WSJ Asks iPhone App Users If They Would Pay

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
  3. joro macrumors 68020


    Jun 11, 2009
    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.
  4. WiseWeasel macrumors newbie

    Feb 25, 2003
    Bay Area, CA

    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.
  5. kolax macrumors G3

    Mar 20, 2007
    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.
  6. montex macrumors regular


    Jan 17, 2002
    Seattle, WA
    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.
  7. LizKat macrumors 68030


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    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.

Share This Page