Quote:
Originally Posted by bhartman36
The difference is that Apple didn't give you OSX without asking for money first. The NY Times distributes the content to the user and then attempts to obscure it. It's a silly way of doing things, at best. It's not a serious attempt at a paywall. Handing someone something, and then expecting them to pay for it is a bad business plan. The proper order of operations is:
1) Accept Payment
2) Grant Access
If you don't even bother to lock up the content, and just hand it over, you can't blame people for accessing it.
The problem is, the effort they would've had to put into a serious paywall here is trivial. It's the equivalent of taping the key to your house on the outside wall, right under the security code to turn off your alarm system, with a note that said, "Go ahead. Have at it."
|
My point is, and this is not just Apple, that some companies balance out convenience and trusting their users to do the right thing.
I know everyone here is smirking at their supposedly lame attempts, but I have a feeling they know what they are doing-trying to balance accessibility with some way of pushing their subscription service, and relying on the belief that those who value their services won't try to bypass their obviously easy to jump over gate.