I can hardly bear the current new in two dementions.
I suggest a weekly section of good news only.
You’ll keep more of your readers engaged!
1
now this is all starting to make more sense
So I had to try it. And wouldn't you know, my dog immediately stuck his head right inside. He almost got stuck! Had to reboot the phone to get him out!
1
Pass.
I look at the NY Times every couple of days just to find out if civilization has ended in a nuclear cataclysm yet.
Otherwise, I need LESS news, not more.
Furthermore, since neither facts nor evidence mean anything anymore for Generation Trump, ALL news might as well be "fake news."
1
If the New York Times wants to spend money on VR or AMR, spend it on reality. There are many areas of the world it does not cover. There is all of Africa, Asia, Middle East, even Europe and America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, even. Spend money on providing more information on international news. Technology should be at the service of information to the reverse.
5
Well, let's hope this dies a quick death. Nobody needs it and nobody wants it. We're living in an unprecedented moment of national crisis and the Times puts its resources into gimmicks? Just write stores and print/post them. That's it.
8
The main objective of having people constantly viewing the screen of a personal device is to make the viewer stupider.
Pass.
3
I'm surprised by all the negative comments about this - I think it's great.
NOT augmented reality: NOT wanting to see commercials on the news site.
4
How do I find articles that have AR? So far the only thing I see is the newspaper box.
What a misnomer. Augment reality? Nothing diminishes reality more than to peer at it through a small screen with a superimposed ungrounded pixelated object screaming "look at me!! look at me!!". Real reality is subtle and complex and we have to work to understand it. These technologies create the illusion of more learning but actually do the opposite.
3
I am looking forward to seeing how this can present information in a new and effective manner. If AR can more clearly explain or show something, I'm in favor of it.
1
I’ll admit that I tried the AR because, like it or not, it will be part of our future. I, for one, don’t want to have to play catch-up when the time comes that banking, shopping, etc. may be heavily dependent upon it.
I always expect negative reactions to new things, but the comments here make me think people would prefer no one tried anything new. NYT Op-Docs, Daily 360, and general Times Video pieces are provocative, informative, engaging, and deliver content in ways that print and photographs alone cannot. Are they for everyone? No, and they don't need to be. If you only have time to ingest single paragraphs, or don't have a smartphone (you don't need expensive VR gear), or simply prefer holding ink and paper in hand, there is still the same high-quality news for you. If you do want to delve deeper into the context, ideas, people, ideas and context of stories then I for one, love and appreciate how the Times is working hard to be a leader in the use of multimedia and technology to better connect us to the world. I am reminded of the quote often attributed to Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." While I love horses, I prefer to have a range of options for my transportation needs.
1
Careful, attentive professional journalism is vital to a democracy. The Times continues to demonstrate its commitment to its mission but, if it is to stay relevant, it must also embrace change and explore how new media fit into that mission. Neither the NYT nor the readers will know for sure about the future of augmented reality without at least giving it a try. I'm an emeritus professor of journalism; please count me in as someone willing to see where this may have a place in reporting.
1
Release an Android version and I'll try it. No iOS in this house.
5
Android operating system has an 85% share of the smartphone market. Why not roll out your new product to Android users first?
2
I just used this gimmicky bit of augmented reality earlier today. It's amazing and I'm glad that The NY Times is exploring its use. I appreciate the VR stories, too. In fact, I shared a few with a family member who just reach 90 years of age. Although she can barely walk, she was like a child in her chair as she swirled around holding the cardboard viewer with pleasure. She saw another world with perspectives that would have been impossible simply with print. The immediacy of the experience was powerful for her.
If VR and augmented reality are at the expense of the journalists then I will be disappointed. Thus far, these technologies are new tools for them to better connect us to the world. It's challenging for them but I appreciate and embrace the efforts thus far. More, please.
1
Android version please.
2
Some of us still want to read. Rarely watch Times videos or listen to podcasts. Wish you'd focus on reporting and writing, and getting my paper to me earlier on weekends.
2
This is really dumb and another time sink...I don't want my reality augmented or virtual. I want it as it is...REAL. I don't need another techno "fix" to solve a problem I don't have. Prediction: This will fail!
3
I work with cutting edge technology. So I am definitely not a neo-Luddite. But when I read, I want to see the whole text before me so I can visually scan it in one shot. Why? My eyes can dart around fast, pick out salient words, pause to absorb, and move on fast, jump back. I set the pace. A newspaper is great for this. A paper book is great for this. And they are silent. Yes, there are other times that search features are great-- they are invaluable for my paid work-- but for my news and pleasure reading, I need pages full of fixed location text.
Videos are linear and tend to be excruciatingly slow, at least for delivery of news. I have no interest in more video. Sure, some of your audience may, but no matter how hard you try to advertise these new features, I will not switch.
2
I'm sure the Adult film & video business will be all over this.
Count me in on the side of those people who still like to read the news. Quality honest, objective, neutral news reporting, wins the day for me. Information is the todays currency.
Figuring out what's "real" verses "virtual" is the new struggle for power.
3
What constitutes a “recent” iPhone?
5
I for one HATE seeing this repetitive video on the home page. NYTimes is NOT YOUTUBE. It's not. Really. I pay for the Times so I can READ the Times not look at some stupid video in a loop. The video is distracting. Very.
Get over yourselves. Hire new designers, something.
73
Thank you. I have the same issue. Do some usability testing NYT! Moving graphics draws the eye. Impossible to concentrate when your eye keeps wandering - at least put a pause button there so we can stop the movement.
Love the times, but hate these graphics!
1
I wish I could recommend your comment 100 times.
I have contacted the paper on at least three different occassions because how disturbing these moving graphics are. They're epileptic seizure inducing.
2
You proudly just raised the monthly subscription price to close to $100. Why? Do I get more newspaper delivered every morning? No, actually I am getting fewer and fewer pages. More and more full-page ads touting NYTimes Travel Adventures and education programs. Less news.
And then how do you spend this money? On worthless virtual reality (great if you have an expensive VR headset). And now this .... what is the point? Why don't you return to your roots as a NEWSPAPER.
It's getting very tempting just to cancel my entire subscription.... and I've been a subscriber since 2000 and a reader since my high school years.
40
It's a matter of economics. Print advertising has declined and subscription revenue is insufficient to make up for that.
2
OK, so I'll see different Pokemon than are actually here?
11
I’ve used other augmented reality but it was interesting to see NYT put this on display and see how they went about walking a, largely, technically unfamiliar audience into using it.
To do what, though? It would be a great aid when reporting archeological finds. It would be useful in “how-to” articles such as cooking or teaching how to assemble or construct something.
However, I’m immensely busy. I expect to blaze thru a first paragraph that summarizes and sets the scene and a second paragraph that finishes up with key details – evidence. From those two, I expect to know whether I need in depth reading. Well-selected words convey far more rapidly most of what I need to know. My eyes can “fast-forward” thru an article much faster than a fast-forward control because I visually spot key words.
Charles Blow came from the NYT graphics art and information department, if I recall correctly. He’s a master of intertwining visualized reality with mental concepts. He might be a solid starting point for integrating this with words.
Last, Nintendo 3DS XL has a modest 3D and augmented reality capability. It lagged as a product.The later-released 2DS XL out-sells it by 2 or 3 to 1. Why? Limited added value of the augmented reality “experience” after the first few minutes of seeing something different that didn’t add much.
A tip of the hat, though, to the NYT for exploring the digital communications steering us such as Twitter abuses and now this advancing capability.
6
Great - one more annoying gizmo that nobody needs. I do not EVER want anything moving on my screen that I did not turn on. I have vertigo - do you really want your website to make people nauseous and dizzy????
40
No.
28
Seems like it has much more potential for porn than for news - at least I hope!
11
DId the Times run this idea by a focus group first? ...because I'm not feeling the love here in the comments section.
36
So it's drop dead android ?
9
I’m alone in my apartment, the last thing I would want to visualize myself with would be an old NYT paper vending machine. Nice product placement though.
11
Your videos on the front page of the online edition are MOST INCREDIBLY ANNOYING!! I do not know why I pay for news and get these silly pictures that are really entertainment. You are increasing the price but failing to give the news the prominence that it deserves.
38
Another pointless auto-play video that I can't stop dragging down my browser, all because AR/VR are popular buzzword-things you're trying to ________(?) in order to monetize. Please stop trying to be Gawker 2.0. I come here for the dang news, already.
26
Give me a photograph that tells a story, that has body and content. I don’t need or want a 360 degree piece of manipulation. The Times shouldn’t need to review your own Pulitzer record. You’ve won enough of them (Tyler Hicks, Daniel Berehulak, and Sergey Ponomarev come to mind). If a story need or demands a 360 view, shoot video. Stop wasting precious dollars and get on with the job of telling stories.
19
Another way to waste your time. Thank you, New York Times.
11
Is this a better and more efficient way of delivering news to your readers than the current way? No? well then why are you eve entertaining the idea, report news. That's what we pay you for, and no I would never, ever want to read an augmented version of the news, the current screen and scroll thing, its really good at that already.
15
Once again the New York Times in its headlong rush to Capitalize on the newest whizbang has demeaned the paper that I have been reading for 60 years. No longer all the news that's fit to print first used October 25, 1896 has devolved to anything that will turn heads whether news worthy or not.
The selective fascination in sport, popular culture, celebrity, pop technology, makes me think that I have been subscribing to something from the checkout line designed for instant gratification but ultimately uninspiring and certainly not good for your body.
Please, please, please, return to what you have always done best be journalists, the fourth estate is somehow noble but unfortunately you are demeaning it with every issue. NYTimes.com has become froth not a meal.
32
God forbid we have to 'read' the 'news'. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean you have to use in, NYT. Sad!
24
Please invest more in letters, not in gimmicks.
26
Why on earth do I want to see a rusty NYT box in my living room, on my phone?
Why do I need to see a ice skater twirling around my living room, again on my phone?
Why do I need to see anything like this in a news site? Or ever?
Now the experiment where you make the screen reversed to black and the lettering white, that is a winner. Makes the NYT easier to read, and I read it more. But this augmented reality which leaves out all the android users, not so much.
I like that the NYT is trying new ways to make the news more interesting, but AR is one that I will not be using.
9
Getting this technology beyond the gimmicky is the real challenge.
2
Please do not devote resources to this. I already rue the amount of news that comes in video form. I want to read well written, well researched articles. Also, it's elitist. Most people cannot afford a thousand dollar phone. And, brand-centric. I abandoned the i-world a long time ago for many reasons and I'm never going back. Hire and nurture great writers.
27
When will Android be out?
2
I think it's a welcome feature, whether it's used for hard news or not. I'll enjoy it, perhaps in a SMARTER LIVING feature on not taking life as seriously as other NYT readers.
3
Sounds great. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. I used the the 3D Google box I received from NYT years back. It was a very cool 360 view. I also still get the paper paper. Hey folks, it's 2018!
3
I love this! I can now click on the app, get the news from a virtual news vending machine (nice touch on the weather-worn appearance, btw), somehow with complicated finger gestures open the pages of the paper, zoom in, fumble around with the virtual paper until I get a good angle and lighting for reading, then, when I'm halfway through the article, I can flip, virtually, to page 67 to finish the last few paragraphs. Now that's progress!
2
Great. Now I'll be able to see "Page is not responding due to a long running script." in 360 sphere-o-vision! Woot Woot!
7
Why? Why? No, I want to read the news. I occasionally watch a video or listen to a podcast, but I do not need this. We subscribe to the NY Times on paper, but I do read many stories online. "Stupid pet trick" says it all. Do not spend precious money that could be used to pay journalists on this gimmick.
What exactly is the point?
11
I enjoy and use technology regularly, but I really don't see the point of this. How is this going to deliver better news coverage? Honestly? Podcasts are great, videos are wonderful - but how will this actually deliver a better experience? I have an iPad Air with the latest iOS update and this works poorly and finally fails. Yes I have the latest version of your app, updated yesterday. It requires a lot of bandwidth and assumes everyone can access that all the time. Not true. Put this to bed and concentrate on news and services that provide insight and analysis.
6
You forgot the part in the video where she trips over her couch and crashes into her plants, while trying to stare at the "oh so important yet non-existent mail box" in her living room.
3
Perhaps the import of this will strike me later, but for now it seems much ado about almost nothing but click-bait. Why oh why doesn't the NYT augment reality for subscribers to ensure the web site loads properly and is updated regularly throughout the day and that 'smart' devices like my iPad can access readable info easily?
6
What are you, a sales outlet for Apple products? Android and Windows users, which out-number Apple users, don't count?
7
There's no intersection of the Venn diagram of iPhone X users and those who know what an honor box is! :)
2
I wish you had invested the money in providing free digital subscriptions to high school and college students all over the US! What the USA really needs right now is a universally well-educated populace that can identify authentic journalism and knows what to look for in a good news story.
8
Look at it this way: now the news really is fake. Trump was right all along.
I tried it. It worked so well that after only a moment or so, with the paperbox image on my iPad in front of me as I walked about my living room, I physically sidestepped around the imaginary yet convincing illusion without a conscious thought. Then I caught myself. You got me! What's next?
1
Yes, the A/R technology has been around for awhile but I remain intrigued to see how embattled news content providers will use it to bring another dimension to this fragmented media space. It's time to move the needle again. As a NYT subscriber/supporter/critic, I'll stick around to see what's next.
1
And what is the app collecting about us? Is there full disclosure or will we have to wait to learn how something seemingly harmless (but with potential for horrific future applications) are looking into our homes (as iRobot vacuums).
3
All sizzle and no steak. As an educator in animation, VFX, AR & VR, leave it for others. Continue focusing on the hard news instead of building unicorns i the sky.
8
A ridiculous and potentially dangerous intrusion on our private lives. Put your money into improving and expanding your reporting and editorial staff. Many of us depend on the" in-depth" you bring us. You have forgotten your mission which at a its heart is the reader's encounter with the written word, to be digested and mulled over. Truly sickened by this gimmick.
4
My reality is quite good enough, Thank You Very Much! No "augmentation" needed.
4
I don't see how augmented reality could ever be useful to Times readers.. I do, however see how it could be useful to Times advertisers. In any case the irony of this honor box simulation is humorous.
2
Apple-centric and Android-ist
2
Looks like as good a way to waste precious life time as any other.
25
It may well be "news" to the Times but there are many more users of Android phones. Why does this paper constantly discriminate against Android users?
30
That's true, as I've got a Android phone and tablet. Hopefully, when the Android app comes out It will at least include Android 5.1. (My Samsung tablet is KitKat, 4.4, I won't hold my breath)
I like that the NYT is innovative and I'm looking forward to trying the Android app, if I can!!!!!!!!!!!
1
There have been so many "articles" that are just Apple ads. It's gross.
9
I'm sure there's many people who are excited about this. Too me it's just another stupid pet trick as Mr Letterman used to show us. In spite of what people may think you cannot alter reality. And what is augmentation? An attempt to alter something that cannot be altered. Just another gimmick. Little different than things like Facebook and Twitter.
28
OK but...make it practical and useful right? Because nobody needs a NYT box in the middle of their living room right?
8
I think I hate it when you put these things above the fold with no way to turn them off.
And I really don't care about this. It's cool from a geeky perspective but it does nothing from a news perspective.
75
I agree completely - it's almost an invasion of the brain. How can I find out to stop these things from playing automatically?
9
Send your opinion on the seizure inducing graphics to the paper.
If enough of us complain perhaps they'll listen to us. I've sent them letters in these regards on several occasions. But I don't think they read them or care.
1
I tend to feel the way you do. That said, I have an idea that future generations won't blink an eye at this technology.
1
I really hope this is not the future of journalism. This is just a phase you're going through, right? I'm going to close my eyes and hope this all goes away
51
.
Earth to NY Times: 85% of smartphones are Android.
53
BEST reply ever
4
No thanks.
50
This will be useful for an augmented read of stories about tech addiction, worse mental health with increased screen time, the postural dangers of phone neck, etc.
11
It's unfortunate that NYT has decided to go the Apple closed ecosystem route with this. Android is a far more globally accepted and open platform for this type of application. Oh well. Plenty of other VR content (though not to the same journalistic standards. Until then I'll just enjoy plain old written word.
15
No love for us Android folks?
19
"Augmented Reality" or just 3D images on your phone? Novel, but hardly groundbreaking.
3
A brilliant move, NYT - Kudos...
Would appreciate your considering a low-brow way to get something related to this - out to us even sooner...
High-definition stereoscopic pictures...Not the red/blue kind, but side-by-side...We could either down-magnify the images and let our eyes diverge to align them - or just get some low-tech bending glasses along the line of Google Cardboard...
Start with still images - some of your outstanding nature and human photography...From there, add video...
You can see examples of all of these things right now, by going to YouTube and searching on "stereoscopic"...
Am surprised smartphone cos haven't made stereoscopic cameras pervasive by now - with a little bit of rotation in the camera, folks could take anything fro 3D selfies to 3D panoramic landscapes...
PS - AG, ask your advertisers what they'd think, if they could offer their wares in stereoscopic vision, on the NYT...
1
How is it augmented reality if it's not really there? What's more real (or augmented) than the, well... real? Don't you mean augmented unreality? Or, god forbid, virtual reality? Who's the genius who came up with that name and how much do they make? I'd like that job.
6
"Augmented reality" is reality augmented with not reality.
1
Sorry, folks, but for me "augmented reality" sounds a little like "alternative facts" --
25
Congratulations on your move to virtual reality.
At a time when journalism plays such a critical role in helping to steady our course through extraordinarily dark period of American political history, I look forward to enhanced coverage that will, perhaps, allow us to focus our NYTimes enhanced iPhone camera at our local politician and see, overlaid on her image, a list of the last year's expenditures that she approved for public schools, or let us focus on the president and capture voice clips of him on topics such as jobs, taxes, the wall, or, perhaps, Hillary Clinton, and instantly see a list of links to his past references on these topics that, with a literal, or virtual, tap, we can read (or hear) more about... And for fun, perhaps The Times app will permit us to zoom on a slice of chocolate cake and let us instantly be taken on a virtual tour of the best bakeries in SoHo, or focus on a CitiBike that will trigger a display of rates, locations and a payment form so we can quickly grab one and work those cake calories off.
It once was “All the news that's fit to print.” With this new horizon, you might as well just simply put it: “All the news.” Period.
Best of luck in this exciting new venture.
Is the mobile app still loaded with ads? If so, no thanks. I'll keep using m.nytimes.com with the adblocker on. Subscribers don't want to see ads in 2018.
9
I downloaded app in IPhone X, signed in to my NYT account, and I cannot find AR feature. It did not ask me for permission to use my camera. What am I doing wrong?
3
Did you open this very article in the app?
I would love to try this, but I have an Android - any idea on when it will be available for us?
10
I'm sorry, but ugh. The last thing I'll want is more interactive junk. What I value most is having a well written and terse description of the news. I can see how you'd want your digital presence to be "stickier" but this probably means I'll avoid it altogether. You'll burn my bandwidth and take longer to convey the same information. No thank you.
57
I just hope that you people at the Times are aware that there are a lot of us in your readership who don't need to be dazzled by any multimedia feats, pivots to video, and the like -- we really only want you to simply continue what you already have been doing for decades, to be the best newspaper in the country, arguably the world. Merci --
65
In reply to you and some previous comments of a similar vein: Long time news devotees of a certain age may not be interested in this sort of thing, but the Times needs desperately to be relevant to a wider audience--one that has been raised on tech and wouldn’t know what is meant by “above the fold”.
1
Just what I need. More electronic drama. I'll read a book, thanks.
32
I just got a bit queasy. Imagine an augmented reality President Trump sitting in our living rooms - or even worse - parked in our bedrooms, watching FOX TV and tweeting.
14
Android, pleez!
9
Cool technology with a lot of promise, but an honor box is the best example you could think of to demonstrate this technology? I need to invite my friends over. They are not going to believe there is an honor box in my house. Wow!
Another gimmick in the Digital world, to make more money, and attract the millennials, who would rather be playing videogames!
7
I don't have an IPhone. Should I unsubscribe now?
6
I do recognize that the world is changing faster than I can track, and that this "enhancement" is in the sports section which I assiduously ignore. Having said that, to see the Times turn its future over to tech boys rather than reporters leaves me feeling queasy.
7
iPad, iPhone apple advertising?
To me this feels like a gimmick. Setting images or objects from the outside world into the space where the reader is located, such as a subway, their bathroom, living room, or out the window of their car is declared deep and meaningful, perhaps in ways we cannot know at this time?
I know it's supposed to be ironic that the old technology of the "honor box" is not only juxtaposed with this new technology, but is viewed by it in a kind of alien way, with the phone just on the edge of asking (Siri asking) "Take me to your leader." But really, think hard as you may, there's no there there, it's pretty darn facile.
This gimmick may well block the reader from the content of the traditional news and place the emphasis on this new news, this new facile news. Maybe when the paper of record offers up close 3-d images of war-torn tortured children and places them in people's living room, this technology will really take off.
6
How about other smartphones?
2
We'll wait for the Android version.
3
Great guys, more reason to have people staring down into their phones, bumbling around, looking at imaginary things, that are supposedly more important than ones they're about to bump into.
You are not helping the situation.
43
Sorry, I'm not interested. I want the closest to a real, paper newspaper. And I don't think my very basic cell phone would do this anyway.
2
So it appears that this only works with Apple products. What about those who prefer a much more open platform?
4
Sorry to miss this, but I can't afford an iPhone (and wouldn't get one if I could)
6
If anything, I wish the stories would get less expansive and more concise. Shallowness in excess and now 3D does not add the kind of depth that matters. Does that woman realize how silly she looks, looking as if she's seeing things. The world's literally becoming more like one giant insane asylum everyday.
4
Not only are you inviting Simone Biles into your kitchen, you are also inviting in the New York Times and its advertising department. It is only minutes until their clients recommend replacing your fridge with a similar, but updated model.
And by the way, the Times has access to your camera whenever you are using your phone, not just when you are reading the newspaper. They see you are at the airport. Perhaps you would like to rent a car. Wait a moment... You are traveling? Perhaps, since you have discretionary income, you would like to BUY a car. (And Senator ____, based on the New York Times' physical inventory of our reader's home, his political views seem consistent with yours. Perhaps you should ask him for a donation.)
I like new technology and AR looks like fun (though I do not think it augments news, which should report what IS, not what MAY BE). However, it is important to revoke permission for the NYT to use your camera when its use is not warranted. Do not let permission to use the camera (or microphone) be the default. This also applies to video games, Pokemon Go, and other apps. And be sure to read the EULAs (End User License Agreements) to determine how the data apps collect can be used now and in the future.
15
“Augmented reality” is the problem, not the solution.
23
How about putting all this effort and capital into more investigative journalism (which you do so well) instead of this whizz-bang stuff ? No, I don't care about freezing an Olympic skater at the absolute apex of their jump. I don't have the time.
60
I love innovation, but lately I appreciate the ability to take the newspaper out of it's protective sleeve, and literally smell the news. It is a feeling that all the bots and trolls out there crawling around on the web can't touch this piece of incorruptible newsprint. I just feel our democracy is safe when I touch that newspaper.
Having said all that, I love the Digital Times too - as it helps us hold on to the newsprint.
1
Looks like the holograms that appear on Star Trek--only on Star Trek, the holograms are on the floor in front of you, not on the screen of the device.
So it's very futuristic. We see this kind of phenomenon in many different sci-fi programs. But I wonder, how is it going to improve the experience of getting the news. Would Lester Holt standing in my living room be better than Lester Holt on my TV screen? It's very cool. But I'm not convinced.
4
look into magic leap technology - at some point the wearable nature of their glasses unit will be part of everyday life in an unobtrusive way unlike google glass...at that point this kind of augmented reality will be reality changing.