3 ms·

>£0 is unreasonable. I doubt they'll get many subscribers at all.

by axod 17y ago

benologist 17y ago
Maybe they won't. Maybe they will although I expect the price will end up being lower for longer. I don't think > 0 is arbitrarily unreasonable though.
inovica 17y ago
I will subscribe. Especially if I can have it on an iPad when its out.
- axod 17y ago
  I'd hate to base my business on people who will buy iPads.
timthorn 17y ago
There's a finite supply of quality general news websites, especially UK local. The newspaper market in the UK is much healthier than in the US, and each of the papers has a defined market position. If I want to read about a politics story for example, I'll check out the Telegraph and the Guardian for their distinct perspectives. For a business story I'll go to the Financial Times, and for international news I read the Times. However, there is also a core readership that tends to be very loyal to their paper. Charging for access to the Times website may cause a loss of page views, but it may also encourage more of the papers to charge (it isn't the first) - which I think on balance is a good thing.
hga 17y ago
I won't subscribe; I might at, say, something less than 10 US cents per article because I just don't read the Times that much, only from links from other sites. I'd pay good money to read the Torygraph (Telegraph), which I've enjoyed for something more than a decade (although in all fairness the news coming out of the U.K. as of late is so depressing that's iffy right now, even balanced by Matt). I'm sure others would be happy to pay for the Guardian; heck, I'm sure some people's life would be incomplete without their daily dose of Page 3 girls in The Sun ^_^. And if I was in a different phase in my life I'd be subscribing to the Financial Times and The Economist. (In the '80s I subscribed to the latter and The Wall Street Journal). But I just don't see the Times as offering sufficiently distinct value to prompt me to shell out much money for what they're offering.

>£0 is unreasonable. I doubt they'll get many subscribers at all.

by axod 17y ago

>£0 is unreasonable. I doubt they'll get many subscribers at all.

Maybe they won't. Maybe they will although I expect the price will end up being lower for longer. I don't think > 0 is arbitrarily unreasonable though.

inovica 17y ago

I will subscribe. Especially if I can have it on an iPad when its out.

axod 17y ago
I'd hate to base my business on people who will buy iPads.

timthorn 17y ago

There's a finite supply of quality general news websites, especially UK local. The newspaper market in the UK is much healthier than in the US, and each of the papers has a defined market position. If I want to read about a politics story for example, I'll check out the Telegraph and the Guardian for their distinct perspectives. For a business story I'll go to the Financial Times, and for international news I read the Times. However, there is also a core readership that tends to be very loyal to their paper. Charging for access to the Times website may cause a loss of page views, but it may also encourage more of the papers to charge (it isn't the first) - which I think on balance is a good thing.

hga 17y ago

I won't subscribe; I might at, say, something less than 10 US cents per article because I just don't read the Times that much, only from links from other sites. I'd pay good money to read the Torygraph (Telegraph), which I've enjoyed for something more than a decade (although in all fairness the news coming out of the U.K. as of late is so depressing that's iffy right now, even balanced by Matt). I'm sure others would be happy to pay for the Guardian; heck, I'm sure some people's life would be incomplete without their daily dose of Page 3 girls in The Sun ^_^. And if I was in a different phase in my life I'd be subscribing to the Financial Times and The Economist. (In the '80s I subscribed to the latter and The Wall Street Journal). But I just don't see the Times as offering sufficiently distinct value to prompt me to shell out much money for what they're offering.