5 ms·

These features Apple introduce sell well because people (including me) want them. If that means journalists lose revenue, they should look for other ways. Usin

These features Apple introduce sell well because people (including me) want them. If that means journalists lose revenue, they should look for other ways. Using intrusive ads as an excuse for “otherwise we don’t have money” is just dumb. They’re free to think of other ways. The best journalism I’ve read (ftm.nl, dutch) is a subscription service and they don’t rely on ads or tracking. The sites that do this kind of tracking, in my anecdotal experience, produce shitty journalism. If this is bad for journalism, we’ll end up in that crisis and figure out a way that doesn’t use these methods.

smoldesu 5y ago
> These features Apple introduce sell well because people (including me) want them. You want the service, you don't necessarily need it from Apple though. That's the crux of this entire argument: Apple's black-box model is terrible for the industry. Apple is opposed to any roads that don't run through taxable lands, so it should come as no surprise that they want to tear down everything that keeps the web currently working. The less functional the internet becomes, the higher pressure there is to use native apps: that's likely part of why Safari is woefully broken and outdated compared to Chrome and Firefox. > If this is bad for journalism, we’ll end up in that crisis and figure out a way that doesn’t use these methods. We are already in that crisis. Whenever a paywalled link crops up on Hacker News, the first comment is always an archived version for the 99% of readers who would otherwise be unable to read that. Compared to the past 15 years of reporting, that's a direct downgrade. Adding synthetic friction to the flow of information never works: games get cracked, movies get shared, shows get ripped and music gets leaked. It's nothing new, and pretending like it's somehow not going to affect the next decade of reporting seems a little disingenuous to me.
- daemoon 5y ago
  > that's likely part of why Safari is woefully broken and outdated compared to Chrome and Firefox. How?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

smoldesu 5y ago

> These features Apple introduce sell well because people (including me) want them. You want the service, you don't necessarily need it from Apple though. That's the crux of this entire argument: Apple's black-box model is terrible for the industry. Apple is opposed to any roads that don't run through taxable lands, so it should come as no surprise that they want to tear down everything that keeps the web currently working. The less functional the internet becomes, the higher pressure there is to use native apps: that's likely part of why Safari is woefully broken and outdated compared to Chrome and Firefox. > If this is bad for journalism, we’ll end up in that crisis and figure out a way that doesn’t use these methods. We are already in that crisis. Whenever a paywalled link crops up on Hacker News, the first comment is always an archived version for the 99% of readers who would otherwise be unable to read that. Compared to the past 15 years of reporting, that's a direct downgrade. Adding synthetic friction to the flow of information never works: games get cracked, movies get shared, shows get ripped and music gets leaked. It's nothing new, and pretending like it's somehow not going to affect the next decade of reporting seems a little disingenuous to me.

daemoon 5y ago
> that's likely part of why Safari is woefully broken and outdated compared to Chrome and Firefox. How?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]