3 ms·
I believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.
by Jgrubb 10y ago
I believe this was discussed in one of the last threads as being potentially against some dumbass 25 year old law.
- the8472 10y agoNot everyone is american
- melling 10y agoI've paid for the WSJ for over 15 years. There's nothing wrong with actually paying for good content. That business model doesn't need to go away.
- hendersoon 10y agoI completely agree. The real problem is pricing. The difference between absolutely free like most content on the internet and the WSJ standard monthly rate of $33/month is truly enormous. The NYT, which I also feel is priced too high, is $15/month. Remember Netflix costs $10/month-- that's the value proposition they need to compete against. These content producers should charge $5/month, with no scummy "special introductory offers" where you just _know_ they're going to raise the price and screw you in a couple months. At that price I would subscribe to everything I read.
- cobookman 10y agoIf they lower the price they might not get more subscribers. So they are pricing it to maximize revenue.
- hendersoon 10y agoI can't speak to that-- all I can say with certainty is I personally would subscribe at $5/month.
- tracker1 10y agoSame here... while I've appreciated the articles I've clicked through to, I do not feel their content is worth over $20/month to me. I pay for netflix, cable, etc, and don't even use it much, I mostly download for convenience, but I pay for it because I feel guilty if I don't. If I click on a google search link, I expect to see the same content google does.. for that matter, it's part of google's own rules... WSJ should not get a pass, and google should now deindex WSJ based on those rules.
- hnbroseph 10y agodo other countries have laws?