I learned from Read/Write Web today that the New York Times has launched a new application, the New York Times Reader. (Update: If the previous link doesn't work, you may be able to download the app directly here.)

I tried the product out and came away impressed. The home page does the job of the paper newspaper's front page, without being a trite copy of it. Reading stories in the app is a joy. The text is displayed beautifully (the typeface isn't called Times Roman for nothing), and if you expand the application's window, a single column of text will pop into two or more columns to make lines easier to read.

Using the Reader requires free registration, just like the Times' Web site. You can also view paid "Times Select" articles if you have a subscription to that service.

The Reader has good search features, including a heat map view (like News.com's "What's hot" feature) and a graphical related stories view. And the application works offline, which is nice if you want to read your stories on a disconnected laptop. By default it synchronizes to the Times online every 30 minutes.

The Reader is still in beta. While the app was stable for me, it relies on the not-quite-released version 3 of Microsoft's .Net framework, which is a nightmare to install. The Reader installer will kick off the .Net installation, but on my machine it took forever and caused my security program (ZoneAlarm) to go apoplectic with warning pop-ups.

I like the Times Reader application very much, but its existence puzzles me. We should not need it. So much can be done today on Web sites and through RSS readers. Modern online technologies can, in theory, free content creators from the time and expense of building dedicated applications. And for consumers, having just one, or a small number, of general-purpose reader applications makes life much easier. Imagine what your life would be like if every site and blog you read had its own separate reader application.

I admit that if I wanted to take a stand against this type of application, I could simply not use it--the Times' Web site has the same content. But the New York Times Reader really is a better way to read the Times' news. Let's just hope other content companies don't try to do something equally good.

Permalink | 4 comments

• Read also: Web 2.0
• Email to a friend | Print this post

A bundle of little companies have been creeping into Microsoft's territory by serving up free online word processors that are simpler and often easier to learn than Microsoft Word. Google already took note by buying Writely. Microsoft seems to be waking up and sniffing the opportunity. The oft-overlooked Microsoft Works software, which bundles Word with Money, Encarta, and more, might be getting an online component, reports CNET News.com.

Microsoft's had its hands full building the new Windows platform and Office suite for next year. Despite the Web 2.0 focus of its Windows Live services, Microsoft generally hasn't prioritized creating no-frills, Web-based versions of its office software staples (although there is an online test version of the Office 2007 beta).

We've kicked the tires of some of the top Web-based word processors, finding that some are elegant to use and indispensable if you travel a lot, as long as you've got solid Internet access. However, most people won't even consider entrusting their documents to an unfamiliar brand name. But if Microsoft uses its long marketing arm to convince its huge pool of customers to try a Web-based Works, the popularity of online software could quickly accelerate--if users don't mind putting up with ads in the interface.

Permalink | 1 comment

• Read also: software, work, Web 2.0
• Email to a friend | Print this post