PDA

View Full Version : Wall Street Journal to Begin Charging for Mobile Access to Content




MacRumors
Sep 17, 2009, 02:58 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/17/wall-street-journal-to-begin-charging-for-mobile-access-to-content/)

The Wall Street Journal today announced (http://www.dj.com/Pressroom/PressReleases/Other/US/2009/0917_US_TheWallStreetJournal_3997.htm) that it will begin charging for mobile access to its news content as of October 24th. While mobile applications such as the WSJ's iPhone application (http://appshopper.com/news/wsj--the-wall-street-journal) will remain free of charge and will offer free access to selected content, full access will require a weekly subscription fee.Beginning Oct. 24, the WSJ Mobile Reader application, currently available on BlackBerry smartphones and Apple iPhone and iPod touch devices, will require a separate mobile subscription for full access to Journal subscription content. The application itself will remain free to download and contain both free and subscription content, emulating the experience found on WSJ.com.Users who currently subscribe to both the print and online versions of The Wall Street Journal will continue to have free access to mobile content, but other users will be required to pay fees in order to access the majority of content. Users with either an existing online or print subscription to The Wall Street Journal will be required to pay $1.00 per week for mobile access, while those with no other subscriptions will be charged $2.00 per week. Users who register prior to the October 24th launch will receive a 90-day extension of no-fee access.In addition to the new subscription offering, several new features will be added to the WSJ Mobile Reader, including advanced save and share functions, enhanced market data, stock tracking and personalization capabilities.

"Our new mobile subscription model will enable us to continue to invest in the world's most essential news content and deliver it to our subscribers wherever and whenever they want it," said Gordon McLeod, president of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network. "This transition also reinforces the value of our content on mobile, just as we've done online for more than a decade."

Article Link: Wall Street Journal to Begin Charging for Mobile Access to Content (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/17/wall-street-journal-to-begin-charging-for-mobile-access-to-content/)



Scooterman1
Sep 17, 2009, 03:06 PM
I guess they dream of making more money.
For me, USA Today App will remain my choice.

Sky Blue
Sep 17, 2009, 03:07 PM
Not interested in reading Rupert Murdoch's old tat.

Cybbe
Sep 17, 2009, 03:09 PM
Ah, the old bait and switch. Not too much bait though, as the WSJ is useless.

JangoFett124
Sep 17, 2009, 03:22 PM
A new "share" feature for paying customers? So you'd be paying to be able to send to people that can't? I know there's probably something I'm missing, but it's still funny to me.

BornAgainMac
Sep 17, 2009, 03:23 PM
Wow, I just accidentally deleted the app.

caligurl
Sep 17, 2009, 03:33 PM
i'll be getting my news elsewhere... for free....

savoirfaire
Sep 17, 2009, 03:35 PM
i'll be getting my news elsewhere... for free....

For a second I thought your username was callgurl. My bad. :o

scirica
Sep 17, 2009, 03:36 PM
Calendar entry made...delete WSJ app on October 23rd...

spillproof
Sep 17, 2009, 03:42 PM
Eh, I've used the app twice in 6 months, so I guess it doesn't matter to me much. haha.

caligurl
Sep 17, 2009, 03:47 PM
For a second I thought your username was callgurl. My bad. :o


:eek: oh my! lol!

intrepid00
Sep 17, 2009, 03:53 PM
Only old people read the WSJ. I really don't want to subsadize thier paper subscription.

carmenodie
Sep 17, 2009, 04:02 PM
They can kiss my a** every which tell sunday. 4 bucks a month for that trash when the internet has limitless access to the same info FOR FREE!???

vjl323
Sep 17, 2009, 04:07 PM
Curious that Apple isn't getting a cut of this. Normally apps that are free can not require a cost inside the app to access more content. Only paid apps are allowed to have an in-app payment system. Obviously WSJ is not using an in-app payment system, but what they are doing is making more content available to users who pay them directly. That is not allowed in the iPhone SDK.

danredwing
Sep 17, 2009, 04:12 PM
With all of the content available online these days, it is awfully presumptuous to charge for online access to what everyone else offers for free. I too, will be deleting the app as the content is redundant. As someone that is employed in financial services, I find that even economic news can be found just as easily and earlier elsewhere.

good luck with this WSJ, I'm certainly not buying.

-aggie-
Sep 17, 2009, 04:15 PM
Charging for news? GLWT.

Runt888
Sep 17, 2009, 04:16 PM
Curious that Apple isn't getting a cut of this. Normally apps that are free can not require a cost inside the app to access more content. Only paid apps are allowed to have an in-app payment system. Obviously WSJ is not using an in-app payment system, but what they are doing is making more content available to users who pay them directly. That is not allowed in the iPhone SDK.
I was curious about this also.

Shookster
Sep 17, 2009, 04:27 PM
I guess WSJ will find out just how much people think their online content is worth. My prediction: not nearly as much as they thought.

Lara F
Sep 17, 2009, 05:05 PM
Hopefully they'll allow more than 3 articles per month (no joke) ala the Financial Times app for non subscribers. :rolleyes:

synth3tik
Sep 17, 2009, 05:07 PM
Well, so I guess now not the time to start reading the WSJ?

Most news sites are so littered with adverts that I could only see this move by WSJ as greed.

Teh Don Ditty
Sep 17, 2009, 06:00 PM
I subscribe online to WSJ.com only. I noticed my subscription is increasing to almost $200 next year.

You can kiss my ass Murdoch.

ZipZap
Sep 17, 2009, 06:42 PM
Well since you are only seeing limited content with the free app...I can see why it does not get used.

I find the WSJ hard to read as a newspaper let alone as an Iphone app...though I do like the financial content.

I am sure I can find the information for free so I likely will not signup for the full access.

Baron58
Sep 17, 2009, 07:33 PM
Now that they're essentially a Republican shill, I don't even want them for free.

Teh Don Ditty
Sep 17, 2009, 07:40 PM
^So true. It's amazing to see how the quality of the WSJ has declined since Murdoch bought it.

-aggie-
Sep 17, 2009, 07:42 PM
I subscribe online to WSJ.com only. I noticed my subscription is increasing to almost $200 next year.

You can kiss my ass Murdoch.

You'd like that too much. :)

Teh Don Ditty
Sep 17, 2009, 07:44 PM
You'd like that too much. :)

He'd have to pay me to kiss my ass.

Detlev
Sep 17, 2009, 07:52 PM
Wow, I just accidentally deleted the app.

Hehe, that made me laugh.

Anyway, WSJ is not the only one looking to start charging subscription fees for their product. It will become a regular part of applications now. The method has been tested and now developers (more specifically the companies that employee the developers) will quickly move on the opportunity, and they will succeed.

Airmark1
Sep 17, 2009, 08:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

Yeah. The WSJ app can lick my hairy sack.



I have the WSJ on my Kindle. It's still free for the next few days because I am in the trial period. After that, it's going bye bye too.



It seems like it would cost more to set up people paying the damn 1-2 dollars than it would to just shut up and offer it for free.

wackymacky
Sep 17, 2009, 08:58 PM
Curious that Apple isn't getting a cut of this. Normally apps that are free can not require a cost inside the app to access more content. Only paid apps are allowed to have an in-app payment system. Obviously WSJ is not using an in-app payment system, but what they are doing is making more content available to users who pay them directly. That is not allowed in the iPhone SDK.

Really?

I've got a couple of medical Apps, free to download that tere is a fee to get some comtent

Teh Don Ditty
Sep 17, 2009, 09:07 PM
I am glad to find your site - now I know what a good one looks like.
Very good topic to share with us. Great info.:)

Come again? Whatcha talking about?

pjc10000
Sep 17, 2009, 11:03 PM
I wonder how long before the true content creators realize they don't need the WSJ to be successful ?

When there was a dominant presence ( i e, a NEWSPAPER ) to provide a distribution medium for these content contributors to reach the world market.
They couldn't exist or achieve prominence without that distribution medium.

Today -- start a blog -- place their analysis or work on it and further build their brand and following.

For the truly unique work or analysis - that does have distinct value . Set up a separate Blog and sell that "WHITE PAPER" analysis for that small group who would pay dearly for the advantage that content or analysis would give them.

I'm with the others, the WSJ has just started the long and slippery journey toward oblivion. I can see the TV readers saying. ... "The venerable Wall Street Journal slipped into the annals of History this morning , when it closed its doors...

patrickvanzandt
Sep 18, 2009, 07:25 AM
Really?

I've got a couple of medical Apps, free to download that tere is a fee to get some comtent

Also, the Sirius XM app is "free" but will not function without a paid subscription.

alent1234
Sep 18, 2009, 08:01 AM
I wonder how long before the true content creators realize they don't need the WSJ to be successful ?

When there was a dominant presence ( i e, a NEWSPAPER ) to provide a distribution medium for these content contributors to reach the world market.
They couldn't exist or achieve prominence without that distribution medium.

Today -- start a blog -- place their analysis or work on it and further build their brand and following.

For the truly unique work or analysis - that does have distinct value . Set up a separate Blog and sell that "WHITE PAPER" analysis for that small group who would pay dearly for the advantage that content or analysis would give them.

I'm with the others, the WSJ has just started the long and slippery journey toward oblivion. I can see the TV readers saying. ... "The venerable Wall Street Journal slipped into the annals of History this morning , when it closed its doors...

most news based blogs wouldn't exist without "legacy media". all they do is link to articles and summarize them.

Oman
Sep 18, 2009, 08:02 AM
Also, the Sirius XM app is "free" but will not function without a paid subscription.

True.. But I thought the SDK rule was, a free app that provide content, or the ability to do a particular task must remain free and if there is to be a charge associated with that app, the free app shall be deemed a "lite" version and a different app is needed for access to all aspects of the app.

I would imagine, the only way the WSJ is getting away with this is because access to its content is subscription based, thus their free app like the Sirius XM app require you to log in to access content that is not inherently included in the app. Therefore, both apps operate within the guidelines of the SDK because their apps serves as a portal to their content, which also means these apps require a constant internet conection and are useless on an iPod Touch without being connected to a wireless network.

alent1234
Sep 18, 2009, 08:02 AM
i thought i was doing the WSJ a favor by reading it on my iphone and saving them printing costs as well as paying the mobbed up unions to distribute the product to newsstands. Guess they prefer the old way

newspapers' problems is that they gave up the classified market to the internet and now need to charge for content. i they can better their advertising on mobile devices and get a nice classified system back into the newspaper there won't be a need to charge for digital content

iOrlando
Sep 18, 2009, 08:38 AM
I wonder how long before the true content creators realize they don't need the WSJ to be successful ?

When there was a dominant presence ( i e, a NEWSPAPER ) to provide a distribution medium for these content contributors to reach the world market.
They couldn't exist or achieve prominence without that distribution medium.

Today -- start a blog -- place their analysis or work on it and further build their brand and following.

For the truly unique work or analysis - that does have distinct value . Set up a separate Blog and sell that "WHITE PAPER" analysis for that small group who would pay dearly for the advantage that content or analysis would give them.

I'm with the others, the WSJ has just started the long and slippery journey toward oblivion. I can see the TV readers saying. ... "The venerable Wall Street Journal slipped into the annals of History this morning , when it closed its doors...


well the main problem that has occured is this....

1900 - very few papers publishing...but the stories they sell generally had value and importance

2000 - alot more papers publishing...more newspapers = more junk due to newspaper trying to sell "different" stories

2009 - blogs taking over newspaper - more blogs = more junk due to blogs trying to sell "different" stories.

as the number of blogs and papers grow...quality and substance go down...Its that simple.

aka..if there was one apple rumor site...i would assume it had more value to add to the world then having 5 apple rumors site each circle jerking each other (pardon my french).

coolbreeze
Sep 18, 2009, 08:58 AM
Good luck with that WSJ.

*poof, app deleted*

Waaayy too many free news sources available. They'll see. This model won't work. Time will sort things out... :rolleyes:

old-wiz
Sep 18, 2009, 09:55 AM
Scary thing is that Murdoch believes this will work and I read elsewhere that he plans for all of his sites to charge for content. lots of luck with that.

Teh Don Ditty
Sep 18, 2009, 09:59 AM
^He's increasing the price of WSJ.com. He's going to start charging on the post and foxnews.com

Potus
Sep 18, 2009, 06:12 PM
Deleted the app. Used it only a few times. The content at WSJ is less useful than it once was. Definitely changed under Murdoch. It's not worth paying for.

MegaBit
Sep 18, 2009, 07:53 PM
It's not the best app and for the $1 or $2 per week, its a joke. I'll bet they keep the obnoxious ads along with the fee.

Delete and yes, move the files to the trash!

BriGuy20
Sep 19, 2009, 08:11 AM
$1 or $2 a WEEK?! IN ADDITION to my WSJ subscription?

Um, No. I'll enjoy the free business news from the Bloomberg and NY Times apps instead, thank you.

If you wrap this into my print subscription price, I might consider paying it, but an additional $52 or $104 a year is ludicrous.

Fireproof!
Sep 19, 2009, 08:19 AM
I guess they dream of making more money.
For me, USA Today App will remain my choice.

Me too. Bye bye WSJ.

tivoboy
Oct 27, 2009, 09:28 AM
It seems this has started. I haven't upgraded to the latest version, but my previous version now ALL the articles are showing the LOCKED key. Bummer, it was a nice tool while it latest.

tempusfugit
Oct 27, 2009, 11:36 AM
I haven't so much as GLANCED at a WSJ since Rupert Murdoch got his claws on it.

alent1234
Oct 27, 2009, 11:52 AM
just deleted mine as well. i never upgraded and thought i would still get it for free. a lot of free financial news out there that i don't need to pay for this. i would pay for IBD over the WSJ any day

Oskee2001
Oct 28, 2009, 12:51 PM
I'm an online and print subscriber, and I just logged on to the WSJ app with no problem. If you're already a subscriber, you don't have a problem.

coincidentally, the WSJ is one of the only papers that has always had paid content, and today its the only paper making a profit and seeing circulation numbers go up.

lllll
Oct 28, 2009, 02:42 PM
Unless Wall Street can deliver news the second they are published and notify you with a beep that there's new content or update. I don't see why I would pay for this.

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/17/wall-street-journal-to-begin-charging-for-mobile-access-to-content/)

The Wall Street Journal today announced (http://www.dj.com/Pressroom/PressReleases/Other/US/2009/0917_US_TheWallStreetJournal_3997.htm) that it will begin charging for mobile access to its news content as of October 24th. While mobile applications such as the WSJ's iPhone application (http://appshopper.com/news/wsj--the-wall-street-journal) will remain free of charge and will offer free access to selected content, full access will require a weekly subscription fee.Users who currently subscribe to both the print and online versions of The Wall Street Journal will continue to have free access to mobile content, but other users will be required to pay fees in order to access the majority of content. Users with either an existing online or print subscription to The Wall Street Journal will be required to pay $1.00 per week for mobile access, while those with no other subscriptions will be charged $2.00 per week. Users who register prior to the October 24th launch will receive a 90-day extension of no-fee access.

Article Link: Wall Street Journal to Begin Charging for Mobile Access to Content (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/17/wall-street-journal-to-begin-charging-for-mobile-access-to-content/)

doug in albq
Oct 28, 2009, 02:46 PM
I now use "Fluent News" for my news app.

Sorry, USA today is for kids. (but I have that app, too)

OllyW
Oct 28, 2009, 02:48 PM
Curious that Apple isn't getting a cut of this. Normally apps that are free can not require a cost inside the app to access more content. Only paid apps are allowed to have an in-app payment system. Obviously WSJ is not using an in-app payment system, but what they are doing is making more content available to users who pay them directly. That is not allowed in the iPhone SDK.

Pay attention (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/15/apple-opens-up-in-app-purchasing-for-free-iphone-applications/), they have recently changed the rules. ;)

mactastic
Oct 29, 2009, 12:53 PM
coincidentally, the WSJ is one of the only papers that has always had paid content, and today its the only paper making a profit and seeing circulation numbers go up.
I don't know if I'd get too excited about a .61% circulation increase...

Dead tree media is going the way of the dodo. Some will cling to life longer than others, but they are all doomed.

Rodimus Prime
Oct 29, 2009, 01:02 PM
Am I the only one who thinks it is stupid to charge for that.

I always been of the opion if you get the daily paper (hard copy) they should give you free access to everything else.
you can get a online only access (cheaper than just the paper) and that comes with mobile access.

That is how the Houston Conical did it for a while. People who paid for the paper had full access to it (online). Now you could read all the stories every day with out paying them anything but with out the fees you could not access any story older than 1 week and the weather had some limitation on it like you could not see any of the extra photos for the articles (only what was in the paper). I did not even know about the photo part until I log in one day and was looking over an article I had read earlier and saw a link to more photos not there before hand. It was really nice that they did not shove it on you at all times like other sites do.

diesel
Oct 29, 2009, 03:22 PM
Are the wsj people idiots or do they believe that we are?

the link from within the wsj app to subscribe to wsj.com + wsj mobile reader app at a "BIG" discount is $2.69 a week.

Hopping over to the wsj.com site and clicking the subscribe link:

https://order.wsj.com/sub/f3

The pricing is $2.69 for BOTH the print and online access and I belive the online access inherently gives you access to the iphone mobile reader app news. Wouldn't anyone pay the same price for both print and online as opposed to just online? If so, what are the wsj.com people smoking?

tivoboy
Oct 30, 2009, 03:06 PM
I did the app upgrade, figured I'd try it out

It DELETED or WIPED OUT all the saved articles I had which were most likely locally stored.

really wish they had said this was going to happen, since I was going to read them.

Also, it appears that one has to have a net connection, or at least I cannot figure out how to login now, and THEN get to the my articles area.

Stupid upgrade. Stupid $$ plan.