rip off..
26.3.2010 08:25 #1
most people who will get the ipad probably already have iphones. why would they pay 10 bucks more for the same service? hell i wouldn't purchase anything in digital format for that much. actually i don't pay anything for digital content. i pay for my broadband connection and the price keeps going up. that should be good enough.
26.3.2010 08:55 #2
Originally posted by Ryoohki: most people who will get the ipad probably already have iphones. why would they pay 10 bucks more for the same service? hell i wouldn't purchase anything in digital format for that much. actually i don't pay anything for digital content. i pay for my broadband connection and the price keeps going up. that should be good enough. But that money you pay to your ISP doesn't go to the content providers that work hard to try and earn a living.
26.3.2010 09:57 #3
Jeez....digital information is digital information. What "enhanced" properties make the iPad digital version worth a premium over the iPhone digital version? Does size matter? If it's vector based, it's scaleable. This is worse than the RIAA brainstorming pricing tiers for different quality MP3's.
26.3.2010 12:18 #4
news publications make their money from advertising. this is how it has been for nearly 2 centuries. it is doubtful that fact will change anytime soon. if i'm going to shell out my hard earned money for something like that, it will be something i can hold in my hand and not something i can only read or listen to on my computer. for something like a magazine you know paper is expensive. also they have to make an acceptable price based on the number of issues they are projecting will sell vs those unsold. the prices these news services and even ebook services are coming up with are horribly overpriced. the bulk of the prices for printed works are for the cost of printing the damn books while still maintaining a modest profit. to have the same or higher prices for digital copies that you can't resell or trade is just ridiculous.
26.3.2010 15:20 #5
Originally posted by Josipher: rip off.. ditto . . . Murdoch must be out of his damned mind if he thinks that his rate online is gonna be a better value than his own rate for his newspaper of NSJ. Fail, fail, desperately fail!!
26.3.2010 22:51 #6
What a scam...you have to pay money for something that has advertising? This is why people steal cable...and this is why people will steal the WSJ...or they will just go to a reputable source that is free instead.
27.3.2010 00:38 #7
And then Crapple will charge you to update the software on THE VERY BIG IPHONE.
27.3.2010 20:10 #8
It should be no more than 2 bucks a month for the PC and a extra buck for it customized for phone use.
Better to have 1 million 2$ subscribers than 100K 18$ subscribers....
27.3.2010 20:37 #9
They are thinking if people are dumb enough to by the DRMpad, they're probably dumb enough, and have enough disposable income to buy these type of subscriptions. Over 200 a year for a digital subscription? What a joke.
27.3.2010 21:19 #10
Originally posted by Frogfart: And then Crapple will charge you to update the software on THE VERY BIG IPHONE. it is an overgrown iPod, not an iPhone...it does not do as much as a more affordable iPhone.
30.3.2010 10:25 #11
@Omnicore - This was $8 over the $10 WSJ was charging you for the same content on an iPhone...nothing to do with Internet access charges.
Basically WSJ has identified people wanting to pay $500-$800 for this device as not caring about another $8 so they can see it on a larger screen. Judging the audience for the newspaper, they are probably right.
This doesn't change the fact that I find paying more for the same content for no technical reason personally unethical and nothing more than a cheap grab for more consumer cash. My only solace is that this hits the wealthy who both own an iPad and want to read the WSJ. My concern about this is that it will set a trend of paying more and more money for the same content.
Hello, price increase spiral.
5.4.2010 13:22 #12
