So we now have the official price for the
WSJ iPad app subscription: $3.99 per week with a monthly credit card charge of $17.29. For that you get subscriber-only content areas such as Business and Markets with access to a 7 day archive that can be downloaded and read at any time. It also offers personalization features and the ability to save sections and articles for later reading. And hey, it's actually a bit less than the
rumored $17.99 rate. Without the subscription, the free
WSJ iPad app is limited to top articles and market data. Here's the catch: a subscription to both the print
and online versions of the
Wall Street Journal will currently set you back just $2.69 per week (plus 2 weeks free) for a monthly bill of $11.67...
eleven dollars and sixty seven cents. Granted the
WSJ claims that the 80% discount is a limited time offer but these newsstand discounts are always available in some form. Greed or insanity? Either way, a pricing model like this won't save print.
Update: Fine print says, "Already a WSJ subscriber? Get full access to the iPad™ app for a limited time." That offers some hope to existing subscribers but doesn't make the prospect of subscribing any more attractive to new customers. Unless of course the whole iPad rate can be circumvented by obtaining a login ID and password via the cheaper
online-only rate (currently set for $1.99/wk or $8.62/mth). Who's going to try this on Saturday?
posted April 2nd 2010 2:56AM
The Fail Street Journal.
@Meekermoloko but yet the online version is $8. I guess The wall street Journal knows that Apple people will buy anything no matter how bad it is also,
@Toshiba The Journal targets people with a financial focus, so they are creating valuable analysis that helps people make business decisions. Since it's a bit more than a run-of-the-mill newspaper, they have the leverage to ask for a higher subscription price. It's like how textbook publishers can charge $200 per book, and they will still sell plenty to make a huge profit. The price difference is probably used to cover the cost of development, not because they think "Apple people" will nonsensically purchase useless apps (although this does happen).
@fidelissemper All that is pointless when the website based subscription is $8 a month. Same content, except through an "app" so we can double the subscription cost. WSJ isn't even that good of a publication. You probably wouldnt find it in many fund managers reading curricular
@fidelissemper To me it sounds like they're not charging for the app. I think the app will be free, and they charge you directly. Reason for that:
"$3.99 per week with a monthly credit card charge of $17.29"
...doesn't sound like it's possible on the AppStore. You can't put up a $4 app that actually charges you $17. On the AppStore it would be exactly $3.99 and it would ask you to renew after one week. There are no real lock-in subscriptions.
The WSJ's website also suggests that they want you to sign up directly, thus owning the complete customer relationship.
It would be ironic that a financial, investor-friendly publication would fail on this. Let's see what happens next.
@Meekermoloko
I'm not going to be a part of this!!
@Meekermoloko Hey someone's gotta write about what happens on Fail Street. Otherwise, how would we know?
@abugida I think the iPad app store is going to have to allow for subscriptions, there is no way that Apple would have gotten newspapers and magazines to sign on without the ability for publishers to charge recurring fees.
@Luffy I agree. The Bloomberg report has much better business information. And best if all it's free.
@Meekermoloko
It's because Murdoch actually _is_ insane. He's just put up a new paywall on The Times (such that times.com doesn't bring you to the site but timesonline.com does).
He and his sons are constantly bitching about digital media, the BBC, and are trying to claim that the BBC making their content available through apps is an illogical break in to the private sector rather than a natural extension of their mandate to provide content on the web.
He is insane. And he doesn't get digital media.
@Meekermoloko It's digital though. All people need to do is get a jailbroken iPad, have one person or group who pay one subscription and then share it.
When companies get greedy, they suffer for it as they drive away support. Viewers won't even require jailbroken iPads because they can put the content on an online feed that can stream to any app, even a browser.
Another thing to bear in mind here is that a lot of reviewers who are going to be analyzing the iPad (including WSJ) will be publications that want you to subscribe to their iPad service. That immediately undermines their journalistic integrity. In the case of the WSJ, that was gone a long time ago thanks to MossPuppet.
@Meekermoloko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyxNgnQ9m30
@Meekermoloko
Easy to call them fail street. But many of my friends on Wall Street continue to pull in HUGE bucks....they will almost certainly get an iPad and get this subscription. Trust me on that one!
Wall Street is in business to make 'themselves' rich. So they have succeeded like nobody's business. They cleaned out regular folk and the govt. How many industries can claim that sort of success. Every penny one gives Wall Streets pretty much ends up in the pocket of a banker. It's not like they buy raw materials or run factories etc...
I am saying this as someone who has several friends working on Wall Street and I too used to work closely with banks a few years ago. It's nothing personal just business. It's OK to call them fail street, as long as you're still giving them your money ;)
@jaffreywali I agree, I guess that's what you called business. But in a sense, it looks 'greediness". As for the ipad? I won't get it tomorrow, not until I see the 2g Version. Why: http://bit.ly/ipad-going-real-opinions
@Meekermoloko You must be restricted to the cartoons on Sunday my strange friend. If you are referring to the cost, you are right it's too expensive, unless you work on Wall Street.
@TinWard That won't work. the WSJ bills your credit card and you have to log in through the app. The app is free.
@fidelissemper See where that trust got us. In a depression. WSJ is not the only one to blame, but our entire financial advisory system (journals, newspapers, investors, investor advisors, advisor companies....etc) is not to be trusted. So where do we go from here without getting here again.
@korrupt9187
I've downloaded the new iTunes version with iPad support today, and so far I don't see any changes regarding subscriptions in the EULA. I haven't read about this in the SDK either. The only thing I know from the iPhone SDK is that the developer can offer "in app purchases" that may run out after a certain time. From Apple's documentation:
"Be aware that you are responsible for both tracking subscription expirations and renewal billing; the App Store does not monitor subscription duration and does not offer an automatic billing mechanism."
There are already some for-pay newspapers on the AppStore. I've tried several (all of them German), and none of those offered real subscriptions with automatic renewal. As it stands, the only way for a newspaper to get you into a longer contract would be to charge you the full amount up front.
He'll find success with this. Most WSJ subscribers are on corporate expense anyway, and this is one expense that is mostly discretionary and easily approved.
@KarlW
You do know that the BBC is charging $18 per month to every UK household? I find it very reasonable to ask why we need public broadcasting on the Internet. On TV and Radio it's important, because channels are limited, but on the Internet freedom of speach is guaranteed by design.
@bullshitexpresscom If you work on Wall Street, then you're likely paying for your iPad and Journal subscription with tax-payer dollars. Make perfect sense to me. Thanks, Bush, other Bush, and Reagan.
@KarlW Actually timesonline.com brings you to beaver county times.. A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT news paper...
@Meekermoloko Better than the official United Socialist States of America sponsor, the New York Times
digital copy cost more than physical one?
do people automatically assume iPad users are sheeps?
@kingofwale
Yes.
@Jordo1234 Well done sir.
@kingofwale I said it once I will say it again. Anytime Apple touches anything no matter how bad it is.. the price goes up. I am so pissed that they entered the ebook fray. Now.. all ebooks are going to go up. I guess they grew tired of screwing the idiot apple fanboys so now they are going to go after Pc users to support the "Apple Tax"
@Toshiba So you are saying that the money from the ebooks sold to PC users will go to Apple?
@kingofwale
That's because Murdoch's trying to save the dying print media. Notice how if you get both, it's less?
"Here's the catch: a subscription to both the print and online versions of the Wall Street Journal will currently set you back just $2.69 per week (plus 2 weeks free) for a monthly bill of $11.67... eleven dollars and sixty seven cents"
@Atkins
No, he's saying that ebooks were cheaper ($9.99 on Amazon, right?) before Apple came along, and now prices are going up (refer to an earlier story).
@Gas
You mean like prices for music downloads and mobile apps went up when Apple came along, right?
@Stephanie C: I think that $11.67 is print plus non-iPad online subscription. They have a separate iPad subscription for $17.29.
@kingofwale
I call them iSheep!!
@Gas Well he said: "so now they are going to go after Pc users to support the "Apple Tax""
I was responding to this, because it doesn't make sense.
And the prices going up... it is not that simple. I don't see Apple as the bad guy. At least for now. we will see I guess.
@kingofwale I assume sheep with money.
@abugida
Hmm napster etal for free or iTunes for 99 cents. Why yes anyone around at the time could say the price went up.
@Amusednow Did you ever use Napster back in the day before it was forced out of business and reconstituted as a legal service? Napster didn't sell anything. It established a peer-to-peer music sharing capability that gave users access to each other's music collections. It didn't sell a thing. And it was in violation of copyright. So no.
Also, it's the WSJ (or its parent company) setting this price, not Apple.
@kingofwale Technically, Sheep is both singular and plural. There are no sheep(s)... Good Morning Engadget..
@aubreyq
Ooops! You're right, I need coffee before reading some things, LOL!
But even so, he's still offering print at less. I think he posted that deal to try to get many back to print. By charging a premium for digital, some people may think twice.
Although I agree, he's insane for charging MORE for no paper use, and no personal delivery method.
Why so expensive?
@derekdevine Probably because of the customers they are targeting. I doubt every magazine would be that expensive.
@derekdevine
Nice Dark Knight reference.
@derekdevine
Many people still don't get it. The iPaid was designed solely for this purpose. A closed proprietary digital media distribution platform. Not some sort of all purpose tablet PC. It is intentionally as locked and limited as possible so that it's an easier sell to the publishers.
Many color gloss magazines cannot be displayed on a black and white epaper screen and that's the market this device will try to get, with the occasional addition of some major traditional book and news paper publishers. Basically an iTunes model applied to books, newspapers and magazines. Soon it will even have it's own video store modeled after iTunes too.
The iPaid is essentially a hardware end part of a money making platform for digital media.
Wow, just wow. And the shocker will still be people who will support pricing like this.
@Libtech775 People will, that's truly the sad part.
Well, the people will need to have purchased an iPad in the first place...
@Libtech775 There are people for whom 20$ a week are nothing. And I guess they are the targeted customers here.
@Libtech775
I don't think you understand the demographic of the WSJ reader base. One sentence in the WSJ about some obscure topic, policy or company can be hugely important to their bank accounts. It's a very influential paper in the business world. We're not talking about Cat Fancy here.
@(Unverified) I see now. I guess I am just a little bit low brow. I'll just be fancying my cracked.com subscription.