up in arms about the newfangled cars and all.
/things evolve, professions come and go
@Vrmithrax If they want to charge for their content, they should stick it behind a paywall. Using RSS is equivilent to broadcasting on a public frequency. You can't start a FM radio station and then try to sue Panasonic because they're charging people for radios. All this "only allowed on the software/devices that we approve of" stuff is BS. This is why net neutrality needs to become law.
@whiskers - oh, no doubt. And just because I can see the reason behind the move, don't think I'm a proponent for it - these guys have created a public RSS feed, so they are the ones who have fed the fire that they are now trying to pee on to put it out...
And yes, things evolve, which is what the news organizations are trying to do (with only marginal success so far). But, honestly, the blacksmith thing is only comparable if people walking by their smithy could look at a nice piece the smith had produced, then snap their fingers and have a perfect duplicate in their hands, while never giving the smith a dime... I'm just sayin... :-)
@Chip
Net neutrality has nothing to do with NYT, RSS, and Pulse or any other such situation. And the people how support net neutrality support NYT's position.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/
@StraightUp One of the main tenants of net neutrality is "all content on all devices". All this BS about trying to lock out certain platforms or certain software is anti-competitive and absurd. As I said, RSS is equivalent to public broadcast. They have no more right to specify which readers are allowed to access a feed than a radio station does of specify which brand of radio can tune in a channel. NYT's argument that they should get to decide which devices can access their feed is identical to the cable company's argument that they should get to specify whose content goes through their network. It is ABSOLUTELY a matter of net neutrality, even if you don't see it.
Easy solution, remove the NYT and allow people to add their own feeds.
If customers want NYT, then they can add it manually.
@Silver This. Then they can sell it as their "superior RSS reader" where the charge is purely for the app, and not its content.
@Silver - that should work perfectly... As long as they don't charge for each use of the aggregation service, it wouldn't technically be any kind of violation that I can see. Once NYT puts out an RSS feed, they can't put the genie back in the bottle and pick and choose which RSS readers can access their site, or limit which consumers can see it.
@Silver Exactly what I was thinking. If NYT was reporting infringement to sell its own iPad app, it didn't do that much good.
Seems like a bit of a dickish move. As long as they give writing credit i dont see the problem
@d0mth0ma5 - it's quite simple really: giving credit alone doesn't pay any bills.
@NewL You work for the Times, don't you?
@d0mth0ma5 - companies like the NY Times are drowning financially, readership and advertising are shriveling up as more and more people look to digital services for their news fix. This isn't a "dickish" move, it's survival. Just getting credit for a story someone else makes money on, that doesn't cover the pay that the NYT had to fork out to the journalist who wrote the story...
@paper1337 - no, but I do have some common sense.
Would you be happy if one of your direct competitors in an newly established market makes money off of your content without giving you anything for it? Yeah, I thought so.
@NewL No, its even simpler. Dont friggin' offer RSS as a media corporation if you dont understand the concept of it.
@Bahumbug - what "concept of" RSS? It's a distribution method. Nothing about its definition says that content delivered by RSS is completely free to use for whatever thing you want to do, now does it?
The NYT RSS ToS obviously forbid any commercial usage, and since Pulse costs money and comes pre-bundled with the NYT RSS feed, it's commercial usage. Simple.
@Vrmithrax
Why does the times have a public RSS feed if they don't want anyone reading it in this manner?
@Vrmithrax
The "survival" excuse doesn't negate the fact that they're being dicks.
They have chosen to provide an RSS feed. Any RSS reader should be free to read that data without them throwing a hissy fit or throwing their weight around with Apple.
This is a clear abuse of influence that should embarrass anyone associated with journalism.
@jedi - and anyone associated with journalism should be sickened by plagiarism for profit... so what's your point?
But, putting aside the idiotic fact that these news companies put out an RSS feed, and now want to control when and how that genie gets out of the bottle... Maybe people should think about the consequences if these news companies have no say in how or when they can make money on their own material... It's a business, if they can't make money, they fail. If there are no protections, they will ALL fail. And then where do we get our news from? Who will then pay for the people to go on location to get the stories? Who will then edit and make sure that the stories aren't complete crap, and can actually be read by the consumer? Where will all the revenue needed behind the scenes come from? (And I know, it's extreme, I'm just trying to make a point that there are other sides to the issue).
Get pissy with these news organizations all you want, they still have every right to fight for their lives. It's always easier to be on the outside looking in, and armchair quarterback the entire game, when you have no real personal stake in the outcome.
@Vrmithrax no one is denying them their money, but again, they put the RSS feed out there. Any reader can read it (I do it on my Pre with Newsroom). This company is charging for the work they put into their app, not the feed. At most, ask for them to NOT have the feed in their by default, but they can't start choosing who can use their feeds based on what they paid for their reader of choice.
@MFrasier - 100% agree. The problem seems to be that there is some kind of implied connection between this app and the news organizations who are protesting. Take those news organization feeds out of the defaults (and any associated advertising or product summaries) and all the problems go away. If the newsies have issues after that, then they should go find whoever decided to put together an RSS feed in the first place, and kick them squarely in the crotch.
They disable ads on the articles, which is a big problem. They display them, but don't allow interaction. Not good.