NY Times Announces Digital Subscription Plan

[kjk]

While some are reporting that the NYTimes using Apple's in-app subscription procedure as vindication for Apple's approach-I'm not so sure, after seeing the pricing, and responses to it online.

I wonder if the NYTimes is playing this a bit passive-aggressively; "we'll be on iOS under Apple's terms, but this is what it is going to cost". Then, when (if) they get disappointing results/adoption rates, they can show that it was, in large part, due to Apple's pricing, and possibly get Apple to re-look at their terms.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

Basically this issue now illustrates the added cost to the consumer for Apple's rather extreme position on subscription, from accessing this already paid for content....

I thought that might be the case as well, except that it's not just iPhones and iPads that pay extra, it's any smartphone and (presumably) any tablet.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by kjk

While some are reporting that the NYTimes using Apple's in-app subscription procedure as vindication for Apple's approach-I'm not so sure, after seeing the pricing, and responses to it online.

I wonder if the NYTimes is playing this a bit passive-aggressively; "we'll be on iOS under Apple's terms, but this is what it is going to cost". Then, when (if) they get disappointing results/adoption rates, they can show that it was, in large part, due to Apple's pricing, and possibly get Apple to re-look at their terms.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I thought that might be the case as well, except that it's not just iPhones and iPads that pay extra, it's any smartphone and (presumably) any tablet.

yeah, that is what I got to thinking as I wrote my previous post. It sort of dawned on me that NYT, and of course other periodicals and other content providers which were the buy once and use anywhere sort of model, could use this and the terms for the Apple iTunes agreement to defend the new fees to existing subscribers.

I hope for many it means the added platforms simply will not be attractive anymore if it means having to pay at least twice for the same content. And this goes for smartphones or any device which has dedicated apps. It could be a way for these providers to pretty much charge a "per use" fee by turning each device into a new copy of the information needing an added fee. Sort of like buying one copy of a paper for the office break-room or one copy for each desk even though the people can share the one copy given enough cooperation.

As I mentioned given I am already strongly committed to the Windows platform for business needs I now see no valid value in looking at mobile devices, for me a pocket device and a slate device, running anything but a full version of Windows. No way I am paying a fee to use my already paid for subscriptions for each device. And while I do enjoy make of the sections in the NYT, LAT and a few other papers, I really do not need them.

I might use anything free but won't pay a dime for something I already purchased under the terms of using it on any device I own.

I suspect this is the first real indication of the repercussions of the whole policy from Apple on iOS apps and content being purchased elsewhere or previously. To me it really devalues the iOS platform very significantly. Of course it does the same for any other platform where the content provider decides to charge to use as well. it's just right now iOS is the 800-pound gorilla on portable consumer devices even though the Blackberry seems to really be #1, especially for business customers.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

The thing I still find confusing is I don't need to pay extra for my subscription using the Windows NYT desktop reader BUT if I wanted to view it on the iPad I have to basically pay for the whole subscription again using what equates to the same reader app as I have free and as part of my existing subscription.

The prices are:
$15: web access + any smartphone app (iOS, Android, Blackberry) You can use this subscription on multiple phones.
$20: web access + any tablet reader app (Times Reader 2.0, iPad and Chrome devices) - if you pay for a subscription using Times Reader 2 you will be able to use the same sub for the iPad app, no extra charge.
$35: web access + smartphone + tablet access

So you're only paying twice if you want it on your iPhone and iPad. I'd be interested to see if people with Android tablets will find that they can use the standard (lower-priced) Android smartphone app. I notice that NYT has a specific Android app for tablets which isn't mentioned anywhere in their pricing plans.

Maybe the $20 and $35 levels are the method they've chosen to compensate for the Apple Tax (camouflaged by lumping in the desktop and Chrome apps) and Android users will be able to pay only $15.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by charleski

The prices are:
$15: web access + any smartphone app (iOS, Android, Blackberry) You can use this subscription on multiple phones.
$20: web access + any tablet reader app (Times Reader 2.0, iPad and Chrome devices) - if you pay for a subscription using Times Reader 2 you will be able to use the same sub for the iPad app, no extra charge.
$35: web access + smartphone + tablet access

So you're only paying twice if you want it on your iPhone and iPad. I'd be interested to see if people with Android tablets will find that they can use the standard (lower-priced) Android smartphone app. I notice that NYT has a specific Android app for tablets which isn't mentioned anywhere in their pricing plans.

Maybe the $20 and $35 levels are the method they've chosen to compensate for the Apple Tax (camouflaged by lumping in the desktop and Chrome apps) and Android users will be able to pay only $15.

Nice to know that break exists, however as a home delivery subscriber I also get a free digital edition. This is where the waters become occluded, if a person already has a subscription which includes free digital access where do they fit into this mess? That was where I am confused over the extra cost of the iOS devices compared to the same content provided free on any device I currently use all as part of my home delivery subscription.

https://www.nytimesathome.com/offer....47AF&CMP=36RJQ

For now I am not gonna worry because I moved the iPad off my list of devices I might end up with. Too many unknowns and I just don't sense Apple is a totally stable company right now, internally I mean. They might have a plan but they sure aren't letting their customers or shareholders in on the secret. But, as will all devices I guess we simply need to wait and see.

[snipenekkid]

OK, seems I am covered free with my home delivery subscription as per the NYT site. My daily HD sub includes a free "All Access Digital Subscription" as part of the package.

As a home delivery subscriber, you have access to more than just the newspaper. As a subscriber you have access to select online products, plus exclusive subscriber discounts. Starting on 3/28 you will get:

Free All Digital Access: Receive unlimited access to NYTimes.com on any device. Receive unlimited access to the NYTimes app for your BlackBerry®, iPhone® or Android™ –powered smartphone and unlimited access to the NYTimes app for iPad™. (Return to this page on 3/28 for a link that will let you download NYTimes apps.)
The New York Times Replica Edition: A page-by-page replica of the New York edition exactly as it appears in print. To access, click here.
NYT Subscriber-Only Discounts: Exclusive 10% discount on select merchandise at NYT Store online.
NYT Archive Access: Features every article published since 1851. Receive free access to 100 articles every four weeks. (Return to this page on 3/28 for a link that will let you search the Article Archive.)

I don't pay extra for any of the digital stuff from the NYT it's all part of the package. BTW, it darned well better be since it costs me around $60/month. I get a break on that as I pay annually but I honestly don't know

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So they're doing a Pandora. That will definitely limit how much time I spend there, as I have no intention of paying for news content of any kind.

Hm, if everyone had this attitude, we'll end up with reality TV 24/7.

Good reporting costs money. If the quality is there, I don't mind paying. The NYT is a good paper, so I'll most likely subscribe.

(I happily pay for Pandora, too -- $35 for a whole year of great content, at a higher bitrate and no ads -- in my book it's a bargain.)

I guess it's a matter of priorities. I canceled my satellite service 3 years ago, since I never watched it anymore. Now I basically stream everything. For news, I just read or listen -- TV news have become worthless.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Good reporting costs money. If the quality is there, I don't mind paying. The NYT is a good paper, so I'll most likely subscribe.

(I happily pay for Pandora, too -- $35 for a whole year of great content, at a higher bitrate and no ads -- in my book it's a bargain.)

I read ad supported Google News.

I listen to ad supported AOL Radio, AccuRadio, iheartradio, etc.

[L.J. Sellers]

For years, I've received a daily NY Times email with links to about 20 articles...for free. I can't see why I'd suddenly volunteer to start paying for it, and I wonder if they'll cancel it in the future.
L.J.

[wyndslash]

well, their (newspapers, in general) mistake was providing the news online for free in the first place (this is purely from an observer's point of view). my dad always wondered why they did that and wasn't surprised when we heard news of several newspaper publishers going under (these were the small ones, i believe). i guess people got used to it being free, and now that they're instituting paywalls, there are protests, not surprisingly.

[bZkindle]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

Hey a kindred spirit of a sort. I haven't had a cable subscription since about 2000 or so. I've lived with online streaming solutions and Netflix for my video needs, a Roku box, Winamp, and whatever other online options exist and won't put me on the FBI's violent felons list.

I have clung to a print sub to the NYT though and I am on the left coast. But I've archived a lifetime's worth of NYT crossword puzzles so I would be happy to drop that monthly expense as well. I mean it's not like the news is any fun anyway.

No cable here since 1994...
getting rid of cable is one of the best things I ever did.

If you have a print sub do you not get free unlimited access to the web site?
Yes, the kindle is separate I know...
EDIT: oops.. missed your newer post.

these NYT prices are way out of line. I think they screwed this one up.
well, any pay wall is a screw up IMO!

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

well, their (newspapers, in general) mistake was providing the news online for free in the first place (this is purely from an observer's point of view). my dad always wondered why they did that and wasn't surprised when we heard news of several newspaper publishers going under (these were the small ones, i believe). i guess people got used to it being free, and now that they're instituting paywalls, there are protests, not surprisingly.

then again newspapers were on the decline loooong before the web became a part of daily life. Our local paper, a town of about 18k-20k give or take, began to decline when they were bought out by a larger parent company, Gannette. First thing they did was fire all of the actual reporters, photographers, farm out the page layout and general editing then got rid of almost all of the paper routes for the kids in town. All the articles were simply AP news and whatever people dropped off at the paper for the coming events. And oh yeah, the Obits were still there as well as the daily police blotter with a list of who got arrested over the weekend. It truly disconnected from the town and very few folks I knew kept their subscriptions. Of course that started in the mid-80s.

So the newspapers are not without blame as they just were buying up small town papers, gutting them, then feeding people nothing but wire-service "news". Or was we called it "...yesterday's news next Thursday."

But this all backfired on them as the small papers have gone teats-up and helped drag the parent companies down with them. The web just was a last ditch effort by these companies to save themselves from their own greed. Yeah, I have an opinion about the news business. They might blame the web but by the time the web came around nobody wanted to pay for the news online because we were so alienated by the physical daily editions over the previous decade. Even the LA Times and San Jose Mercury turned into, well what they are now. Though I do read the LA Times online a bit more these days. I just prefer the writing in the NY Times is all. They seem to cover more topics I find interesting.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bZkindle

these NYT prices are way out of line. I think they screwed this one up.
well, any pay wall is a screw up IMO!

How much does a print subscription cost?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

then again newspapers were on the decline loooong before the web became a part of daily life....

They were consolidating, mostly because (iirc) rules on ownership of multiple media outlets were relaxed in the 90s.

However, it really has been the Web that's strangling newspapers. eBay and Craigslist destroyed the classifieds revenue; and online ad rates are so low, that they don't make up for what is lost in print ads. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/the-n...mplodes-2011-3 )

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How much does a print subscription cost?

this year it's costing about $17/wk (about $770/yr). But the price varies by location. I might add it's about $120/yr more than in 2010. For the first time the cost gave me pause at renewal time. But given that nothing really beats a real newspaper yet, not ready to give up the print edition. I wonder if the idea is to ween people off the print edition and over to the digital. I would be willing if there was a true large format device that ran all day, you know like the battery in the daily rag.

BTW the home delivery sub also includes all of the digital versions and crosswords. I don't believe it includes the new iOS crossword puzzle app though and that is very disappointing.

The price for the digital sub at about $20/mo (tablet edition) is actually a good value if a person reads it every day Right now I'm not sure I would pay it as long as there are other sources. It's not as if I am in NY or even the east coast, I'm on the west coast. But I could make do with any sites which remain free.

Now if we finally get a decent large format device then maybe. But right now not yet, I'm sticking with home delivery as it gives me everything. Still the difference in price is about $450 bucks which is definitely in the area where it is worth revisiting as it off-sets the cost of a new iPad though we would need two iPads so, hmmm, maybe not. We'll see what Android and Windows slates come out later this year.

I am somewhat perplexed that there are different prices for the phone ($15/mo), tablet ($20/mo) and Times Reader ($5/wk) versions. I don't see why there should be any difference.