Printable View
I have the feeling we're seeing here the same we saw when the music industry didn't manage to adapt to the internet/mp3. I guess in the Publication biz the higher ups are even less up to the task to adapt theit businesses to the "new" technologies. Once the userbase adapts for them they will come running and crying.
The people will get the content they wan't on their system. One way or the other. The only difference is if the publisher will earn something by that, or not.
Well, that meeting went well, maybe. It seems that the execs are now conundrumming up whether to charge users 120$ per year (10$ per montly subscription), or 360$ per year (30$ per monthly subscription). This is still a rumour, but why would anyone pay for 1's and 0's which can't even wipe an **s the insane sum of 30$ per month? For me, that is complete rubbish. A lot of people complain on the same lines; who would pay 30$ for nothing but news, pure news which can be had for free when a full print edition costs only 40$ per month.
NYT and all 'news rags' need to get this into their brains: news is changing and skimming a little off the top is worthless - if you don't give physical product, you need to really consider the big picture.
More NYT stuff at AppleInsider