September 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM #181141
Im going to delete it off my Blackberry Immediately nowSeptember 16, 2009 at 8:59 AM #174049
News Corp. chairman and chief executive Rupert Murdoch said that the Wall Street Journal will start charging $2/week for their mobile application including their BlackBerry application. Even current WSJ subscribers will have to pay $1/week. That is pretty sad news for an application that was released free over a year ago.
I remember that AP News pulled this shtick a few months back and reneged once they received a ton of negative feedback from users and made the app free again. Here is to hoping the worlds second largest newspaper does the same.
So is anybody going to actually pay $104/year for a news app on their BlackBerry?
via Financial PostSeptember 16, 2009 at 9:35 AM #181142
lol aaaaaand…. deleted, rofl @ this old men… failing @ creative market changing ideas. what a jokeSeptember 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM #181143
Print media is in trouble. They are desperately trying to fit somewhere in the new world order. Perhaps they feel that monetizing the app will be profitable. Some people will be willing to pay. Financial services companies pay fees to news agregators all the time so this might work out for their target audience.September 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM #181144
Looks like I’ll be ditching this appSeptember 16, 2009 at 3:24 PM #181145
Are they on pills?? 104 bones a year for a news app?? World Mate Pro isnt even this expensive and you can book flights on it for god sakes. All you can do on a news app is read how Acorn employs a bunch trailer trash thugs and they still receive millions in taxpayer dollars or how Barack Obama called Kanye a “Jackass” cause he truly is a Jackass.September 16, 2009 at 9:20 PM #181146
Rupert Murdoch has been spouting off on how content needs to be monetized. He’ll learn that the world is changed soon enough.September 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM #181147
I suppose all the Murdoch haters above work for free and support their lives with Monopoly money.
Why would Murdoch care about the opinion of people who have decided they are not going to pay? What does he have to lose when non-payers decide not to read the paper anymore? Your precious love? Your invaluable affection? Your undivided attention? A nice pat on the back? Come on!
What the world needs to dig itself out of this financial pit is more people working, more people producing, more people with money to spend and more people PAYING for stuff. This stupid for-grabs Internet mentality has corroded a lot of industries over the two past decades. Businesses have been failing by the way side. Fewer jobs are available. People have no money to spend, therefore businesses can’t sell, expand and hire. A vicious circle and a downward spiral. The world sure is changed. There was a lot more production of assets, art and technology 10~15 years ago. Now most of the landscape is barren. Only Google and India will have fond memories of this lousy, cheapskate decade.September 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM #181148
Call me crazy, but I figure if I already pay for access online ($40) and delivery ($240) I doubt that I will be excited to pay another $50 for access on my phone. Hello Safari for the iPhone. (and maybe goodbye paper).September 17, 2009 at 8:44 PM #181149
Newspapers understand the concept of making money through ad sales. They’ve been doing it for centuries. When was the last time you got a bill from Google or Facebook? Well, guess what, those guys are making money. It’s all about relevance. The companies that can adjust their business model to changing market conditions will stay relevant.
You say that Murdoch doesn’t care what we think but even non-paying subscribers generate revenue. Of course, every business has a right to charge whatever the market will bear for their services, however, this move is a sign of old world thinking. They might succeed but I predict failure.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.