
“This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday” - esolyt
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/bjarke-ingels-2-world-trade-center-wtc
======
SyneRyder
This could backfire. Surely this should result in a Google penalty against
Wired.com for publishing thin content?

[https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604719?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604719?hl=en)

If Wired wants the article to be exclusive on Apple News, fine, but in that
case it should not be on the website. Keep it exclusively on Apple News. There
is no content on this page beyond a headline.

~~~
JohnTHaller
Google should penalize sites that do that exactly the way they are penalizing
sites with banners telling visitors to get their app. If you want your content
on the web and have the benefits of it being on the web (searchable, linkable,
etc) put it on the web. If you want it "exclusively on Apple News", put it
there. But you shouldn't get to have your cake and eat it too.

~~~
alexc05
I'm not sure I agree that there's a problem here.

Time limited exclusive content on puff pieces just isnt a priority for me.

I mean, wired is given ng the content away free. I don't have a "human right"
to read this.

Is it a slippery slope? Perhaps. What if real news gets walled off like this?
US presidential debates being on cable only (or TV only for cord cutters)
seems a bigger problem to me.

There's a lot of nuance to this issue, but I lean towards wired being fine.
Though, I don't think the headline should have been displayed on the main page
of non apple news devices, I don't know if it was. We all got there via a
hacker news direct link.

~~~
SyneRyder
It was listed at the top of Wired.com for regular web browsers earlier today,
in their Latest News column. It now appears to have been pulled from that
section, even if you click through to the archives.

------
JohnTHaller
Wired will be losing ad revenue due to Apple adding ad blocking abilities to
mobile Safari. So, Wired moves content to Apple News which has ads that can't
be blocked (and Apple conveniently takes a nice juicy cut of).

~~~
btown
It's almost certain that Apple's long game is to make this the norm. If
there's one surefire way to get people addicted to ad blockers, it's to make
them available on mobile devices. Once enough content creators start moving
content behind News-walls, then Apple can roll out desktop versions of News.
And as people then start asking each other "how do I get ad blocking in my
browser as well," Apple's well positioned to be the only unblockable
advertising platform, period. They could even use iTunes as a vector to
deliver an Apple News desktop app to Windows machines.

It's brilliant and will completely change the balance of power in online
advertising. Google will not be happy...

~~~
exodust
"It's brilliant"

Locking away articles in native apps so people can't block ads isn't
brilliant. Apple encouraging ad blocking on the web to "nudge" publishers into
their exclusive native eco-system is nothing but typical tech giant arrogance.

Wired publishing stories that when clicked from Google go to place-holders
with pointers to native _should_ be penalised by Google search, and I hope
they are. There is nothing on the Google results page to indicate the link is
anything less than the content.

Native app "content browsers" are all about less control for users. Native has
always been about that. Sometimes less control works for users. No
distractions, just minimal concentrated function. Other times, like with news
articles, users are missing out on basic things like bookmarking; sharing the
link - there isn't even a link; accessibility is out the window; copy and
paste is out the window; discussion and comments are all but closed/extinct;
no choice of browser to access the article. It's not good news for users.

~~~
rimantas
I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for
ages. As soon as Apple adds this to iOS they are sudenly the bad gays. And
before they did add this I am sure there were those not happy about that and
ranting about the walled garden.

One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above pretty much
each "modern" this site in this regard.

~~~
exodust
_" I don't get it. Firefox and Chrome had ability to install ad blockers for
ages..."_

The point is, while introducing ad-blocking for iOS Safari, Apple are
simultaneously promoting a separate platform that is immune to ad-blocking.

Apple would call it "business" and that would be valid. But when the
"business" involves shifty one-two deals with publishers like Wired, whereby
the website becomes nothing more than a jump-point to the app, suddenly we
have a situation where not just particular technologies like Flash are in the
cross-hairs, but the web itself.

We like the web, remember? When it works well it's the most accessible, light-
weight, least technical-debt means to online content there is, both for users
and developers/publishers.

Note that Apple are not allowing developers to write any old add-on for iOS
Safari. Imagine if they opened up add-ons for Safari? That would be worth
applauding. We could then fix many of iOS Safari's shortcomings, and give it
some much needed extra functionality.

 _" One more thing about accessibility: iOS is head and sholders above"_

The web has more accessible characteristics built-in because of the way the
data is openly available to different clients. Native apps controlled by one
vendor like Apple are the complete opposite. Regardless of some advances in
accessibility options within apps, accessibility isn't among the "out of the
box" strengths of the technology you get for free like you do for web.

------
mendelk
I have a silly question:

If the conspiracy theorists are right, the whole ad-blocking on ios is a ploy
to get the ad-starved publishers, and thus the masses, off the web-based
internet and onto in-app content silos such as Apple News.

If they're wildly successful, the only ones left on the traditional internet
would be those not producing content for money.

Does that mean I'll be able to experience the internet the way the old-timers
reminisce? Before Eternal September[0]?

I've always felt bad I missed thosed times, and while this would certainly be
a regression for the society at large, I think that would be something I'd
like to experience :)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

~~~
coldtea
Eternal September? The internet was still great from that regard (tons of
people "not producing content for money"), no big central control, no
FB/Google/Twitter/etc, until around the time we got Google.

There was AOL of course, but that was mostly mocked by people on the "real"
internet.

> _and while this would certainly be a regression for the society at large_

Actually, it might be a huge improvement. Technofiles will never go for this,
but after a point technology in a societal context can have not just
diminishing returns but even spoil good things (like going to a concert in
your 20s without being glued to a smartphone screen).

~~~
JustSomeNobody
> The internet was still great ... until around the time we got Google.

Correlation but not necessarily causation.

~~~
romaniv
You have to admit that after establishing its dominance Google started to
dictate its own rules for web design, rather than adapting to the pages people
already had. Google's algorithm that places incoming links above anything else
for relevance is singlehandedly responsible for forum spambots, fake websites,
and the dynamic where new websites have no chance to compete with something
established, unless they run some kind of marketing campaign to "seed" the
links.

------
smsm42
Couple of minutes ago I didn't know about Apple News and didn't care about a
superstar architect. Now I still don't care about a superstar architect but
already hate Apple News and Wired for presenting me with a link to an article
I can not read.

~~~
rndstr
I just made a mental note not to click on any wired link in the future.

~~~
amelius
Or buy any Apple device (to the extent you can actually "buy" one, in the
meaning of owning it after you have paid for it).

~~~
kalleboo
And also move to the US (or some other supported country, I couldn't find a
list within 2 Google searches)

------
danboarder
This reminds me of the early days of CompuServe and Prodigy, which had
exclusive content*. It worked for a while until the open web became the bigger
audience that dwarfed all others. I think the big players now may be repeating
patterns of the past. Open standards tend to trump closed platforms over time.
If this is the case it presents an opportunity to create a new open version of
what Apple is doing now. Web 4.0?

News publications launch exclusive online content 1990-94:
[http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/carlson/1990s.shtml](http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/carlson/1990s.shtml)

~~~
intopieces
>Open standards tend to trump closed platforms over time.

The opposite is true, and what is happening to the Internet is another
example. Telephone, Radio, and Film used to be open but they have since been
cornered by cartels. Tim Wu explains this excellently in his book, "The Master
Switch."

~~~
danboarder
I will check out that book, thanks. But the history of the web shows how an
open network killed the content silos of AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, etc. Yes,
now things seem to be swinging back, perhaps due to the popularity of mobile
apps and poor user experience of the mobile web.

~~~
intopieces
>perhaps due to the popularity of mobile apps

I believe this is the primary driver. We already have Facebook introducting
"free limited Internet" to developing regions of India [0] and mobile carriers
in the U.S. already allow certain apps to be excluded from data usage. The
open Internet is not a guarantee, and the next generation of web users may not
know the 'wild west' we did.

[0][http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2476564,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2476564,00.asp)

~~~
plonh
Facebook free zones are just ad supported ISPs, like NetZero of years ago.
Until they actually block non-FB content, it is just grousing about gratis,
not libre.

------
torrance
Apple News isn't available in a lot of countries for whatever reason. So this
not only means its inaccessible to non-iOS9 devices, but it's also
inaccessible to, eg., all of New Zealand.

~~~
noob_learning
I'm in NZ, you can change your region to US to get the new Apple News

~~~
exodust
Worth trying only for short term curiosity. Beyond that it's a clumsy
workaround with consequences for other apps and services that depend on the
region being true.

~~~
joosters
Not sure why people are downvoting the comment though, it's a valid workaround
if you needed to temporarily access something.

------
lerxst
I imagine their bounce rate will be very high if they continue doing this.
Other news sites have done similar things such as make you participate in a
survey before reading the article. In order for me to open this article before
September 22, I would have to copy that link, paste it into an email to
myself, open Mail on my phone, and open the link from my own email.

~~~
burntwater
Quora permanently lost me several years ago when they suddenly forced me to
select five categories of interest before I could continue to the question I
was interested in.

Forcing me to do something I have no interest in and will never make use of is
a good way to alienate me.

~~~
bandicity
Quora requires registration to simply read it.

That's at least going to lose them viewers who don't want to bother.

~~~
rabbyte
Pinterest is probably the worst offender for that. You get progressively
blocked the more you try to read.

~~~
zem
i stopped using them because of that, and i even _have_ an account; i just
can't be bothered logging in to it everywhere.

------
alayne
I'm an Apple user, but I have no interest in Apple curated news via a
dedicated app. I can't believe there's a significant market there.

~~~
Reedx
But it's a default auto-installed app (on iOS9) and the headlines are on the
search / Siri Suggestions screen. I'd be surprised if it doesn't already have
a huge market...

~~~
beedogs
It doesn't.

So very few of those auto-installed apps ever see any use. iTunes (or "Apple
Music", or whatever it's called now) might be the only exception.

~~~
kaolinite
Maybe for you (and me too) but for the general public, the default apps are
used a hell of a lot. 50% of users use the default notes app[1], for example.
Apple Maps (which based on the press, many might assume isn't used at all) has
3.5x the usage of Google Maps[1].

I don't know whether there are any other stats out there, but I suspect that
for most people, there's no need to install a custom podcast app, for example,
when the default one works just fine for them.

[1] [https://www.macstories.net/news/the-numbers-from-apples-
wwdc...](https://www.macstories.net/news/the-numbers-from-apples-
wwdc-2015-keynote/)

~~~
rimantas
With iOS9 notes become quite fun.

------
Animats
"Meet the Superstar Architect Transforming NYC’s Skyline" sounds like an ad,
anyway. That's not time-critical information. The fluff news in "Dwell", "Food
and Wine", and "Drive" sections of many major newspapers are now generated by
Demand Media and others of that ilk. This may be a non-problem.

When we start seeing articles about presidential debates, wars, and other
major events handled that way, it's time to pay attention.

~~~
plonh
We just had a presidential debate hosted by CNN, so we are getting close.

------
lfam
Apple is implementing a content paywall at the device level.

~~~
narrator
Theory: Apple wants to defeat Google by eliminating ads and making the
purchase of the device the amortized payment for content.

Analysis: The problem with this strategy is that Apple is going to have to
scale to all the content in the world, in foreign languages, on obscure or
controversial topics on a million blogs. Super niche content will fade,
starved of app revenue and have to rely on native IOS ad with unblockable ads
for distribution.

~~~
jameshart
Apple has done a pretty good job of building and supporting a long tail of
apps. They're working on it with music. Why can't they take that model to
content?

~~~
narrator
Prediction: Apple Blogs. It's like the app store, but for blogs. You need a
mac to create content for it. Free and premium blogs, In blog purchase, etc.

------
fixxer
Well, looks like somebody found a "cure" for adblock ;)

I miss the Wired of ten years ago. Now whenever I pick one up I am immensely
disappointed by the hype and marketing. I remember it being more rigorous with
respect to both journalism and technical acumen.

Edit: or not, per other post regarding adblock coming soon to apple.

~~~
softbuilder
>I miss the Wired of ten years ago.

This is what I said ten years ago! In truth Wired has always been a lot of
hand-wavy hype wrapped around bits of legit interest. I think you just outgrow
it eventually.

~~~
fixxer
I debated saying 20 years ago, but I didn't want to show my age.

------
choppaface
How different is this (from an ad biz perspective) from Facebook Instant
Articles? Is it that Apple gets no cut from publisher-sold ads, but Facebook
Instant Articles only use Facebook ads? Do either of these services have some
sort of exclusivity clause (ala Youtube, where if you publish one place you
have to publish to Youtube too)?

EDIT: it looks like Facebook Instant Articles also takes 0% of publisher-
served ads [1]. So it looks like this Apple News push is merely an attempt to
match Facebook's product (and Wired screwed up messaging / accessibility
here).

I'm still curious as to if anybody can add commentary / context from an
advertising point of view.

IMO these events indicate a future where portals serve publisher content in a
way that improves user experience (fewer ads, faster page load times) while
the publishers catch up (rather than replace) their own native web experience.
Publishers will want to own their distribution if it does them well. These
plays (Apple, Facebook) may be less about poaching display dollars from Google
than 1) cutting low-quality advertisers out of the network and 2) increasing
hub engagement. I doubt the hubs monopolize the market but I'm definitely no
expert

[1] [https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/facebook-
instantarti...](https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/facebook-
instantarticles/library/docs/FB_IA_FAQS.pdf) LOL the FB site is running on
wordpress ...

------
jameslk
This is the wrong direction. What users want are unobtrusive ads and what
content creators want is to get paid. Apple and Facebook are trying to take
advantage of this by pushing users to their AOL-esque walled gardens. We need
a browser standard for built-in unobtrusive ads or payments so content
creators can get paid and users don't get stuck with AOL 2.0.

~~~
icebraining
Why do we need a browser standard for built-in unobtrusive ads? We already
have a standard to carry ads - it's called HTML. Adding an out-of-band ad
carrying system is not only, and in my opinion, an unethical subterfuge, as it
won't work against heavy-handed ad-blockers anyway: they'll just evolve to
block that too.

~~~
jameslk
The point isn't to force ads down the user's throat, it's to show ads in a way
that's uniform and tolerable, as Apple is attempting to do with Apple News. An
ad blocker can be built for Apple News too (and has been) but I'd rather that
not be necessary in the first place.

------
radicalbyte
When I clicked on this link I was expecting to read satire about content
locking. What could be more absurd than making "news" exclusive?

Instead, it looks like Wired have officially "jumped the whale".

------
declan
This is disappointing. It's a move against the open Internet than Wired helped
to popularize (I previously worked at Wired). It also is a slap in the face to
Android and other non-iOS users.

Disclaimer: My own startup released iOS and Android news apps this month that
are in the same space as Apple News: [https://recent.io/](https://recent.io/)

------
staunch
Torrents of popular newspaper and magazine articles may become popular soon.

~~~
icebraining
They already are - PDFs of the Economist appear every week on torrent sites.

~~~
staunch
Like, much more popular though.

------
jeo1234
If Wired makes this practice standard for articles on their website, I will
seriously consider dropping my subscription. I understand that the two are not
directly linked, but this new tactic seems toxic and I do not want to support
it in any way.

------
sidcool
Dear Wired, if you want us to buy an Apple device to read your article, good
luck with that. Losing respect in tech industry is pretty easy. Be safe.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
I don't think they have much left to lose, to be fair.

------
dweekly
HTTP ERROR 418 Wrong Client

The client you are using does not currently have access to this resource but
may in the future as specified by the Expires header in the response. The user
should either switch to a supported client as specified in the response body
to access this resource or the current client should retry at the specified
date. The current client MUST NOT retry the resource before the specified
date.

~~~
gizmo686
HTTP 418 is already reserved for teapots whom have been requested to make
coffee (RFC2324, section 2.3.2[0])

[0] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324)

~~~
simula67
We can use existing REST methodology to serve coffee from coffee pots. Send a
POST request to the coffee pot with parameters for the required type of
coffee. The server on the coffee pot responds with 200 OK if it can process
the request and makes the coffee. 500 if there was a problem.

WHEN method is unnecessary, use GET to retrieve status.

"418 I'm a teapot" is also unncessary, just use 500.

What a short sighted protocol.

~~~
ecdavis
Look at the publication date.

------
eva1984
Wow, obvious Apple is no angel to everyone.

But this is hardly new. I believe a lot of magazines released their article in
print first then in their web edition for a wider public access.

Only thing that is wrong here is this offensive reminder that iOS users now
have privilege over everyone else. Smart move, Wired. It is an excellent
advertisement for Apple News, but not so much for publisher themselves, I
believe.

------
kristopolous
Do you ever wonder what the conversations were like which led to decisions
like this?

~~~
kapitalx
This is how I imagine it went: Apple: "We'll give you a lot of money if you
make content exclusive to us" Wired: "Lets trial run it with one article and
see how it goes, and we'd like the exclusivity period to expire" Apple: "Sure,
but we'll have to come back to the timed exclusivity, we think you'll cave"

~~~
smackfu
Or it could be:

Apple: "We will feature Wired in the WWDC keynote, and give it a prominent
place in the News app when people are choosing sources. In exchange, we want a
few exclusive articles."

Wired: "OK"

------
brudgers
[Ignoring the meta nature of this thread]

If there's no well known work around for the paywall, this type of content
from Wired shouldn't be on HN. On a personal note. it saddens me to see
_Wired_ deliberately making the world wide web suck.

~~~
qntty
The notice that it's not available _is_ the content in this case.

------
xxdesmus
Well then, one less website to visit. Thanks for making that decision easy
Wired.

------
tethra
Wired have now joined apple on my list of companies to boycott for life.
Personally I'll be adding any company to the list that joins in with this kind
of crap - deliberately creating an online 'second class' is unacceptable.
Don't let these bastards win.

~~~
exelius
If it's not these bastards, it'll be some other bastards. Companies have to
differentiate their products somehow.

------
Navarr
Odds Apple is paying them? Very high, right?

~~~
cpmsmith
100% odds.

------
JohnTHaller
Additional fun fact: Publishers can't opt out of having their RSS feeds
included in Apple News without signing up for an Apple ID. I wonder if that
means Apple News will ignore robots.txt.

~~~
exodust
Why would a publisher opt out of having their feeds visible to any particular
platform? The whole point of making an RSS feed available is so that it's
*available" to any client that can read it.

As much as I don't like what Wired and Apple are doing in terms of using the
web to promote native exclusivity, RSS should be open to all by default.

As for robots.txt in web pages, I agree that Apple News should be respecting
those.

~~~
JohnTHaller
Considering the way this is all working, there's a good chance Apple may
filter ads out of RSS feeds. Or disallow launching a real web browser from
Apple News in the future to keep consumers in one interface they control.

------
circa
Ted Moesby is the artichect, right?

------
dsr_
If you can't see it until Tuesday, it's not news. It might be journalism, it
might be editorial, it might be review, but it's not news.

~~~
henriquemaia
Or it is _news_, but in a 19th century pre-telegraph kind of way.

------
duncan_bayne
Huh. I'm surprised to find an outfit like Wired intentionally breaking the
web. On the other hand, that's one less distraction for me.

------
eagsalazar2
This article had comments initially which were all people bitching about how
this was total bullshit. The comment section has since been removed.

------
snorrah
It's not like this is a 'win' for Apple - the news app isn't globally
available (I think it's just US?) so this sure doesn't do wonders for my
opinion of them. Oh well guess I'll just wait a day and see if I even remember
to go check back. (I probably won't, I have a bad memory)

------
libraryatnight
Timed exclusives are already frustrating in video games, I don't need them
creeping into my reading :(

------
cobweb
I don't get it. I go to wired, I follow the link to apple, and I get bounced
back to wired???

~~~
cobweb
On reading it for the third time, I noticed the word app, which I must have
missed before.

So it's exclusive to the apple eco-system and probably pay-walled. I think I
get it now.

~~~
deong
It's pay-walled in the sense that you need a several-hundred dollar iOS
device. Otherwise no.

------
egil
The article was published with a new url:
[http://www.wired.com/2015/09/bjarke-ingels-2-world-trade-
cen...](http://www.wired.com/2015/09/bjarke-ingels-2-world-trade-center-
wtc-2/)

------
userbinator
The question that immediately comes to my mind is how do they know whether
that URL (the news.apple.com one) is being accessed from the app or not? It
redirects immediately back to wired.com, so could it be as trivial as User-
agent or some other header?

------
Mikho
Hence, I just don't read it at all. Tomorrow there will be other news and this
article will be already history.

Any extra friction, including extra click to go to Apple News — more churn.

------
binoyxj
This is actually a good reason to use the native iOS push notification,
instead of such thin content to grab eyeballs. The former is well targeted and
less spammy IMO.

------
cpncrunch
Some background here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179458](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179458)

------
malchow
I wonder if anyone sees Apple News as anything more than One More Aggregator?
I would be curious for thoughts/articles on that subject.

------
AriinPHD
I can't even open it on an iOS 9 device. I'm either doing something wrong or
this Apple News thing doesn't work at all...

~~~
kalleboo
I think it's only available in the U.S

------
amelius
> “This story is being previewed exclusively on Apple News until Tuesday”

Shouldn't that be "may be" instead of "is being"?

------
justinlardinois
Did anyone else notice that the hover text on the Apple News link is "Big
Deal"? Not sure what to make of that.

------
jackmaney
Welp, I don't think I'll ever read anything from Wired again.

------
shade23
Why does clicking on the link redirect me to the same wired article?

------
Jimmy
I am proud to say that I will never download the Apple News app.

------
binaryapparatus
War is not so subtle any more. Lack of web browser on apple tv. Content
blockers on iOS 9. Exclusive content. Makes me want to join ad company and
help the fight on their side, just because. Fscked I know.

------
mirimir
OK, so there's no web proxy to Apple News?

------
nathancahill
Mods, please DON'T change this title. The post would become completely non-
sensical.

~~~
dang
The title you're reading is what we changed it to.

The submitted title was "This story is exclusively on Apple News until
Tuesday". We changed it to an exact quote from the article and put it in
quotation marks.

p.s. Please don't use uppercase for emphasis:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

~~~
kuschku
How do we make text bold for emphasis? or should we just use UTF characters
for that?

~~~
andreyf
For emphasis there is _italics_ , which you can make by adding asterisks
around the word.

~~~
p00b
Which was explained _in the cited link_.

~~~
kuschku
Which does not help me when most typographers say to use 𝗯𝗼𝗹𝗱 for emphasis:
[http://practicaltypography.com/bold-or-
italic.html](http://practicaltypography.com/bold-or-italic.html)

------
EGreg
Here is the thing

I don't know if a war on ads is coming. I mean, the Browser Sexurity Handbook
details how 3rd party cookie policies are pretty schitzophrenic across
browsers already (MSIE requires a privacy policy, Safari requires a "visit" to
a domain which can be accomplished by POSTing into an iframe, Firefox does
something else, and Chrome thankfully just works).

But regardless, we should be moving past ads and to deals. Past eyeballs and
to saving people time. Past destination sites and to tools that help people.
Past building online personas and to improving real world experience. Ads
means "here please click maybe you'll like this and eventually pay money for
something." It's not the best we can do.

Before the web, people used to have more real connections in real life. Look
at pictures from before 1990 - people were out and knew others from their
neighborhood! Now they compulsively check their phones every time they emit a
sound because of some notification, and verbal communication has devolved into
kthanxbai lol... and the lol is almost never an actual laugh. Think about it.

