The NYT's OS-Restrictive Video Policies

ro1 writes to mention a story on Linux.com about the NYT's confusing video policies. Essentially, if you're running Linux you can only see videos running on the front page of the site; videos elsewhere on the site require Windows or OSX. Roblimo has a video tour of the NYT site to explain the issue in detail. (Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)

Funny!

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

From the intro to the video:

by Robin "Roblimo" Miller
A Linux/.com/OSTG production

*snort* Production? Using vnc2swf does not make you a producer ;-)

Seriously tho' - roblimo's correct. It's an utterly absurd situation. A linux user should not have to change their UA string (illegal in some jurisdictions) just to watch videos. Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?

Nicely done anyway - and using flash a little flash presentation is a good way to get your point across to the non-techies around (I imagine even a senior editor at the NYT could understand the problem after watching that video).

Re:NY Times, or Linux?

[pembo13]

How does any client side bug set their policy. Their policy clearly leaves out Linux users, and I am refering to their system requirements page. Also, how would they go about detecting a bug with the clients Linux/Flash player in the first place. This seems like an if-else where Linux falls into the else.

The only real question is if this was purposely done or not. I myself have seen my fair share of website that simply do not combinations of Linux and non-IE browsers for no obvious technical reason.

In the NY Times defense however, it's their site, they can do what they want, provided they give their Linux using subscribers a refund on their subscription fee.

ahem

[rucs_hack]

I'm 'Needless Paranioa' and I aprove of this message.

I'm sorry, but what? All I can see is that their current online video authoring package isn't very good, and they don't want to have people who's OS doesn't support it thinking that there's a bug with their site.

Ok, it's not a good plan to not have it working in linux, but lets be honest, how many of the people working at nyt have anything but windows at their desk? I'm guessing none, with possibly a few macs about the place.
For that matter, how many users will be on linux? Not many I'll wager. Sad, but almost certainly true. Therefore this problem will effect only a very small minority of their readers.

The chances are that most people here use linux (me included). However, we are still in the minority, and we don't have persuasive reps loaded with free pens going round selling authoring packages and other web software to newspapers.
While that's the case, linux will get the short straw.

Effort & Priorities

[corychristison]

As a web developer I'd like to say that it would take more effort to restrict browsers/operating systems than to accomodate for them.

Seems as though they have their priorities a little backwards.
Stupid f**king people these days.

Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

If you dont like their product/service dont buy/use it.

Shop elsewhere.

I suggest all Linux users boycott the NY Times, they're sure to be bankrupt in weeks! That'll show em.

I can't make it clear enough, if you dont like it go somewhere else.

It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it.

If you had an orange squeezer and where in my store and buying oranges and you discover they dont fit your squeezer, you dont come back to me with a song and wardance about them not fitting, you either buy a bigger squeezer or buy smaller oranges.

If you dont like my product, shop elsewhere.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

Re:NY Times, or Linux?

[babbling]

No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.

I recommend letting the NYTimes know you're not happy about them not supporting Linux (and preferably Ogg Vorbis/Theora) in a language that everyone can understand...

[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Re:ahem

[babbling]

First of all, since when is discrimination okay as long as you are only discriminating against a minority?

Secondly, Linux is Free Software. Not just the operating system core, but graphics applications, an office suite, and so on. Don't underestimate the ability of Free Software to spread once people start to find out about it. See Firefox as an example. I predict that Ubuntu is about to become "cool" and take off in the same way Firefox did. It will happen sooner or later.

Re:Wow.

[pesc]

I called the 800 number and they immediately said, "you used Firefox, didn't you?". Yes I did and they only support IE.

What does it tell you when your bank only supports the least secure browser and won't do business with people who prefer more security?

Re:If

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Situation now: every NYT customer on linux whines.
Situation if they didn't block linux: only people with bad or esoteric configurations whine.

Please advice how the first option is better? Remember that NYT is not obligated to "support" anyone any more than they do now (do you think they don't get calls from windows users with fucked computers all the time?)

Re:ahem

[rucs_hack]

I strongly suspect that stupidity is the main reason for this problem, not a deliberate plan.

Re:Wow.

[legoburner]

I called the 800 number and they immediately said, "you used Firefox, didn't you?".

So obviously it is such a common problem that it is one of the first things they say. Hopefully this message will filter through to the higher-ups there and they are (considering?) working on a solution.

Re:Effort & Priorities

[legoburner]

Indeed, the amount of time that has been spent making pages around the web that detect your browser or flash version using assumptions about old oooold versions and then blocking you from the actual content is time wasted. in 99% of cases (everything but activex) the protected areas will work without any problem in recent versions of firefox/flash player. It gets tiring having to look in the source to figure out where you are supposed to go to get to content that has been needlessly locked out from you.

Re:Big deal

[babbling]

It's THEIR product/service, THEY can do as they please with it. ...
IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

Uhh... yeah, thanks, but it's not really THAT simple.

Are you religious? Yes, no? How would you feel if you got barred from a restaurant based on whether or not you're religious?

What sort of car do you drive? How would you feel if you paid for a carpark but then got turned away because they don't accept your type of car, despite the fact that you could easily have fit into one of the parking spaces?

Re:Wow.

[paulyche]

I thought this http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ [w3.org] was the standard.
Why should everyone just meekly accept everything that is thrust upon them?

Flash Versions

[cjb-nc]

Why the hell isn't the NYT checking flash versions rather than OS anyway?

That would be a very simple way to rule out linux users as well. Just require Flash 8, as many sites are already doing for their video content. Macromedia/Adobe is doing a wonderful job of stacking the deck against linux by simply refusing to develop a version 8 (or 9) flash player for the platform.

Every site has a personality

[smchris]

It is probably the same mentality at the NYT that many streamers have. The NYT has its free stuff and it has it subscription stuff. I suspect they think they are being shrewd by only allowing open media on the "free" front page.

But is it shrewd? A radio station wouldn't make it _hard_ to tune in their broadcast because that would be counterproductive to the value of their station for ad revenue, right?

Yet internet streamers often act like every copyrighted word from their announcers is archive gold to be sold and resold for decades and they would be insane to allow access to a program like mplayer where the savvy user knows how to save their invaluable content. Well, I've got a shock for them. What they often stream is no more valuable than what is being broadcast on the radio or TV and people are no more likely to save every byte than people are to tape radio or TV all day. And, sadly, it may be that if ad revenue can't pay for stream, perhaps stream isn't a useful medium?

Now that I've got my MythTV setup running and MythStream compiled in, I can see that proprietary embedded streaming isn't going to cut it for me. EVEN IF they accommodate something like linux RealPlayer, in the living room I'm going to be listening to stations where I can add a static URL to my MythStream page and click on it with a remote.

Au contraire

[Mateo_LeFou]

The point of TFA is that their site works fine on Linux. They don't have to include Linux in their list of supported systems (requirements) if they don't want to "support" it. "If you are having trouble, please be sure to use a supported browser & media player..."

But what NYT has done here is to make sure that you are having trouble if you use Linux.

It's hard to come up with an analogy here, but what the hell I'll try: A movie theater exhibits 3-D films, and there's a station outside to buy the "approved" 3-D glasses. Now a penguin walks up with some DIY glasses he's been experimenting with. He buys a ticket and goes through the line to the theater door.

And they won't let him in

"Sorry, sir, we don't support those glasses."

"I don't want you to support my glasses; just let me in."

"Sorry, you'll have to go buy glasses from the station outside"

Would you get a little suspicious? Would you wonder how the guy running that station got such a gig?