Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://blendle.com/ seems to meet your needs.
Thanks for the link! I just signed up requesting a beta invite. $0.25 per article, with an instant refund sounds fair. I have wanted access to The Economist, etc., but not enough for a full subscription.
The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
41–50 of 345 posts
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.
That's not the problem. I might be willing pay a lot for news. What I don't want is 100 different newspaper subscriptions. And to say that you should just pick a favorite newspaper and get everything from there is like demanding you decide what books you want before visiting a library.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)
Why is a full feed of quality news worth less to you than Netflix?
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#44First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…
The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.
What amount would be close to the value they make from ad revenue?
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#45Paywalls have been tightening up recently. The Washington Post now has stronger anti-ad-blocking. So do the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. The New York Times is still accessible. It's a concern that the newspapers which have actual reporters in the field are disappearing behind paywalls.
I'm curious as to how much their viewership has dropped. I haven't read an LA times article since they banned ad blockers. Not that they care much about viewers that only cost them money.
1 - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/media/new-york-t...
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#46First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…
https://blendle.com/ seems to meet your needs.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#47So... is this good reason to stop posting WSJ on HN yet?
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#48First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…
I would consider perhaps $5-$10 a month if the WSJ was going to be my only source of news. If I could trust it to provide me with all I need every morning while I eat my breakfast. Unfortunately I live in Australia so most stuff in WSJ I don't care about. (And we have the ABC)
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.
> The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue. What amount would be close to the value they make from ad revenue?
Micropayment approaches and payment processor rates vary, but I'd generalize to probably 30% take rate. So assume 3.5¢ to 7¢ payment per article. Do you pay for every article you load? Do you pay again if you load the article twice? What if you don't like the article and don't want to pay? I don't think it's quite as simple as 3.5¢ to 7¢ because no one has really proven this model to work yet.
Re: The Wall Street Journal to Close Google Loophole Entirely
#50First of all, I think it's great that journalists can get compensated for their work. but, strictly speaking as a consumer, I must say their paywall is completely out of touch with the way I want to pay for news consumption. I don't mind paying 5c or even 10c per article, but I'm certainly not going to sign up to pay 120$ for 6 months, if I'm only going to read 1 or 2 articles here and there. but since they've done i…
The amount you want to pay for news is not anywhere close to the value it is providing you or that they make from ad revenue.
Just because something cost a lot to make, doesn't mean it's worth a lot. Sorry.