Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYTimes Unveils Online Subscription Plan

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the because-they-can dept.

The Almighty Buck 194

An anonymous reader writes "The NYTimes announces their three pricing tiers for digital access. An interesting note: 'Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles.'"

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good job, sirs! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518032)

CmdrTaco has a tiny penis. It's so tiny that a 2 month fetus looks like Mandingo in comparison.

Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518080)

Judith Miller. To paraphrase a surprisingly insightful comment from Ben Affleck, the NYT might be revered by older generations who lived through their glory days, but as someone who started following politics around Clinton's impeachment, the first thing I saw them do was sell a bullshit war and quite probably staff CIA-friendly propagandists.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (3, Informative)

sarbonn (1796548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518374)

I definitely agree. When I attended West Point, one of the requirements at that time was that you were required to read the New York Times every morning (it was delivered to every cadet room, so you shared it with your roommates). Since then, I've always tended to steer towards the newspaper, thinking of it as a quality one, but the fact is it's gotten horribly bad over the years (specifically the time you pointed out). To make matters worse, the NYT still thinks it is the newspaper it used to be in the 1960s, even trying to charge the highest amount for a newspaper that is printed. Even on Kindle, it demands $20, whereas a newspaper like The Washington Post (which I do subscribe to now) is only $12 a month. For reasons that have long been gone, the NYT keeps trying to live in an era where it was the newspaper of quality, but it has relaxed its editorial process so much over the years to where there are times I see it as a little better than some blogs and containing no more content than the AP wires.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519034)

$20 per month for the Kindle edition? How much is the dead-tree version? The Columbus [Ohio] Dispatch, aka the Columbus Disgrace, is almost $30 per month -- about $28 more than it's worth, IMO.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519386)

In NYC, it was just under $6/week delivered to your door(man). I have to assume that they don't get much ad revenue for the online edition and so they can't sell the "paper" as inexpensively.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519338)

I was an editor at the school newspaper when I was in highschool, so we were also required to read the NYTimes and our local city rag every day (delivered free to us at school). I too formed a high opinion of the NYTimes that has stayed with me, despite their errors over the past decade. I'll be sad to say that I'll be browsing it less frequently once they start charging, because $15/mo just seems a little steep to me.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518456)

My basic view on the New York Times is that it is best read the way the Soviets used to read Pravda: The purpose of reading it isn't to learn the truth, it's to learn what those in power want you to think.

That's not a useless exercise, but it's also not what it appears to be.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (2, Informative)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518940)

A 'Soviet' is a type of administrative council, not a denonym for citizens of the former Soviet Union.

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (2)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519426)

In Soviet Russia, citizens are denonym!

Re:Two words why I'll never buy a NYT subscription (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519480)

A 'Soviet' is a type of administrative council, not a denonym for citizens of the former Soviet Union.

Just like "Shimmer", it's both!

Did you just graduate from a course or something? The word "Soviet" has been used in the West for decades to describe citizens and the government of the Soviet Union. It is also commonly used as an adjective to describe other things associated with the USSR. That's what happens when you put the word "Soviet" in your country name.

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518084)

The NYT business model is now a 3 legged dead horse.. flog away.

BBC and AP (1, Offtopic)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518110)

While I'm paying for BBC news in London via the TV license, I won't miss the Murdoch machine that much. I do read the NYT once a day, but if they put up a paywall then I won't bother - there is simply enough news to go around. Murdoch put a paywall up on the London Times last year, which I stopped reading daily. Their readership plummeted. Obviously the London Times was a test bed with a large audience, you from what I've read, NYT will do everything they do not to make that same mistake. Time will tell if they have struck a fair enough balance between free and paid-for material.

Re:BBC and AP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518258)

Unless I'm reading your comment wrong, you seem to think the NY Times is owned by Murdoch. It is not.

Re:BBC and AP (1)

Illicon (1588477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518270)

I'm confused. Are you implying that Rupert Murdoch runs The New York Times?

This sucks (1)

bigjarom (950328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518136)

I'm really upset about this. I love the NYT and it's my favorite general news source; but I simply can't justify paying that much. I guess us poor people who read a lot of news aren't in their target demographic.

Re:This sucks (1, Troll)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518236)

You are correct. Their target is those folks who can buy the cars, jewelry, furs, condos and coops that are advertised in their weekly magazine supplement (and less lavishly, in the daily paper). Loser!

(me too)

Re:This sucks (2)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518590)

Don't worry, trickle down economics will fix this problem for you.

Re:This sucks (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519394)

Don't worry, trickle down economics will fix this problem for you.

Yes indeed! It will reduce the surplus population, and then there's more tuppence for the rest of us.

Polish yer iPad, govna?

Re:This sucks (1)

herojig (1625143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518702)

There are so many alternatives to NYT (albeit at a bit lower quality as far as interactive graphics is concerned) that I don't see how they are going to pull this off. For those in developing countries ranked in the lower 100's of the GDP or HDI, I can't see this working at all. BTW, I really agree with Swave's assessment of advertising in the NYT, but note it's not limited to the weekly supplement - its plastered all over the everyday online version as well. I guess April 1 I'll be going elsewhere after the first 20 clicks or so...

Re:This sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519286)

I'm really upset about this. I love the NYT and it's my favorite general news source; but I simply can't justify paying that much. I guess us poor people who read a lot of news aren't in their target demographic.

No it's just economic reality. Producing the quality of content (not withstanding a valid earlier post about some black eyes the Times has endured over the past few years) both for print and then for the web/apps is expensive. Revenue from advertisements hasn't gererated the revenue they want/need. They will not be able to continue to have the resources to gather real news if they don't come up with a way to produce an adequate revenue stream.

I know people rant about how bloggers produce similar quality work product and don't require the expensive overhead. But look carefully at that product. There is some good investigative journalism being done by bloggers, but for the most part their posts are re-hash of hard news gathered by paid journalists. A healthy press that functions as we wish them too can't be woven together by the rare threads of hard journalism produced by volunteer or free-lance blogger. We need healthy news outlets like the Times.

Re:This sucks (1)

AlamedaStone (114462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519482)

The fourth estate has been asphyxiating since Watergate. Set up bloggers with an editor and a fact checker, toss in a couple reference links at the bottom - bingo, fourth estate.

A million bloggers hitting random keys for ten hours a day will probably stumble on a fact or two.

Overpriced, by a long shot. (2)

Albert Schueller (143949) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518140)

At 35USD every 4 weeks, they overpriced by a wide margin. Clearly they missed this article [slashdot.org] . Try 35USD/yr and I might think about it.

Re:Overpriced, by a long shot. (2)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518336)

At that price its cheaper for home delivery of the print edition 7 days a week.

Re:Overpriced, by a long shot. (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518390)

>>>Try 35USD/yr and I might think about it.

Not I.
$30/year gets me a full year of qualify fantasy and science fiction (Asimov's) whereas the Times offers nothing that valuable. I can hear the news for free (via google).

Re:Overpriced, by a long shot. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518474)

Your signature is ironically appropriate:

$30/year gets me a full year of qualify fantasy and science fiction (Asimov's) whereas the Times offers nothing that valuable. I can hear the news for free (via google).

Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.

Re:Overpriced, by a long shot. (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518516)

I paid $36/year for Pandora One, which I consider to be well worth the price. Some of this I attribute to psychology: for some reason, a yearly price of $36 seems more reasonable to me than a monthly price of $3.

Re:Overpriced, by a long shot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519064)

Bingo. I can think of much better ways to spend $35 a week. I’m not going to pay for it, and if that means I don’t get to read it, that’s okay. There are plenty of other interesting things to read out there on the web.

And of course, those who DO pay for it will get the ad-free version, right? Right? Hey, why are you laughing??

why would I pay for news? (5, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518150)

I'm confused. Why would I ever want to pay for news?

I've got free news from: cnn.com, msnbc.com, foxnews.com, bbc.uk, new radio, various news apps on my smartphone, and tens of thousands of idiotic commentary available to me across the web.

What has NYT got that I can't get elsewhere for free?

Re:why would I pay for news? (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518194)

I do find their articles higher quality on average than the sources you listed, though for basic news reporting the difference isn't large, and for in-depth analysis there are alternatives that seem like they won't be paywalled (at least for now), like The Atlantic and The New Yorker. Their strength imo is fairly timely, news-ish analysis (versus long-form essay), but with at least a medium amount of context/analysis and independent reporting that isn't purely cribbed from Reuters or the Associated Press.

Now whether that's interesting enough for anyone to pay for, I don't know. I won't be paying for it myself.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518410)

The New Yorker does have a pay wall for some articles. A lot of their articles are viewable only as browsable images, which sucks, but if you're a subscriber (~$50/year) you get full access to all of their archives.

Re:why would I pay for news? (3, Insightful)

Mazzie (672533) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518214)

Its kind of like owning a luxury car. You still get from A to B, but you feel better than everyone else because you wasted your money.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518538)

Well that actually depends.

Cars are one of the biggest scams the United States has ever seen. Unsurprisingly, the scam is partly run by the banks.

Consider a poor person. This person can't buy a $15,000 car outright. The banks will give them $10,000 but no less for a car loan, so they must buy something off the floor for $10,000. They could buy a $2000 used car but they're too poor, or too bad at picking out used cars to get one that's not a junker that'll die in 3 months or take $5000 of work to keep running for 1 year.

So the poor person puts down $500, gets a $18000 loan after taxes, tire taxes, tags, titling, and warranty, at a 5% interest rate. 5 years in they've paid $25000, put down $4000/year in maintenance (3 years in these cheap GM cars start needing work left and right), and the car is now starting to die. It'll take $5000/year in maintenance to keep it going, or a big drop to rebuild the engine (after 100,000 miles, GM engines are considered "dead" or "likely to die without a rebuild," so say insurance companies that back extended warranty salesmen) and redo the suspension, fuel system, and electrical system. So the poor person sells the car for $1000-$2000, and buys another one.

A rich guy instead buys a $50,000 Jaguar or Audi. It costs $2000-$3000/year to maintain, but it lasts longer, has a more graceful breakdown cycle, and of course well-tended the engine runs great 250,000 miles in (I had a Nissan KA24e engine that was ABUSED and ran decently at 210,000 miles, until dad fucked up replacing a seal and it leaked 3 quarts of oil and blew a rod running on the highway without oil! That specific engine model is known to be an outlier in cheap cars).

The rich guy never does this, but does have the option to drop $50,000 straight, no bank loans, and keep the car for a good 20 years before selling it for around $5000 if it's in good working order. That means in 20 years the poor guy has spent $80,000 in maintenance and $100,000 on purchase, $180k; while the rich guy has spent $50,000 in maintenance and $50,000 on purchase, $100,000. And that's for an expensive Audi; a good Audi A4 costs around $30k, so yeah.

Cars are a scam.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518668)

Your automotive knowledge is incredibly thin, which is ok, but you present the topic as if you are informed, which is not ok.

Also, "domestic cars are junk, foreign cars are awesome" is such an 80s/90s remnant attitude. Time to drop it, just as the "domestic cars are awesome, foreign cars have horrible ergonomics and build quality" was a 60s/70s remnant attitude that was also rightfully dropped.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518984)

GM cars are junk. The Chevy Camaro and the Pontiac GTO were good cars, but you can't even get a warranty on a 100,000 mile Cadillac because the insurance company backing the warranty seller knows the engine starts having serious problems after around 110,000-ish. They have statistics on this. Ford still makes good shit, but still old tech shit i.e. Ford Mustang is a well-built joke with a 1920s suspension; Dodge/Chrysler I won't go anywhere near, even GM is better (but Chrysler makes better engines... just puts them in even shittier cars than GM).

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

Cogita (1119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518754)

Umm.... What kind of cars are you buying? Get a car from a decent make, and it'll last a lot longer than 5 years. They're priced competitively, and usually, you get better savings on gas mileage to. You use the example of GM, but if your estimates are correct about engine life, they're the outlier among vehicles.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518864)

What kind of work are you having done on your cars that you are spending $4K per year on maintenance?

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518994)

I don't know where you get your maintenance, but I bought a new car for $9000 (cash) in 2002 and used it for five years. I must have spent maybe $300 in maintenance, total. That is $60/year. The car worked fine, and the only time there was a real malfunction it was covered by the warranty. The maintenance was mostly oil changes and tire rotations. Sold it for about half the purchase price after the five years.

Even if your "maintenance" includes taxes, insurance, and gas, I don't think I spent more than $2000 per year. So, including depreciation, the actual cost of owning the car was about $3000/year or $60/week. Not two bad a price for the convenience compared with the very limited public transportation where I lived.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519014)

Spot on sir !

And this is why I arrived at work today (and all days since I started working) on my grandfathers bicycle which has served three generations of my family well. I might not get paid as much as I could by living locally but what I save in all these bank based cons more than make up for it.

Sadly though I used the last of his oil just before Xmas (he was somewhat rash and bought two cans way back in the 1940s) so I had to buy a new one. My the price has gone up !

Cars are a waste of time and money. They turn you into an overweight, poor, impolite and mindlessly aggressive slob.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519346)

Funny you mention Audi as a low maintenance cost car.

When I was young and (more) stupid I had an A4 1.8T with the CVT transmission. It was a fun car, but I became acquainted with the dealer's shop manager by first name. First one coil pack died, then the transmission control module died, then a door module (box with the window motor and door CANBUS interface), then another coil pack, then a connector came loose in a pillar... All this while reading post after post to forums about CVTs crapping out just outside of warranty at a customer replacement cost of $7k for just the part. Out of all these problems, only the coil packs had a TSB against them, and anecdotally the "new" packs are just as likely to fail.

I sold it just outside of the warranty and bought a Mazda3. To date, almost 5 years and nearly 60kmiles and the only thing that hasn't been regular maintenance was a bad EGR valve that had a TSB against it. My in-laws are rocking a 15+ year old MPV and a 10 year old 626 and have had similar low maintenance costs. A friend of mine just sold a 22 year old Civic when the transmission started to fail, and as far as I know hadn't had anything major go wrong.

Are there cheap cars with high long-term maintenance costs? Sure. But don't be fooled into thinking that expensive means well made.

Re:why would I pay for news? (5, Insightful)

empiricistrob (638862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518224)

Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism? Because high quality journalism is essential for a well functioning democracy? Because you don't want to read news where 50% of the headlines are about Lindsay Lohan or "human interest stories"?

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518368)

Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism?

Pretty much, this is why I'm subscribed to the local paper even though I just read the copy at work.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518732)

Our "local" paper is just another Gannet satellite, spitting out wire feed stories with an occasional local news story. I decided to cancel it several years ago and just use Google News to find local stories.

As far as the NY Times, I live in a NY suburb so the Times is essentially a local paper as well, and I get weekend the Sunday only delivery for $4.50 per week which also qualifies me for the online subscription.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518376)

So what you're saying is that high quality journalism is already effectively dead in the US ?

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518572)

No, I think he's saying that you get what you pay for.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518498)

Not at $15/month - I value the NY Times, but they need to regain their reputation for premium journalism before I'll pay a premium price. In recent years they've been buffaloed too often into kowtowing to the right-wings false "Republican say all true Americans believe Earth Center of Universe - Some Dem's disagree" neutrality, and now seem to think there's no downside to that?

Pug

Re:why would I pay for news? (3, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518500)

Why would you pay for news? Perhaps because you value journalism? Because high quality journalism is essential for a well functioning democracy?/quote> Of course, that still leaves the question as to why would you pay for the New York Times?

Re:why would I pay for news? (2)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518548)

While I agree all of that is valid, how is any of that related to the New York Times? There is a story about the dresses Lindsay Lohan wears to her court dates on the New York Times home page right now. There are also lots of fluffy pop stories like "Proud to be Japanese" and how to find a drink in Times Square.

The New York Times has had journalism problems since at least the mid 90's, and has been replaced in relevance by an ever increasing number of news sources. The US produces a great many things, but journalism is one area where the rest of the world has us beat.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518742)

> implying the New York Times is "high quality journalism"

No.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518760)

Because you don't want to read news where 50% of the headlines are about Lindsay Lohan or "human interest stories"?

Right. Google News, disable Entertainment, use Greasemonkey to hide the video/fast flip/most shared junk. 100% free news, 100% Lindsay Lohan-free.

Wasn't (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518870)

the New York Times a jingoistic advocate of the Iraq War? Thomas PM Barnett likened the run-up to this war as one of a cop shouting "He's got a gun!" as his pals burst thru a front door.

Because information has value (2)

sjbe (173966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518400)

Why would I ever want to pay for news?

Because it has value to you. People have been paying for news or information (one way or another) for a long time. Information has value and people ARE willing to pay for it. I certainly am and I suspect you are too, at least up to a point.

The problem is that it's very difficult to figure out exactly what information is valuable to specific people and even harder to place a dollar value on that information. What I value is certainly different than what you value and our willingness to pay is different. Additionally, information is an experience good. You don't actually know exactly how valuable a piece of information is to you until after you have that information and payment can't reasonably be demanded for information you already have. It also is a wasting product, meaning that its value often drops with time.

Mass news media (newspapers, tv, etc) was able to get around this by having advertisers foot the bill for much of the cost and simply presenting a broad spectrum of news to the public coupled with a distribution monopoly. They didn't have to figure out what you value specifically because they threw enough information into their product that something was likely to be of value to your.

The distribution monopoly has been broken and with it much of the economic rents [wikipedia.org] the newspapers and mass media enjoyed. People will still pay for news, but the price is going to have to drop. Newspapers will no longer enjoy outsized profits. They still can be profitable, just not in their current forms and not likely with the same margins. People will pay for news but not in the same way and probably not as much.

Re:Because information has value (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519378)

The thing was that when I grew up there was a selection of newspapers, and you picked one (or at most two). Investigative journalism was probably always a loss leader, you filled the rest up with cheap world news, local information that people more than willingly offer and got "free" money on stuff like announcing happenings or schedules, second hand market listings, obituaries and lots of other things that people wanted to put in the paper. You more or less had to have all the bits or people would pick a different newspaper.

Today, I can jump from one online site to the next on a story-by-story basis. Craigslist and eBay and lots of other companies will cherry-pick the lucrative bits and do pure sites based on that. World news? I can get those at the lowest bidder worldwide, being global and all. Before actually there was a value in getting a paper that'd tell you about the earthquake in Japan, today there 2342643 sites willing to tell you about it. So when you get everything else where it's cheapest, investigative journalism has to be its own profit center. The stories they make actually have to sell more than they cost to produce, there's no halo of additional income like there used to be.

That's tough. You see many magazines still do well because they cater to niches. Some financial newspapers still do good, because it's vital the information is fresh and analysis good. The other case is that the other newspapers aren't selling yesterday's news anymore. If an investigative journalist "blows the lid" on a case at 9 AM in one newspaper, by 10 AM all the others will have called someone for comment and made their own arguably legitimate news reporting and by the time it hits the evening news they'll pretty much all have an equally broad covering. So all you get is to work hard then throw it to the sharks who'll all grab their own piece while hopefully still sending a bit of the viewers to your own site. As a vital institution of society it's important, as a business model I'd run for the hills.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518546)

I've got free news from:

That's what you think. When something is free, it's always necessary to question who is paying the cost, and how. What are you giving up in exchange for your 'free' news? At the very least, the vast majority are giving up significant information about their reading and browsing habits.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518892)

I would tell you who is paying for my news, but I have adblock installed so I don't see the advertisements.

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

masman (811765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518666)

Really? Have you taken a good look at CNN.com lately?

Re:why would I pay for news? (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518980)

oh of course I have. I have to make a concerted effort not to read the comments on articles, because the level of stupidity of my fellow countrymen angers me to no end. Often the article itself is not much better. That said, that's just journalism in the 21st century (Really, it's been that bad since the late 80s at least). Any of these sources will stop the stupidity when something of actual importance happens. nobody was reporting on lindsay lohan on september 11th 2001.

That said, they're just doing what any business does, cater to their customers. Take a look at the most popular articles on a given day, usually lindsay articles are near the top, regardless of what the front page article is at the moment. People want their distractions, can't blame the news outlet for providing them. MSNBC, Fox, and even NPR do the same, to different target audiences.

The only one who doesn't do that, at least not nearly as much, is BBC news, but I often find them so dry as to be boring.

I just don't care about the news as much as I did a couple years ago. I used to sort through a half dozen different sources daily to try and keep myself as updated as possible on as many issues as possible from as many point of views as possible. Know what I finally realized? 95% or more of it doesn't matter. Now I check the news every other day or so, for about 15-30 min total. I keep fairly well informed nonetheless.

Re:why would I pay for news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519318)

Don't pay for news. Get excellent journalism for no cost at NPR.org and www.pbs.org/newshour

Get insightful commentary from the excellent folks at www.economist.com

Expensive (5, Insightful)

empiricistrob (638862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518158)

I'm very conflicted by this move from the times. In my opinion nytimes.com is one of the best sources of journalism on the web, and I've always been concerned that in the long run their business model wouldn't be sustainable. I think that paying money to support good journalism makes a lot of sense -- it's too important not to.

But $15/mo for the entry level? That's really disappointing. There are many readers that will not be able to afford this. I was hoping the entry level would be closer to the $5/mo mark.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518982)

To be fair, the entry level is $0 a month for 20 articles.

The problem you get with something like $5/month is that quite a bit of that as a % gets eaten up by the payment processing. They probably pay like 50 cents on that $5 which works out to costing 10% revenue just on payment processing.

Re:Expensive (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518988)

In my opinion nytimes.com is one of the best sources of journalism

Based on other comments, it seems you should consider re-examining the basis for your opinion, since they seem to indicate that the proper term is "used to be", not "is".

on the web

Even on the web, given that it is a superset of what is available through traditional media channels.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519174)

I'm promoting the company I work for of course, but you can get the NYT, Washington Post and other papers from Ongo.com for 6.99.

No Ads
Great curated content from the NYT, Washington Post and more.
$6.99 a month
http://www.ongo.com/

We are running a promotion for $4.99 a month for the next 6 months here:
http://www.ongo.com/accounts/registration.php?promo=BRIAN

Re:Expensive (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519196)

If they are to stupid to make enough money to not be able to afford $15/Mo then they are too stupid to correctly forget about what they read there.
That would mean a whole bunch of badly informed people.
Thank God that the NYT is pricing itself out of delivering information to the masses.

RefControl (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518164)

Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit.

That's good to know... the referer header is easy to forge.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518172)

  1. Make private blog on blogspot
  2. Copy/paste any NYT links you want to view to it
  3. NYT detects that it's from a blog and allows the view regardless of the viewing limit
  4. ???
  5. Profit!

Increased productivity (5, Funny)

coldsalmon (946941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518182)

This is a great way to get me to stop reading the NYT at work. Now, if only Slashdot would do the same thing I might actually get some work done.

Canada first? WTF? (1)

khendron (225184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518188)

They are launching the pay wall in Canada first, effective immediately.

Everything time something "good" rolls out from the USA (Hulu, iPhone, iPad, lots of shit from Amazon), it takes forever for it to get to Canada, if it gets here at all. Now this (definitely not "good") and they launch it in Canada first. Go figure.

Re:Canada first? WTF? (2)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518212)

Solution: Create more content and stop waiting for Americans to do all of the work.

Re:Canada first? WTF? (0, Troll)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518282)

But Canadians are Americans also.

Re:Canada first? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518582)

no they are not

Re:Canada first? WTF? (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518786)

Go tell Hugo Chavez that he's an American!

Re:Canada first? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519032)

how can a fact be a troll?

Re:Canada first? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518608)

TV is blocked here because the Canadian networks pay for the rights to broadcast it here, getting revenue from the commercial time they sell during those shows. Why would a TV network want Hulu up here, taking away their revenue? I'm not even going to start on the different copyright laws, which need to be taken into account during licensing negotiations, etc.

iPhone & iPad need to pass regulatory approval here, as well as find carriers willing to sell & support them.

Amazon: too many different things they do to have a simple blanket statement for them.

Browser Addons (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518200)

So, wont we soon have browser addons to add referrers to the links to make use of this loophole??

'Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles

Re:Browser Addons (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518310)

We already do. It's called RefControl [mozilla.org] .

Re:Browser Addons (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518386)

So, wont we soon have browser addons to add referrers to the links to make use of this loophole??

'Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles

If you know the headline of the article, you can presumably just search for it, then click the link in the search engine, and not even bother faking anything.

No ads, right? (1)

CaptBubba (696284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518202)

Will the subscription come without ads, or perhaps at least without any ads you would not see in the newspaper? Doubtful of course, but I'm not going to pay that kind of subscription fee and still be blinked at.

Unionize (1)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519424)

Will the subscription come without ads, or perhaps at least without any ads you would not see in the newspaper? Doubtful of course, but I'm not going to pay that kind of subscription fee and still be blinked at.

Hear, hear!

On the bright side, $15/mo is a relatively big stick that we can wield to make demands about the quality of both the content and the user interface. As it stands now, we have no economic leverage aside from the nanoamount of ad revenue that NYT will lose if you or I stop reading their rag online.

But as paying customers, we can actually demand changes. Stop showing blinky ads. Stop adding annoying user interface controls that no one asked for. Stop running stories that are obviously paid-for PR placements. These are the kinds of things that you used to be able to write in about, and get heard, when you were a paying subscriber.

And if $15/mo isn't enough to get their attention, it is now trivially easy to form a NYT Readers Union and make demands collectively. 5000 readers threatening to unsubscribe at that price is bound to get somebody's attention.

Too much? (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518240)

I personally think $15 is a little steep. I'd pay $5... I'm a daily reader of the NYTimes online, but news can come from many sources, not just the Times. I guess if I really want to read a story I'll just post it for myself in Facebook and follow the link...

Re:Too much? (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518954)

How are you going to get the proper article link to link it?

Re:Too much? (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519270)

Damnit! Evil plan is already foiled. I'm sure there will be services that pop up to handle that, though...

No longer relevant (1)

TideX (1908876) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518288)

The New York Times hasn't been a credible news source for decades now. Everyone has moved to BBC, Al Jazeera, and other British news outlets. This will go nowhere and they will continue to die.

At least they're being upfront about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518442)

Most newspapers have very opaque access policies - they'll let you read their articles, even old ones (if you search through google to get them, for example); but, at the same time, they let you register. Others (like the Washington Post) give basically open access to their site, but will prompt you, seemingly at random, to register, but only for some articles.

To compound the issue, most papers now have a 'regular' section, and 'blog' sections; logic would dictate there be different access policies for the two, but I've never seen any published.

I've tried to work out patterns for these places as part of some of the work I do, and for me they've been indecipherable.

From a purely selfish point of view, I'm not happy about the NY Times charging for access, but I am happy that they're clearly laying out what readers can and can't get.

Switching to Washington Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518448)

Oh well, guess I'll just have to switch to the Washington Post. New York Times is very pro-war and constantly bashes China in a tasteless way that should really make them ashamed. Still they were generally the best available as far as American news goes but I will have no problem switching to the Post. If they try a pay wall on that I'll just start reading overseas English language papers. I'm not paying to read a bunch of war cheerleading China-bashing Islamophobic tripe. Sometimes I read it and wonder if they're trying to troll me to post a comment or they actually believe the biased crud they report with a straight face.

Re:Switching to Washington Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518640)

Don't bother. It too, is crap-for-content and they just redesigned the site making it even more user-unfriendly.

Re:Switching to Washington Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519206)

If they try a pay wall on that I'll just start reading overseas English language papers. I'm not paying to read a bunch of war cheerleading China-bashing Islamophobic tripe. Sometimes I read it and wonder if they're trying to troll me to post a comment or they actually believe the biased crud they report with a straight face.

That's the way comrade! Stick with RT and Pravda for all your information and you won't go wrong.

Workaround (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518518)

How long until someone crawls the NYT site and links all the stories from their Facebook account? What recourse would the NYT have, since they obviously have the capability to block this but have chosen not to?

I received their notice (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518526)

but you know what? I don't care because they're already irrelevant. They lost relevance around the time they staffed people like Judith Miller, Adam Nagourney, and Jayson Blair. Do I want to know something real? Well, in English I turn to the BBC. Because I also speak those languages, Der Spiegel and Le Monde as well.

For everything else, I read eyewitness reports. And why shouldn't I? Media channels like the NYTimes long ago spun down their foreign operations. They rely on eyewitnesses too, same as me. Except when I read them, I get them straight without the corporate spin.

Opinion? I believe my opinion, based on congressional whitepapers and original documents, is at least as valid as the semi-literate people who populate the New York Times and its cousins these days.

News as an activity will always exist. But newspapers and news channels on TV and news sites on the web surrendered their authority when they decided it was cheaper and more profitable to report opinion as fact and eschew the whole fact part entirely. You don't get that authority back, after you've taken that drastic step, so if you based your business model on it then you are out of luck, my friend. Welcome to the dustbin of history!

A fourth tier (1)

selfevident (171984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518592)

Suppose I pay you $2.50 a month, and you tell me what the Times says?

Can't I just delete my cookies for free access? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518600)

Their site says:

Yes, NYTimes.com visitors can enjoy 20 free articles each calendar month as well as unrestricted access to browse the home page, section fronts, blog fronts and classifieds

Unless they make visitors register (which doesn't seem to be the case, I just read a few articles without registering), then if I just delete my nytimes.com cookies can't I keep going back for unlimited free articles? Even if I have to register, I can just use multiple email addresses - gmail makes that trivial, I can have "myname+nytimes1@gmail.com, myname+nytimes2@gmail.com, etc. and they all go to my inbox.

Re:Can't I just delete my cookies for free access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518836)

I wonder how their limited-free-article stuff works with cookie-monster?

Re:Can't I just delete my cookies for free access? (1)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519492)

Even if I have to register, I can just use multiple email addresses - gmail makes that trivial, I can have "myname+nytimes1@gmail.com, myname+nytimes2@gmail.com, etc. and they all go to my inbox.

Ya know, there might be *someone* in the IT dept there who could figure out how to ignore everything after the + on a gmail address.

Of course, anyone that smart would probably want to let you get away with it.

After all, this whole "paying for news" thing sounds like a Stupidity Trap, avoidable by anyone who is even a little bit clever.

Re:Can't I just delete my cookies for free access? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519510)

you don't even need to register a new email (just looking at your example: @gmail.com), just use @mailinator.com, @dodgit.com or some other service that doesn't require registration.

Dead, dead, dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35518758)

Well, put a stick in it, the Times is dead... What maroons! Oh well, plenty of other news sources out in cloudville that aren't so stupid.

News on the internet is not free (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35518792)

People who get content from the internet are not getting it "for free," they are paying a monthly fee for it. The fee does not go to the content providers, but that makes no difference from the user's perspective. The situation is analogous to having to pay a monthly subscription fee to the US Postal Service in order to receive mail. If internet access were free (or much cheaper), I would be happy to pay for the small amount of content that is actually useful to me. As it is, I am not going to pay $50/month for home broadband, $80/month for a smartphone plan, and an additional $35/month for content, for a total of $165/month just to read the news. If I really wanted to get my news "for free," I would buy a $5 radio.

RefControl (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519110)

RefControl is a nice firefox plugin that lets you set your referer on a per site basis. I'm guessing it's usage will spike after this. I've got my default option to always say I came from the domain of the current page. In the case of the NYTimes, It's going to always say I came from Twitter (Even though I never touch the place).

Ouch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519116)

Unfortunate. They want too much. I usually buy a copy and then refer back to things I'm interested online later on. With this I suspect I'll be not only giving up the online access to the NYT but paper version as well. I really didn't have any objections to paying but it's too much for me.

New York Times = Experts Exchange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519218)

Same concept different content.

Get NYTs from Ongo.com, cheeper and no ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35519280)

Or you can try Ongo.com.
It has the NYT and others with no Ads for $6.99 a month.
http://www.ongo.com/

We are running a promotion for one month free and $4.99 a month for the next 6:
http://www.ongo.com/accounts/registration.php?promo=BRIAN

Full disclosure, I wrote the iPad app for Ongo.

Maybe it's easier to read than Slashdot (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35519438)

I might pay for a site that doesn't use gray text on a gray background like SOME people!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?