

Pulse iPad App Returns to the App Store  - ssclafani
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100608/pulse-ipad-app-returns-to-the-app-store/

======
naner
> The Terms of Use on our RSS feeds makes it clear that the RSS feeds are
> available for non-commercial use only. By charging for an app ($3.99) that
> gives users access to our RSS feeds, they are violating that provision of
> the Terms of Use.

How amazingly stupid and unenforceable.

~~~
bad_user
Don't you have to buy an iPhone first to view their RSS feeds through Pulse?

Doesn't that also violate their Terms of Use?

~~~
tlrobinson
Presumably the problem they have is with the RSS feed being preloaded in the
app and used to market it, not the fact that commercial products can consume
the feed.

------
ThomPete
Pulse is doing what New York times should be doing. Making an aggregator of
all news both from themselves and other newspapers and sources and instead
fight over who has the best newsreader.

This is so obvious and yet pride and politics completely cloud their minds.

I want to read news, the best news by the best sources. I am willing to both
pay for that and would even accept advertising. I don't care who it's from, it
doesn't matter. Just serve me adds but at least give me one entrance point
instead of twenty.

It's incredible that newspapers don't see the opportunity.

They don't, believe me my company have tried to convince a couple of them.

------
kristiandupont
If this is where it stops, that's a pretty solid marketing boost for Pulse!

------
cwp
It would be nice if Apple put the app back because they decided the Times'
complaint was baseless. If Apple is willing to stick up for developers that do
abide by the terms of service and contribute to the iOS ecosystem, that would
serve to mitigate the heavy-handedness we've seen from them so far.

~~~
awa
Nope. Apple put the app back because of the bad press they are getting. I am
sure if this wasn't all over the Internet pulse would have been back.

~~~
jonursenbach
That doesn't make sense at all. What about the countless other apps that have
been taken down? They got _tons_ of bad press over Google Voice and where's
that at? Right, relegated to a webapp.

------
Zak
This really sounds like the NYT shooting itself in the foot to make a point,
and I'm not even sure what point they're trying to make. How does an app that
makes it more likely for people to view the NYT website do anything but help
the NYT?

~~~
panacea
I would imagine the conversation inside NYT HQ went along the following lines:

"The iPad is our saviour! It's the platform we've been looking for to regain
our foothold in dictating the form factor and payment structure for our
content."

"Someone is stealing our content on the platform :( Does anyone have Apple's
number? They seems to be down with the whole 'form factor and payment
structure ownership' thingy"

------
raintrees
More comments regarding same: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1414235>

------
bsgamble
No word on their site, just a tweet from @pulsepad that indicates that they
are back with a link to the App Store.

I'm glad it's back - I didn't get to grab it this morning and just got it.

~~~
aditya
I feel like it's a beautifully designed app but the limitation of 20 sources
only is annoying, and I'm not sure the $4 is well spent anymore.

~~~
bphogan
I immediately embraced the 20 sources. I can't honestly pay attention to any
more than that. This keeps me focused - I have to choose what feeds I'm going
to watch. I looked at my google reader feed and honestly I had over 100 feeds
in there but I really only ever read about 10 or so. I've found that for me,
information overload causes productivity paralysis. So I like the limitation
of 20.

~~~
Naga
Or, individual users can limit how many sources they have, and not make it
difficult for users who like more feeds to use more.

------
tjmaxal
I'd like to think that we and others like us had something to do with
pressuring Apple to add pulse back to the app store.

