SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh! dept.
New York Times CEO warns publishers ahead of Apple news launch
Apple Inc is expected to launch an ambitious new entertainment and paid digital news service on Monday, as the iPhone maker pushes back against streaming video leader Netflix Inc. But it likely will not feature the New York Times Co.
Mark Thompson, chief executive of the biggest U.S. newspaper by subscribers, warned that relying on third-party distribution can be dangerous for publishers who risk losing control over their own product.
"We tend to be quite leery about the idea of almost habituating people to find our journalism somewhere else," he told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. "We're also generically worried about our journalism being scrambled in a kind of Magimix (blender) with everyone else's journalism."
Thompson, who took over as New York Times CEO in 2012 and has overseen a massive expansion in its online readership, warned publishers that they may suffer the same fate as television and film makers in the face of Netflix's Hollywood insurgence.
See also: Apple secures deal with WSJ for paid Apple News service, NYT and Washington Post opt out
Apple reaches deal with Vox for upcoming Apple News subscription service, report says
Apple is on a hardware-launching bonanza ahead of its big TV announcement
Apple teams with media literacy programs in the US and Europe
Previously: Apple in Talks to Create "Netflix for News" Subscription Service
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday March 24 2019, @02:08PM
You appear to be in the "owning a domain and leasing a VPS ought to be considered part of the total cost of ownership of a personal Internet presence" camp. Do I understand you correctly?
But if everybody leased a VPS, how would they all have an IPv4 address? There are already roughly twice as many people as IPv4 addresses. I guess VPS providers could put them behind some sort of load-balancing reverse proxy, using name-based virtual hosting (TLS SNI or HTTP Host:) to route the request. But that'd leave the servers unable to accept connections from viewers behind legacy networks on any ports but 443 (HTTPS), other TLS ports, and 80 (clear HTTP), and thus unable to offer any service other than a web server. In particular, SSH and SFTP access would be problematic. Or should everybody behind such a legacy network subscribe to an IPv6 VPN too?