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
@lnm4444
That $11.67 is some special deal that they may give you for a few weeks or even a year. Then they will ask you to pay the regular price, which, going by Amazon, is about $21 per month.
The only sheeps i can find here is all the non iSheeps that wake up everyday bitching about anything that contains the word Apple.
@bingster funny you should say that, seeing that the article doesn't mentilon apple anywhere but in the tags :-P
Ya know, for the folks that read the Wall Street Journal, I'm willing to bet that the price of the product doesn't play too much into consideration. I'm sure it plays a role. But a month subscrip of roughly $200/year is not going to push away, a six figure salary maker. It's business acumen.
If Engadget, charged $1/month. I'd subscribe.
Anything Apple touches become GOLD!!
@tome0124 I heard Steve Jobs Craps Gold Nuggets! iTurds he calls them! Magical!
Are we really going to have a new post every single time a new app is released??? REALLY?!?!?
Just a thought but as soon as I read the headline for this piece my first reaction was.. of course Murdoch is insane, everyone knows that. I even asked a random selection of folks what they thought and the top answer was, and I quote "barking mad mate". So can anyone tell me how a dude with squillions in the bank, an iron grip on pretty much all forms of media and news distribution globally which in turn forms many peoples opinions and is potentially powerful enough to bring down governments with his Pinky & The Brain style designs on world domination end up with so many believing that he's a fruitloop?
Did I just answer my own question there?
@Spatchcock Nice :)
Crazy price. Even for people who can afford it, why pay more when you can just get a regular + online subscription for less? Makes no sense. I'm an Apple fan of the sort that Toshiba is gratuitously insulting ("The wall street Journal knows that Apple people will buy anything no matter how bad it is"), and even I say there's no way.
A reasonable price would be the same as the current cost for the regular online subscription, which is $8.62/month. The iPad is just another way of accessing online content. I say, hold out until the WSJ sees reality.
iDiot will have no problem with this, anything to make s.jobs happy......
@eka Again, Apple is not setting this price, the WSJ is. I don't think SJ CARES--he's got plenty of content already (existing and upcoming apps that we already know about, music, books).
How many people don't think there will be "discounts" (i.e., reasonable pricing) offered in a few months? Just like the real-world subscription price is a fraction of the newsstand price.
Sounds like to own one is going to cost like an average of $100 per nonth between the paper, having to purchase key functions and eventually paying $100 just to replace your battery.
What a terrible purchase decision this is. I would just skip it all together. This is a terrible Apple experiment to see how useless they can make somethijg and still get suckers to give them money, over and over. Shame on them.
@Thor e This is where digital content distribution is going. Subscription based all you can eat versus a la carte. Isn't iTunes going subscription based soon as well?
@daving313
I personally would rather a la carte for something like this so you only buy it when you want to. Itunes I can see the subscription benefits even though I'm not a big fan of itunes as well.
Have fun early adopters!
The Murdoch family - spawn of the devil. Not that I believe in the devil - but if I did, they'd be it. Oh - and Fox 'News' too, of course...but at least Fox makes me laugh occasionally.
No wonder why WSJ and all media is giving the iPad not only positive reviews but also a relevance that is unprecedented in gadgets history... they are seen the iPad as their savior, the media consumption paradigm of the future, they want to have us all back into media consumption.
@runner50783 Good point. All print media publications got the device first. Set the positive trend of reviews.
I hate Murdoch and won't read the Journal but the WSJ isn't for the avg user, it's for people with Money and helps them make more money so I don't see anything wrong with charging whatever they think their content is worth. If Engadget charged $17 a month that'd be outrageous.
It makes me cry when i know there are apple sheeps who will actually pay for this.
I try and give Rupert Murdoch the least amount of money I can possibly live by. He's too extreme for me, politically speaking, and now with his outrageous prices, he too expensive for me too.
I curious as to how many people who think this is a mistake by the WSJ actually subscribe to the paper now. There will be many people who currently subscribe to the paper, myself included, who switch to the iPad subscription. I do not think many of you would enjoy/understand the content that the WSJ provides. I seriously doubt many of you complaining read much besides "the bitter microsoft-fanboy daily troll."
@willengage
that's very condescending of you. do you understand that?
i've been a WSJ subscriber for decades. I respect the paper. The problem the company's pricing--charging more for an iPad sub than for a combined print-and-online sub. since you're able to understand things the rest of us can't, would you please explain or defend that pricing structure? please also explain/defend the rationale that if i'm already paying for a print-and-online sub my price increases more than 100% if i want to also be able to access that (same) news via my iPad. I look forward to your enlightening me, oh wise one. :)
Murdoch: "Muwahahahahahaha, those Apple sheep will pay premium for anything!"
Eh, most of the investors/stoke brokers who read the WSJ lose all of our money anyway.
Or is he crazy like Fox?
I dont get why people think this is wrong, i think the ipad with it's additional functionality should always cost more than the print version.
you're trying to compare an apple with a rocket ship.
You do not. charge. more for the digital copy than the physical one. This has been shown over and over again. What's it going to take for publishers to finally GET this?
hahahahahah.
Too much money for a publicantion whose editorial page is regularly besot with right-wing screeds.
I'll take the New York Times any day over this.
Murdoch is smart. The kind of people that would pay for that gimped out iPad are the kind who would pay anything to read the WSJ while showing off their stupid new toy. Why not make money off of idiots? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Course if you have tools who are willing to pay $29.99 for the privilege of connecting a USB cord to their computer with the Ipad after dropping at least $500 to buy the thing, $17.29 probably sounds reasonable.
I think a lot of people here are distinctly lacking business acumen. I'm sure the WSJ has researched to see what value their goods hold and what price the market can carry. Admittedly, it's a huge risk that Murdoch is taking, but the advertising revenue model clearly doesn't work for them, and they need to try these things to stay in business.
I think a lot of people are missing the fact that free journalism is creating a race to the bottom (in terms of quality) and pretty soon there'll be precious little well written news or quality opinion/editorial available.
And I see no reason why digital content shouldn't cost more than print. To start with, you can add a lot more content in different forms, and it can all be a lot better presented.
I won't be subscribing to this, but then again, I'm not the target market and don't own/aren't buying an ipad. Doesn't make the idea a failure though.
Thats amazing. There is no reason the subscription should be more unless apple is taking a chunk of the subscription revenue..they probably are.
Well it follows along with everything else they said would get cheaper when it became digital. Albums went to CD, price didn't drop. Video tape when to DVD, price went up. Now this.
WSJ = Murdoch. Murdoch = Fox. Fox = Beck. Beck = Insane.
The answer is Yes.
Murdoch doesn't want casual readers, and the WSJ has reputability that will attract news junkies who seek a feature-rich and reliable source. I'm sure they will offer up new incentives for their online service as well.
I'm a Brit, so WSJ isn't really my paper, but Murdoch owns enough papers over here as well. I can imagine them being given similar treatment on the iPad for the UK. I'll put it like this, It doesn't matter to me as I detest Murdoch and I would never directly put money in his grubby hands. As a result, I don't buy his papers and I certainly won't pay huge premiums to watch his over-priced SKY TV. He and his company can stop being greedy and go to hell. Free press FTW!
Not Murdoch is insane but one how pays that money. Yeah
LOL this post is so ironic: They bitch about the price for WSJ subscription, yet we're looking at a worthless tablet device for almost $1000...the liberals think it's okay for Apple to overcharge everyone though.
@metric "...the liberals think it's okay for Apple to overcharge everyone though."
damn liberals. :) talk about having been brainwashed!
on a more rational note, has anyone seen any organized effort to protest the iPad pricing structure? I'm willing to give up my WSJ print-and-online sub to make the point, but one act in isolation won't accomplish much. Bing and google searches didn't turn up anything.
Goodbye WSJ