Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'The New York Times' Announces Digital Access With In App Subscriptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First of all it is crazy that they charge separately for the iPad and iPhone access. You should be able to view either one if you subscribe. Second, the price points are WAY too expensive. They could learn from The Daily. They did their homework over there. They are asking $40 a year. The New York Times could charge more than that since it is a well established paper but you get the idea. I don't think the NYT properly discounted the fact that they don't have to print and distribute physical paper when pricing this subscription. The New York Times isn't just charging too much, they are really passing up an incredible opportunity to be the dominant player in the digital subscription news space. Someone else will come along with good content and be cheaper and by then it will be too late for the NYT to catch up.
It was a huge success ... for Google.
I think part of the problem is that Internet advertisement networks, news aggregators, and now digital distribution channels (like Apple) are taking a larger share of the revenue while less and less goes to the people who produce the content (like the NY Times) ...Personally, I think the "per device" pricing model of the NYT is a bit over the top ($15 just to get it on my phone even if I already have paid for the web site and tablet versions?
). I'll wait until they announce the introductory discounts before making a decision. If I subscribe, I will do so directly through the NYT rather than iTunes, so as much as possible of my money goes to the journalists. I have already paid Apple my dues by buying a number of iDevices. Agreed. If models like this fail, we may not only see the end of printed newspapers, but also that of high-quality journalism ...
NYtimes is heavily in debt. Carlos slim is the richest man in the world, I think he can subsidize the paper for the forseable future.
Only chumps or yuppies are going to pay those subscription prices.
Say what you want about whether ad-supported content sites can work, but one thing is perfectly clear - subscription sites have failed miserably. Ad-supported sites do work - when the content is unique enough to generate traffic. It's all about content - the NYT offers nothing that can't be easily found somewhere else.
You mean, you have never bought a printed newspaper or magazine that had ads in them? Why was that fine with you then (when you bought those) but is no longer fine now?
I'm sympathetic to the plight of the NY Times and other real news services (by which I mean organizations that actually send reporters to Afghanistan and Libya). I understand that ads aren't working for their online services, and I see why they need to make more money.
But, as a practical matter, I think that this model will fail. People who are used to getting news for free on the internet aren't going to just start ponying up hundreds of dollars annually. Even if that's a fair price for what you get, the vast majority of people just won't pay it.
The 20 free articles/month will ameliorate some of the harshness of this, of course.
And there might be a niche for coffeeshops that were able to provide free full access to the NY Times for people using their wifi...that might be a nice service, in fact.
But I don't think that this pay model will work, and I think that newspaper/print publishers who thought that the ipad was the savior of their media were mistaken. (And keep in mind that the model they would like to see would involve paying for all magazines on the web. But this just will not happen).
But, as a practical matter, I think that this model will fail. People who are used to getting news for free on the internet aren't going to just start ponying up hundreds of dollars annually. Even if that's a fair price for what you get, the vast majority of people just won't pay it.
The 20 free articles/month will ameliorate some of the harshness of this, of course.
And there might be a niche for coffeeshops that were able to provide free full access to the NY Times for people using their wifi...that might be a nice service, in fact.
But I don't think that this pay model will work, and I think that newspaper/print publishers who thought that the ipad was the savior of their media were mistaken. (And keep in mind that the model they would like to see would involve paying for all magazines on the web. But this just will not happen).
Can't you just visit their website for free?
At any rate, they really need to figure out how to make such apps entirely ad-supported.
At any rate, they really need to figure out how to make such apps entirely ad-supported.
Solution!!!
All---here's a much less expensive solution for everyone who still wants unlimited access. Don't laugh, I'm serious!
Order the large print edition of the NY Times. It comes once a week and costs $42.90 every 6 months. I believe that this is the very, very least expensive way to get a print subscription to the NY Times.
It comes with---FREE---the new all digital access, including the nytimes.com and the smartphone and tablet subscriptions, all with unlimited content.
I just called the NY Times directly (today!) because I was worried about how this would affect things..... and they said this method will continue to offer the completely unlimited electronic access too.
It's just that not many people know about this method.
I believe it's the very, very, very cheapest way to go. We've done this since 2006 and will continue to do it now, since it provides a solution to today's newly announced subscription troubles discussed here.
All---here's a much less expensive solution for everyone who still wants unlimited access. Don't laugh, I'm serious!
Order the large print edition of the NY Times. It comes once a week and costs $42.90 every 6 months. I believe that this is the very, very least expensive way to get a print subscription to the NY Times.
It comes with---FREE---the new all digital access, including the nytimes.com and the smartphone and tablet subscriptions, all with unlimited content.
I just called the NY Times directly (today!) because I was worried about how this would affect things..... and they said this method will continue to offer the completely unlimited electronic access too.
It's just that not many people know about this method.
I believe it's the very, very, very cheapest way to go. We've done this since 2006 and will continue to do it now, since it provides a solution to today's newly announced subscription troubles discussed here.
Speaking for myself, I have only bought perhaps 1 or two newspapers/magazines in the past year. I can get all my news for free on the net.
I thought the cheapest model was the Sunday only edition which is $20/week. What is the difference?
With the Sunday only edition, you get the Sunday paper, but that's much more expensive.
The large print edition comes 1 time per week and it is a summary of the week's articles, intended for people who need to read the NY Times in a very large print font. That's what we do (and we've done it for 5 years now). It's a very thin paper so it doesn't cost much money..... BUT it has the advantage of being inexpensive and of including the FULL ELECTRONIC access too, even with the new model introduced today.
Again, I will emphasize that I called and spoke to a representative myself, before suggesting this method broadly on the forum. I strongly suggest this method for anyone who wants the full electronic access, including smartphone and tablet apps. It will work, guaranteed.
Advertising is heavily subsidizing the price of the paper edition. It is very likely the electronic version is discounted via the paper in terms of revenue, but with so much ad revenue for the paper product it still makes it more expensive.
Of course if people read things like the New York Times they would probably be aware enough to know this. (I kid, sort of)
As the guy says below:
I don't know why people keep saying crazy things like $400. If you want the iPad edition of the NYT it is $240 a year with no discounts.
Sure if you want to get iPad, iPhone and Web Access it is $380 a year with no discounts, but that is not the plan most people are going to choose...
Who cares if their non-paying digital readers stop reading? I think they will get plenty of subscribers and do fairly well and set the introduction for a lot more publications jumping on board with Apple and offering their content.
This is the first tumble of the stone as it starts rumbling down hill...
Personally I never was a fan of the NYT so I won't read it. I could never take a newspaper seriously that used to have a single sports page. Especially when I lived in a place who would have 40-50 page packed Sports sections on a Sunday.
First The Times here in the UK and now the NYT have adopted unreasonable pricing - what with the excellent Guardian iphone app costing 6 bucks a year and the tabloid Daily Mail charging 12 the NYT just don't get that 'cheap' gets you lots and lots of subscribers.
At least they will allow 20 articles a month so I can rotate IE, Safari, Firefox & Chrome on a PC which in combination with Instapaper will have to do for my Ipad/Iphone instead of their apps after the 28th. They'll get a big fat zero star after I delete them which is a shame but their loss..
At least they will allow 20 articles a month so I can rotate IE, Safari, Firefox & Chrome on a PC which in combination with Instapaper will have to do for my Ipad/Iphone instead of their apps after the 28th. They'll get a big fat zero star after I delete them which is a shame but their loss..
I had a bad feeling that they would fall into the old pricing structure for the paywall. While I have subscribed at times, I usually just buy individual copies at a newsstand, or read the free copy at my favorite coffee shop. Since the iPad app came out, I read the NYTimes through that portal whenever I can. Sadly, good reporting and in depth coverage cost money and they will not make enough through online adds. I just wish they would see that by pricing it much lower, say $10 a month for all coverage , they might get more subscriptions and readers. Though, by reading most of the posts on here, it appears that people do not want to pay anything and prefer to go to news grinding websites that give the short version of other newspapers articles.
P.S. As much as I enjoy the iPad app, I still prefer to get newsprint on my fingers while I nose through the paper in the morning.
P.S. As much as I enjoy the iPad app, I still prefer to get newsprint on my fingers while I nose through the paper in the morning.
similar
similar, but there are many options to get annual of the wsj (Which includes all digital access) for 79-99$ a YEAR, so in the end it is going to be more with the NYT. These two are true competitors these days. (the WSJ HAS BEEN the most successful news subscription service on the interwebs since day one) the WSJ has added a LOT more editorial, political, international and cultural content in the past half a decade which was a bee line on NYT
similar, but there are many options to get annual of the wsj (Which includes all digital access) for 79-99$ a YEAR, so in the end it is going to be more with the NYT. These two are true competitors these days. (the WSJ HAS BEEN the most successful news subscription service on the interwebs since day one) the WSJ has added a LOT more editorial, political, international and cultural content in the past half a decade which was a bee line on NYT
Hogwash, the NYT has the name and reputation to get many more subscribers then they have had in print media. In the digital world an English speaker living in China is just as good a customer as a businessman living in NYC. They need to make the digital subscription cheep and market it to the world.
Their current readership is just over 1 million subscribers. Their website gets 30 million unique visitors per month now.
A cheap $1 per week digital subscription with great content could net them 50 million worldwide subscribers within a decade as tablets take off.
So 50 million at $52 per year is $2.6B, or 1.5 million at $455 per year is $682M. I'd take the $2.6B.
The problem I see is the NYT is trying to prop up and extend the life of the physical paper by using digital media. In the process they are just turning out an overpriced digital product.
I truly believe that the reason for the growing ignorance of the population is the proliferation of 'free' news, which essentially has become froth-mouthed raves disguised as news. Add to that the ability for people to only go to the sources they already agree with, and the picture is dismal.
I wish I believed that going back to a paid model would get the pendulum swinging back in the right direction (professionally edited content collected by actual paid reporters,) but the comments even on this thread indicate that people want free crap more than paid quality.
Feel free to do that.. Nobody is stopping you. People have posted all kinds of alternatives to get better deals or routes that might be better for some people. All I see is a lot of choices and options. People want to look at the most expensive option and say "OMG OMG OMG".
If you want to read the NYT in Safari on your iPad instead of via the App you are free to do so. Nobody is telling you you can't... Why do you care if the price is different.. Don't you get to save some money?
Or is it you feel the App should be less expensive to match the cost of the website? You still have a choice. Right now there is a premium on the App over the Safari experience. Pay it or don't pay it.
Ad support for quality content these days is the Emperor with No Clothes. Traditional TV, Radio and Print media got away with it for a long time bleeding advertisers because there has never been a legitimate way to track the actual value of advertising. In the digital age, it is much easier to track actual response and value of advertising and as such eyeballs are worth much less than people want them to be worth... So advertisers are not paying as much for that content, which means they can't be just advertising supported unless they significantly reduce costs and potentially quality.
If you want entrust your future and information only to those places that provide free news forever, that is on you. Enjoy.
I guess you don't put any value at all on your own time or convenience.
Switching between four different browsers every day to read most of a newspaper is probably worth $15-$20 a month to me.. Maybe not to you.
Which is sad because if that is what an "iPad newspaper" is we're going to get a bunch of gossip and tomorrows news a few days from now. I'd rather pay for a Gawker website than The Daily.
They want to charge what?
The Daily is the only one who seems to get it. Day old news and an good crossword puzzle is worth about 15 cents a day. When will they realize that they don't have to print, ship and deliver? Print news is dead. Long live digital.
The Daily is the only one who seems to get it. Day old news and an good crossword puzzle is worth about 15 cents a day. When will they realize that they don't have to print, ship and deliver? Print news is dead. Long live digital.
I agree with you about payed vs. free content. I don't have a problem with the NYT asking for payed subscribers, I think that is a good thing.
The problem I have is the price. They are using a price point from print media in the digital world. In the digital world, the whole world is potential subscribers, and there is very little cost difference between generating content for 1 million subscribers or 100 million. They should be trying to massively expand their number of subscribers.
