New York Times to start charging $15 for iPhone, iPad subscriptions by June

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
The New York Times plans to adopt Apple's In App Subscription model for its iPhone and iPad applications by late June, with prices starting at $15 for every four weeks worth of access to its published content, the publication said Thursday.



The announcement marks just the second high-profile media outlet to agree to Apple's In App Subscription model for digital publications announced last month. This arrangement, which sees Apple keep 30% of revenues generated from each digital subscription, was unveiled alongside The Daily, a digital newspaper created specifically for the iPad by media heavyweight News Corp. that sells for $0.99 per week.



Although the Times is launching digital subscriptions in the Canadian market beginning today, it is doing so in order to fine-tune the customer experience prior to the global launch of the service on both non-Apple devices and iPad and iPhone on March 28th. The iPhone and iPad applications will gain a 1-click purchase option on June 30th.



For non-home delivery subscribers, the Times said the basic package, which includes NYTimes.com access plus a smartphone (or iPhone) app, will start at $15 every four weeks (or $195 per year). A second package offering NYTimes.com access plus a tablet (or iPad) app will fetch $20, while an "All Digital Access" package offering full access to NYTimes.com and both of the aforementioned applications will sell for $35 every four weeks.



"Our decision to begin charging for digital access will result in another source of revenue, strengthening our ability to continue to invest in the journalism and digital innovation on which our readers have come to depend," said New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. "This move will enhance The Times's position as a source of trustworthy news, information and high-quality opinion for many years to come."







In moving to its paid subscription model, the newspaper said it will continue to allow non-subscribers of NYTimes.com to access up to 20 articles per month at no charge before they will be asked to become digital subscribers in order to be granted open access to the site. Additionally, the Top News section of the Times' smartphone and tablet applications will remain free to all readers.



Home-delivery subscribers who pay to have the Times delivered to their doorstep will receive free, unlimited access to the paper's content on NYTimes.com, tablets and smart phones. And those readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media will continue to be able to access those individual articles, even if they have reached their reading limit.



Additionally, the homepage at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 117
    rhyderhyde Posts: 294member
    First, this is a bit expensive.

    Second, the NYT just isn't my cup of tea.

    They should have stuck with the model set by The Daily.
  • Reply 2 of 117
    Does the NYT realize that they will be charging double the rate of a Netflix subscription?
  • Reply 3 of 117
    Media is dead due to content not method of delivery. Not worth reading for free, certainly not worth paying for.
  • Reply 4 of 117
    nytimes.com/access says their pricing scheme is as follows:



    NYTimes.com + smartphone app: $15/mo.

    NYTimes.com + tablet app: $20/mo.

    All Digital Access (i.e., NYTimes.com + smartphone + tablet): $35/mo.
  • Reply 5 of 117
    Nobody reads anymore. :P



    (Nor can they spell "Besides")
  • Reply 6 of 117
    xsamplexxsamplex Posts: 214member
    whoops!



    "Android's Browser Leaves the iPhone's in the Dust" - from the Atlantic Monthly.



    So maybe better off on another device to read content like the Times. Though I still like the 'Pad



    Gee, real news is twice as expensive as Netflix? Wow, that's just amazing! Not.
  • Reply 7 of 117
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    whoops!



    "Android's Browser Leaves the iPhone's in the Dust" - from the Atlantic Monthly. ...



    Whoops! No one cares but fandroids.
  • Reply 8 of 117
    eh270eh270 Posts: 60member
    I'm pretty sure you can get full digital access with any level of home delivery, so if you do the M-F for $3.10/week, you can get it all for $12.40 -- plus the nuisance of having to recycle 5 papers per week.
  • Reply 9 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joe in miami View Post


    Does the NYT realize that they will be charging double the rate of a Netflix subscription?



    yeah, 200 dollars a year for ... a newspaper. Wow.



    I bet it has advertisements too and I bet a lot of dumbasses buy it anyway.
  • Reply 10 of 117
    gustavgustav Posts: 826member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joe in miami View Post


    Does the NYT realize that they will be charging double the rate of a Netflix subscription?



    Do you realize that movies and news are different things?



    Do you realize that the NYT employs actual journalists with credentials, editorial staff, etc.?



    Where do you think the free and cheap news sites are going to get their content from when the paid journalists no longer have a job?
  • Reply 11 of 117
    idadidad Posts: 17member
    Saw that coming a mile away
  • Reply 11 of 117
    rtkanertkane Posts: 29member
    "New York Times to see subscriptions for iPhone, iPad readers plummet by June"
  • Reply 13 of 117
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eye Forget View Post


    Media is dead due to content not method of delivery. ...



    This may be true to some extent. The NY Times website has increasingly become about blogging, rather than focusing on hard news reporting, and the quality of the blogging is pretty much what one expects from the medium, not from the NY Times.



    I think, ultimately, their paywall strategy will be a failure. (It may succeed at the WSJ, but the readership of the NYT, as a whole, represents a different demographic and their content is not as unique.) They tried a version of this a few years ago with "premium" content behind a paywall and the experiment was such an utter failure (and apparently lost them so much revenue) that they ended it. Why they think they'll be more successful this time around is a mystery; most people will just abandon the NYT and find other sources of news that remain free.



    Newspapers need to change something to stay afloat, but I don't see this as the change that will help. Rather, if stuck to, it's likely to be the change that hastens their demise.
  • Reply 14 of 117
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    I'll take the Daily over the New York Times any day of the week. I'm not fond of liberals.
  • Reply 15 of 117
    The Times in the UK has a similar online plan. £1 for the first month and £8 thereafter.



    However you get other goodies with it as well. For instance I am getting £1 cinema tickets every Sunday and also half price menus at several restaurants. Dependent on the month you may get other better/worst deals in a range of services: theater, spa treatments etc. Dependent on your lifestyle this may actually turn out to be a good deal.



    I think NYT would be charging too much if 15$ a month is only for reading news! However I do not know that much about the US market.
  • Reply 16 of 117
    iguesssoiguessso Posts: 132member
    Fail. Too expensive, and too many backdoors available to pick up the important stories for free. I imagine they will discover (too late) that people are generally not to be trusted when they predict in advance whether or not they will buy something.



    I used to be a regular at nytimes.com, and I'm a news junkie. But now I use local news sources, news.google.com, and The Daily. nytimes.com's most important stories get republished at a million other sites, and their web and app look hopelessly behind the times compared to The Daily.



    I love The Daily. I realize it's sometimes breezy and a little shallow at times, but it has become my morning ritual. Their presentation is awesome, their content is perfectly formatted for the iPad's capabilities, and the price is right. I also love the way advertising takes a while to load - when you see that spinning wheel just flick again to the next page. Sorry Rupert.
  • Reply 17 of 117
    And why is the tablet version $5/month MORE?
  • Reply 18 of 117
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    Do you realize that movies and news are different things?



    Do you realize that the NYT employs actual journalists with credentials, editorial staff, etc.?



    Where do you think the free and cheap news sites are going to get their content from when the paid journalists no longer have a job?



    #1 I never suggested that it be free,

    #2 Ad revenue has always been the primary revenue source to support the news staff,

    #3 Take a look at other paid news/iOS businesses, (Financial Times, The Economist, WSJ, CNN, The Daily) for your answer.

    #4. There are plenty of other sources that are available at the present.
  • Reply 19 of 117
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 650member
    So the venerable New York Times wants you to pay $20 a month to read their rag on the iPad. Bwahahahaha!!!
  • Reply 20 of 117
    Most of their revenue comes from ads anyway. This is a big FAIL. At least The Daily is charging $40 for the WHOLE YEAR. They are smoking crack. FAIL.
Sign In or Register to comment.