

New York Times APIs - raldu
http://developer.nytimes.com/docs

======
flocial
From their FAQ:

11\. What do you mean by "commercial purposes"? Here are a few examples of
what we consider commercial purposes:

1\. Selling New York Times content or data in any application. 2\. Charging a
subscription fee for any New York Times content or data. 3\. Selling any
application built with one of our APIs.

If you are making more than 5,000 calls per day (via an application or any
other method) to an individual API, we will notice that and assume you're
using our API for a commercial purpose. Please contact us if you have hit that
limit but do not think you are using the API for a commercial purpose.

\---------

It looks enticing but I'm not entirely sure if these limitations negate the
purpose of the API existing (aside from internal use and hobbyists using it
for personal purposes).

~~~
boise
What do view as the purpose of the API existing?

~~~
flocial
It just seems like a blanket ban on any commercial applications without some
kind of payment and a very small request limit (5000), limits people who will
even consider experimenting with it. It seems more geared for web
applications/sites that have no native phone apps.

~~~
superuser2
Make the API requests from your server and serve clients yourself?

------
chatmasta
We're living in an exciting time for the media industry. Traditional
companies, with their origins in paper-based news distribution, have no choice
but to change their business models. The content supply chain, fundamentally,
must look something like this:

NYT[ journal -> write -> edit -> publish -> distribute]

Content has to be produced, and it has to be distributed. In general, any
piece of content will flow along that chain.

Before the Internet, the "old guard" of media -- _The_ Times, _The_ Post, etc.
-- held a monopoly on the entire supply chain. They found the sources, wrote
the articles, and even delivered them to your door, printed and ready to read.
It would have been difficult for an outside company, or industry, to encroach
on any part of the NYT business. Why would the NYT surrender part of such a
valuable supply chain? By controlling content from production to distribution,
they were able to charge higher prices for it.

But now, the distributive power of the Internet has broken the supply chain in
half, resulting in new economic specialization. Buzzfeed beats the NYT in
distribution, but the NYT beats Buzzfeed in production quality. Now, the
supply chain looks more like:

NYT[ journal -> write -> edit -> publish] -> [distribute]BUZZ

It seems that there is a place for both Buzzfeed and the NYT on the supply
chain. One can control, and should specialize in, the production of content.
The other can distribute it.

Old media companies are finally "waking up" to the threat of content
distribution experts like Buzzfeed. The Guardian, WaPo, and the NYT have
fantastic tech departments forming a smart digital strategy. They recognize
that yes, Buzzfeed is taking part of their supply chain, but no, Buzzfeed
cannot compete with the NYT on journalistic integrity. As long as the NYT
employs the staff that it does, with writers of decades of experience and
connections in the industries they cover, there will be a demand for NYT
content. Some of that demand may come from end-consumers, and some may come
from distribution companies like Buzzfeed. But the fact of the matter is, the
NYT can still own the production part of the supply chain, and it makes sense
to mitigate the threat to their distribution models by selling production
"wholesale" to distributors.

This move from the NYT is a great milestone for their digital strategy.
They're recognizing that content, like any product, has a supply chain and
production process. They know they own the production process, but the
Internet has enabled new companies to own downstream parts of the supply
chain. So by releasing API's to their raw content, they are providing access
to their raw product for any company who might want to sell it.

~~~
rickyyean
If NYT specializes in the production of content, others would have to value
their content over others. I think that's part of the problem. The kind of
content the NYT produces is not that valuable. Investigative journalism, which
is the hardest and most expensive part of what they do, is valued only by a
very small number of people.

~~~
bdevani
I think this comment vastly underestimates the value of something, placing it
only within a marketplace context. Investigative journalism, by actual
journalists and not bloggers, is a cornerstone of what we need in a society.
Otherwise institutions simply continue unchecked.

The API is the same as anything. NYT specializes in content, Google Translate
specializes in machine translation of text. You pay for what you need.

We should be able to come up with some pretty cool uses for nyt api
considering the insane amt of content it provides access to. the OP is just
one.

~~~
Fede_V
This is sort of the crux of the problem though. Top ten kitten lists of the
kind Buzzfeed specializes in, are a much better deal in terms of
eyeballs/dollar although they have a much lower social utility than say, a
well reported piece about the war in Syria or the spread of Ebola.

The NYT and the Guardian are trying a bunch of different approaches to improve
their income. Honestly, a world where even a world class newspaper like the
NYT struggles to be profitable is a scary place.

------
jasonmoo
It's a pretty nice set of apis. I wrote an app that overlays the events feed
onto google maps for geo eventin goodness.

[http://nyevent.in](http://nyevent.in)

Source:
[https://github.com/jasonmoo/eventin](https://github.com/jasonmoo/eventin)

------
maxharlow
The Guardian also has an API:
[http://explorer.content.guardianapis.com/](http://explorer.content.guardianapis.com/)

~~~
jawerty
This is really cool. I think these news APIs are really under appreciated

------
mark_l_watson
I occasionally use about three of their APIs. Really good stuff.

Take a look at the semantic API that provides NYT's controlled vocabulary for
entities.

------
jjallen
They don't tell you what the limit is:

"12\. Is there an API call limit? When you register for an API key, you'll
receive information about limits and other Terms of Use. If you approach a
limit, a warning e-mail will automatically be sent to you."

[http://developer.nytimes.com/docs/faq#6](http://developer.nytimes.com/docs/faq#6)

~~~
jfiore
It varies by API, and is specified when you register for keys.

------
rodrigoavie
Nice, what abou a Ruby wrapper for this API? Like this
[https://github.com/rodrigoalvesvieira/NYTimesAPI](https://github.com/rodrigoalvesvieira/NYTimesAPI)

------
xiepie
Newswire API has great potential! It would be a good resource for creating
alerts for specific type of news.

~~~
jfiore
IFTTT did just that, and more, to create a number of the triggers in the
NYTimes channel (all powered by our public APIs)

[https://ifttt.com/nytimes](https://ifttt.com/nytimes)

------
marban
What's new about it? Just saw I have an app there that dates back to 2008.

------
ww520
What is the pricing structure once exceeded the daily call limit?

------
aceperry
Nice, good to see the NY Times adapting to newer technologies.

------
LeicaLatte
the API is a great idea.

So I tried signing up for an account. Their on-boarding process - prehistoric.
Nope.

~~~
bdevani
I think it'd be totally worth reaching out to them with recs on how to update
the on-boarding process.

~~~
jfiore
Hi there, I'm on the team responsible for the public APIs -- and we'd
absolutely love to hear more :)

Some people love the single sign on (our developer registration is tied to the
normal NYTimes.com registration) and some people hate it -- but we're always
listening for direct feedback about what's wrong with the process.

------
kewinwang
coooool

------
kewinwang
coool

------
naturalethic
setLimitsPublicDiscourse() worshipGovernment()
provideIntellectualLeftistAirOfAuthority() makeBrokenWindowFallacy()
scrambleToStayRelevant() winPulitzerAndOrNobel()

~~~
stefan_kendall3
I've seen a lot of broken window fallacy recently. I've heard it a lot in the
past few days, mostly with respect to Syria.

