For the same reason I cut cable TV with 150 USELESS channels.
Except this comparison is apples to oranges, because, while not strictly comparable, 150 cable channels truly don’t come close to equaling (one) subscription to the Wall Street Journal, in terms of total quality non-fiction information delivered. And, sadly, there doesn’t exist a single cable news channel that does more, on balance, to inform its viewers than it does to disinform and mislead. *There’s PBS, a bright shining beacon is a sea of trash—but it’s not a cable channel, and can even be watched on their app for free.
What 150 cable channels would have that the WSJ doesn’t, is mind numbing entertainment cheaply made entertainment, which can be nice here and there I guess, but you’d still have to spend 1/3 of your time watching commercials or paying more (and dealing with) a DVR, and even the “commercial-free” sections are so stuffed with product placements and other “hidden” sales pitches, that I don’t know why anyone bothers. Because, like the WSJ (or NYT or WaPo), a single subscription to HBO is worth more by nearly any measure than the basic cable package with 150 channels.
The people who are, just a couple days after it’s launch, declaring Apple News Plus to be a total failure and a waste of money are not only completely blind to what must be taken into account to make a statement such as that (one of the necessary variables being time) but you also make yourselves sound like the least credible source— type that doesn’t pay attention to anything non-fiction, doesn’t read, etc. I understand that not everyone enjoys reading, but it’s another thing still to not enjoy reading and also fail to grasp that “the unsexy pastime” provides an incredible amount of value to a large percentage of humans, yet.
