4 ms·

what is the point of this? if you don't want to pay for the content, it means you don't value it. why would you spend time reading something you don't value?

what is the point of this? if you don't want to pay for the content, it means you don't value it. why would you spend time reading something you don't value? it's your own time you're wasting, not the wsj's.

verisimilidude 11y ago
Perhaps some people value this discussion (on HN, for example) far more than the publication as a whole. So it's worthwhile to jump through a few hoops to read the article and participate here, but not so worthwhile to maintain a paid online subscription. If these publications were smart, they would find ways to capture this kind of higher quality conversation/participation. But I don't have the answers there.
mrow84 11y ago
They may (or may not) be willing to pay in principle, but that principle is untested because they can access the content for free. Value is not equal to the price you pay, but the maximum price you would pay, if you had no other options.
commentzorro 11y ago
> if you don't want to pay for the content, it means you don't value it. I don't think these two are related in the way you imply. In fact, I go so far as to say they are related in the opposite way you describe. ex: If you don't want to pay for food then you don't value it? If you don't want to pay for medicine then you don't value it? If you don't want to pay for an education then you don't value it? Many of the things I don't want to pay for I value quite a bit. Also, I can certainly value the contents of this particular article but not value the contents of the WSJ (in entirety) enough to pay for a subscription. Finally, and in keeping with the spirit of the comments, I can actively despise that the WSJ has now been taken over by an America Destroying (TM) conservative and be going out of my way to read the article w/o paying. Anyway, lots of issues with tying value to payments.

verisimilidude 11y ago

Perhaps some people value this discussion (on HN, for example) far more than the publication as a whole. So it's worthwhile to jump through a few hoops to read the article and participate here, but not so worthwhile to maintain a paid online subscription. If these publications were smart, they would find ways to capture this kind of higher quality conversation/participation. But I don't have the answers there.

mrow84 11y ago

They may (or may not) be willing to pay in principle, but that principle is untested because they can access the content for free. Value is not equal to the price you pay, but the maximum price you would pay, if you had no other options.

commentzorro 11y ago

> if you don't want to pay for the content, it means you don't value it. I don't think these two are related in the way you imply. In fact, I go so far as to say they are related in the opposite way you describe. ex: If you don't want to pay for food then you don't value it? If you don't want to pay for medicine then you don't value it? If you don't want to pay for an education then you don't value it? Many of the things I don't want to pay for I value quite a bit. Also, I can certainly value the contents of this particular article but not value the contents of the WSJ (in entirety) enough to pay for a subscription. Finally, and in keeping with the spirit of the comments, I can actively despise that the WSJ has now been taken over by an America Destroying (TM) conservative and be going out of my way to read the article w/o paying. Anyway, lots of issues with tying value to payments.