There's a story going around the blogosphere that "publishers" are upset over the terms of Apple's newest service.
It seems Apple has sent out an email to select online publishers and informed them that they were being included in Apple News when the app launches with iOS 9 later this year. That email contained a fair amount of legal boilerplate, including the laughable clause that Apple decided that the recipient would indemnify Apple should Apple be used for copyright infringement.
That email is interesting, but it is not what I wanted to discuss today. (You can find the email over at Mike Ash's blog, if you like.)
When I first read the story yesterday, I added it to the list for this morning's links post and I set it aside so I could investigate further. I was hoping to find several complaints I could quote when I reported on this story, but this did not turn out how I expected.
I know that the BBC, MacRumors, iPhone Hacks, CultofMac, and 9to5Mac are all either implying or outright claiming that multiple online publishers are complaining about the new terms, in reality there seems to be only a single blogger complaining - the aforementioned Mike Ash.
I am sure that there are bloggers who object to the terms; however, I was unable to find them in the articles mentioned above, on Twitter, or via Google.
This story is based on the complaint of a single person. The blogosphere has then magnified his complaint (through a process I am calling "news math") and proceeded to blow the story completely out of proportion.
I would have reported on the complaints had I found them. It would be an interesting story - if it were real. But in the absence of additional complaints, I really don't think there's much of a story here.
P.S. If you find other complaints, do let me know. I am betting most of the complaints won't rise above the level of mild disapproval like "Hmmm, No" but I could be wrong.