Wall Street Journal to Begin Charging for Mobile Access to Content

MacRumors · Sep 17, 2009, 03:58 PM

The Wall Street Journal today announced 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 will remain free of charge and will offer free access to selected content, full access will require a weekly subscription fee.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Scooterman1 · Sep 17, 2009, 04:06 PM

I guess they dream of making more money.
For me, USA Today App will remain my choice.

Sky Blue · Sep 17, 2009, 04:07 PM

Not interested in reading Rupert Murdoch's old tat.

Cybbe · Sep 17, 2009, 04:09 PM

Ah, the old bait and switch. Not too much bait though, as the WSJ is useless.

JangoFett124 · Sep 17, 2009, 04:22 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, 04:23 PM

Wow, I just accidentally deleted the app.

caligurl · Sep 17, 2009, 04:33 PM

i'll be getting my news elsewhere... for free....

Detlev · Sep 17, 2009, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainMac

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.

Fireproof! · Sep 19, 2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooterman1

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, 10:28 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, 12:36 PM

I haven't so much as GLANCED at a WSJ since Rupert Murdoch got his claws on it.

alent1234 · Oct 27, 2009, 12:52 PM

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

synth3tik · Sep 17, 2009, 06:07 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, 07:00 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, 07:42 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.

-aggie- · Sep 17, 2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teh Don Ditty

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, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iphone.aggie

You'd like that too much.

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

Teh Don Ditty · Sep 17, 2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sagsisla

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 18, 2009, 12:03 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...

alent1234 · Sep 18, 2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjc10000

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.

iOrlando · Sep 18, 2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjc10000

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).

Jack Green · Nov 2, 2009, 06:53 AM

they should leave some amount of free content. This is normal, that content providel likes to get paid somehow. There is mo marketing (banner) revenue from iPhone, so it should be paid. But only premium content.

J

Baron58 · Sep 17, 2009, 08:33 PM

Now that they're essentially a Republican shill, I don't even want them for free.

Teh Don Ditty · Sep 17, 2009, 08:40 PM

^So true. It's amazing to see how the quality of the WSJ has declined since Murdoch bought it.

lllll · Oct 28, 2009, 03:42 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRumors

The Wall Street Journal today announced 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 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

Sep 17, 2009, 04:06 PM	#2
Scooterman1 macrumors 6502a Join Date: May 2008 Location: Houston, Tx	I guess they dream of making more money. For me, USA Today App will remain my choice. __________________ --i-------------- ---P---3-------- ----h---2---3--- -----o---G---G-- ------n---B---S-- -------e---------

Sep 17, 2009, 04:07 PM	#3
Sky Blue macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jan 2005	Not interested in reading Rupert Murdoch's old tat. __________________ "The case is so square that it easily stands at attention as if begging for treats."

Sep 17, 2009, 04:33 PM	#7
caligurl macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: socal	i'll be getting my news elsewhere... for free.... __________________ GOT HER!! black 32GB 3GS⃣

Oct 27, 2009, 10:28 AM	#10
tivoboy macrumors 6502a Join Date: May 2005	started 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.

Oct 27, 2009, 12:36 PM	#11
tempusfugit macrumors 6502 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Minneapolis	I haven't so much as GLANCED at a WSJ since Rupert Murdoch got his claws on it. __________________ 13" MacBook Pro 2.53 GHz, 4 GB, 500 GB HD ; 16 GB BLACK iPhone 3g ; 8 GB iPod Touch (2g)

Sep 17, 2009, 04:09 PM	#4
Cybbe macrumors member Join Date: Sep 2004	Ah, the old bait and switch. Not too much bait though, as the WSJ is useless.

Sep 17, 2009, 04:22 PM	#5
JangoFett124 macrumors member Join Date: Jul 2002	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.

Sep 17, 2009, 04:23 PM	#6
BornAgainMac macrumors 68030 Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Florida Resident	Wow, I just accidentally deleted the app.

Oct 27, 2009, 12:52 PM	#12
alent1234 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2009	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

Sep 17, 2009, 06:07 PM	#13
synth3tik macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minneapolis, MN	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. __________________ Come check out my music! http://www.batteriesarentfood.com http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/BatteriesarentFood

Sep 17, 2009, 07:00 PM	#14
Teh Don Ditty macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Long Island, NY	I subscribe online to WSJ.com only. I noticed my subscription is increasing to almost $200 next year. You can kiss my ass Murdoch. __________________ Disgusting.

Sep 17, 2009, 07:42 PM	#15
ZipZap macrumors regular Join Date: Dec 2007	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.

Sep 18, 2009, 12:03 AM	#19
pjc10000 macrumors newbie Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: FLORIDA	How long before the true content creators realize they don't need the WSJ?? 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...

Nov 2, 2009, 06:53 AM	#22
Jack Green macrumors newbie Join Date: Nov 2009	they should leave some amount of free content. This is normal, that content providel likes to get paid somehow. There is mo marketing (banner) revenue from iPhone, so it should be paid. But only premium content. J

Sep 17, 2009, 08:33 PM	#23
Baron58 macrumors 6502 Join Date: Feb 2004	Now that they're essentially a Republican shill, I don't even want them for free.

Sep 17, 2009, 08:40 PM	#24
Teh Don Ditty macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Long Island, NY	^So true. It's amazing to see how the quality of the WSJ has declined since Murdoch bought it. __________________ Disgusting.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode