View Full Version : WSJ Asks iPhone App Users If They Would Pay
Jul 1, 2009, 10:09 AM
Category: Apple Software
Link: WSJ Asks iPhone App Users If They Would Pay (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090701110919)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Jul 1, 2009, 10:12 AM
I would pay for it.
Jul 1, 2009, 10:36 AM
It’s no surprise to me they are thinking about charging; the WSJ is one of the few online newspapers now that charge for a majority of their content. While I do like the WSJ, I find myself subscribing to magazines like Business Week and the Economist which I find to be more valuable in my everyday life.
Jul 1, 2009, 11:06 AM
WSJ has turned into a rag lately. I'd pay for the Economist, but definitely not WSJ. A paywall would be the end of their relevance to me.
Jul 1, 2009, 01:05 PM
The BBC's news website is my source for news. I could buy a newspaper/view one online, but I'd rather sit back, see what the headlines are and check out the 'most read' column.
Of course, there's things that a newspaper has that the BBC's website doesn't (depending if it is a red-top newspaper).
Also, the Footy section gives me the latest and most up-to-date source of possible transfers and gossip, as well as some blogs which I'd take any day over reading the sport section of a newspaper.
Oh, best of all, it's free.
Jul 1, 2009, 08:38 PM
I wouldn't pay a penny for anything that Rupert Murdoch has his put grubby fingers into. WSJ or not, that man can't resist putting an extreme right-wing spin on everything he touches. The man is a menace to society and can't "find his way home" soon enough.
There are plenty of other places to get news that weren't cheerleaders for crimes of the Bush Administration.
Jul 1, 2009, 09:51 PM
The Economist is priceless. And very often very funny (cf this week's cover).
The WSJ ain't what it used to be. But hey, neither are the markets.