4 ms·
I have real doubts whether this payment model is going to work for Times in future. As a consumer of their info it is right now a PITA. [ I'm open to seeing w
by CalmQuiet 17y ago
I have real doubts whether this payment model is going to work for Times in future. As a consumer of their info it is right now a PITA. [ I'm open to seeing what ease and cost/benefit emerges with future micropayment processes. ]
The conventional wisdom seems to be (becoming) if you start out offering something for free (as they do now), it's going to go hard for you if you begin charging.
- wmeredith 17y agoI disagree. I've written off the times because of their terrible website usability (full page ads, pop-ups, attempts at forced registration). I'm assuming the product in there is good on some level since they have such brand cachet, but I don't care to deal with getting at because it such a pain. If they made it an enjoyable user experience, I would probably pay for it because I know that it is good.
- TetOn 17y agoI'm not so sure. If they provided the information content of the paper, including crosswords and other things they currently charge extra for, allowed me to format the daily information dump in the way I see fit, and reduced the number of pixels taken up by ad-space (specific to iPhone app here) while charging substantially less than daily home delivery for that package, I'd likely bite. Instead, I suspect they'll simply re-wrap the current app in an ongoing subscription charge and call it a day. Then wonder why nobody bites (aforementioned Safari access will most likely still be there, after all). It's the strategy they chose with ill-conceived (and abandoned) the Op-Ed paywall, and I imagine it's more or less the same path they'll take again because it seems safer to them.