New $8-per-month 'NYT Now' subscription will debut first on Apple's iPhone
The New York Times announced on Wednesday that it will expand its digital subscription offerings in the coming months, starting with a "core" package dubbed "NYT Now" targeted at light readers, and it will debut exclusively on Apple's iPhone on April 2.
The current New York Times iPhone app.
NYT Now is aimed at readers who primarily get their news from smartphones, but currently do so for free. The entry-level subscription will run $8 for four weeks, while existing Times subscribers will have access to the official NYT Now app for free.
The new, limited publication will be overseen by 10 editors that will curate content for NYT Now. The entry-level offering will be just a sampling of the full coverage available in the Times.
The same day, the "Grey Lady" will also launch its new "Times Premier" subscription, which will run $45 for four weeks, or an extra $10 over the cost of home delivery. The enhanced subscription will include special content, such as access to compilations of articles from the newspaper's archive and additional crossword puzzles.
Finally, the Times is also planning to launch two more applications this summer that will target specific audiences: one focused on food, and the other on opinion pieces.
The publication is hoping to generate revenue from readers who want to access more than the 10 free articles the Times offers on its website every month, but who may not be interested in paying for a full-fledged subscription. NYT Now is portrayed as "essential" news, a standard subscription is categorized as "extensive," and the Premier plan will be labeled "exclusive."
While NYT Now will first be only available on Apple's iPhone, there was no word as to when or whether it will launch on other platforms, such as the iPad, or devices that run Google's Android platform.
The New York Times was one of the first publications to take advantage of Apple's App Store subscription option. The daily newspaper can be read through the Newsstand folder, with iPhone-only subscriptions running $15 per month, while iPad subscriptions are available for $20 per month.
The current New York Times iPhone app.
NYT Now is aimed at readers who primarily get their news from smartphones, but currently do so for free. The entry-level subscription will run $8 for four weeks, while existing Times subscribers will have access to the official NYT Now app for free.
The new, limited publication will be overseen by 10 editors that will curate content for NYT Now. The entry-level offering will be just a sampling of the full coverage available in the Times.
The same day, the "Grey Lady" will also launch its new "Times Premier" subscription, which will run $45 for four weeks, or an extra $10 over the cost of home delivery. The enhanced subscription will include special content, such as access to compilations of articles from the newspaper's archive and additional crossword puzzles.
Finally, the Times is also planning to launch two more applications this summer that will target specific audiences: one focused on food, and the other on opinion pieces.
The publication is hoping to generate revenue from readers who want to access more than the 10 free articles the Times offers on its website every month, but who may not be interested in paying for a full-fledged subscription. NYT Now is portrayed as "essential" news, a standard subscription is categorized as "extensive," and the Premier plan will be labeled "exclusive."
While NYT Now will first be only available on Apple's iPhone, there was no word as to when or whether it will launch on other platforms, such as the iPad, or devices that run Google's Android platform.
The New York Times was one of the first publications to take advantage of Apple's App Store subscription option. The daily newspaper can be read through the Newsstand folder, with iPhone-only subscriptions running $15 per month, while iPad subscriptions are available for $20 per month.
Comments
$8 per month for this junk? Where was NYT in the lead up to the war? Thank God for privately held publications like The Guardian. Only for the few journalism would be dead.
It is smart for the NYT to focus on the iPhone. Android owners would never pay $96.00/year for the NYT because they all use Google News and get 4,000 different newspapers for free. Pathetic.
They don't want the public to think about how expensive paper, printing and delivery really is or what a large proportion of the total cost printing really is. And, for many, the quality of electronic publishing is a bit lower because it often does not get quality copy editing.
However, in counterpoint, if the electronic editions result in decreased ad revenue, that could justify the price increase. But, perhaps, they need to look at cost and revenue profiles more closely.
I subscribe to a few paper magazines for art, travel, design, world events, and food articles. The rest I get for free (with ads) online.
Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS? United Airlines did the same thing with in-flight video services. What’s up with that? Don’t these people understand that Apple is doomed and their efforts are in vain? AndroidFTW!
I would mark this as sarcasm but, incredibly, there are people actually asking these questions.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/united-airlines-to-roll-out-free-in-flight-video-streaming-service/#!BsKQR
Got that right. And speaking of the death of journalism, who here has seen CNN recently? It's an ocean of garbage out there.
It is hard to imagine a better investment than getting home delivery of the Sunday NYT and free digital access, although I suppose this is not available everywhere. For the educational subscription, this is even better, around $4 an issue. Sometimes the print edition goes in the recycle bin without being opened, but the digital edition is viewed several times a day.
the New York Times unfairly discriminates against Apple users for i-devices in forcing them to pay for content that is freely accessed on a PC web browser. The PC experience does not force you into these caveat scenarios for paying to read the news. Only Apple customers are singled out in this app-based pay-wall junk.
edit: there is a pay-wall for PC access online, but does not limit readers to only 10 articles per month, like on the iPhone/iPad.
$8 per month for this junk? Where was NYT in the lead up to the war? Thank God for privately held publications like The Guardian. Only for the few journalism would be dead.
+100!
Also, the Guardian (or Grauniad as it's affectionally known) costs about 8 British pounds a month, for all access, for an app than ENTIRELY downloads every day (rather than half-heartedly downloads and requires online access) and is basically a full daily newspaper on the iPad.
I dropped my NYT subscription because they had a bizzare pricing model that was either iPhone plus Online or iPad plus Online. Or pay through the nose for both. Huh?
Yes I'll stick to the Guardian for a publication not afraid to shake a stick at the establishment whether that establishment is conservative or liberal, and actually provides value for money. If they went behind a paywall, I'd pay.
It is hard to imagine a better investment than getting home delivery of the Sunday NYT and free digital access, although I suppose this is not available everywhere. For the educational subscription, this is even better, around $4 an issue. Sometimes the print edition goes in the recycle bin without being opened, but the digital edition is viewed several times a day.
Interesting. I like the Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal. For the Review (Books) section and the Off Duty section for style, food, cars, and travel. But I do find the WSJ editorials a bit too snarky and out of touch. I read our local paper everyday. And subscribe to MacWorld, Outside and Time. I like Time b/c it provides a little more context in the longer articles than a newspaper does. Eventually, someone writes a book about topics covered in the news and I try to read a lot of those.
I watch Fareed Zakaria, GPS on CNN. I like that he has foreign guests on who give a better view of world events than most American educated reporters. And I listen to HBO's Bill Maher-Realtime podcast. Which can be rather funny at times. I listen to Diane Rhem's Podcast, especially the Friday news Roundup, Domestic and International. It's good, if there are English or foreign reporters on. Again when it's just mostly American reporters, it's pretty much worthless. They seem to just repeat the headlines as their opinions and don't really bring anything new to the table.
I always found the NYT a little New York City Centric. But perhaps, I just need to skip that section. I will check out the Sunday Edition of the NYT. Thx!
I never thought I would say this, but I do enjoy the physical magazine, newspaper, book over reading them on my iPad, iPhone or iMac. I do recycle them all, though.
Best regards.
P.S. Did anyone see my letter to the editor in this month's MacWorld (April 2014) "Photo Power-CLH126?" It's me! I've been "published!" Yepeeeeeee!
NYT is not perfect but there is a lot of good content. Lots of people will call it crap (and there is a ton of crap in there) but there is also good stuff. NYT needs to get over their crazy view of the online world and what we will pay and come up with something attractive.
For a start..... $4.99 per month (and NO, not for 4 weeks!) That is not in a different world then what they offer, but i can tell you if they did it they would get 4x as much business.
The $4.99 should give you nearly full access as well, not to just some of the content. Make that content readable on a few devices as well so I can see it on my desktop, iPad and iPhone.
What is the 'New York Times'?
A printed, physically delivered magazine monthly costs $8 a YEAR.
NYT is not perfect but there is a lot of good content. Lots of people will call it crap (and there is a ton of crap in there) but there is also good stuff. NYT needs to get over their crazy view of the online world and what we will pay and come up with something attractive.
For a start..... $4.99 per month (and NO, not for 4 weeks!) That is not in a different world then what they offer, but i can tell you if they did it they would get 4x as much business.
The $4.99 should give you nearly full access as well, not to just some of the content. Make that content readable on a few devices as well so I can see it on my desktop, iPad and iPhone.
Agreed. That seems to be the price point for me, too.
TV news is all about ratings. It's sad. If I hear "exclusive" or "only on this network", I just cringe.
Got that right. And speaking of the death of journalism, who here has seen CNN recently? It's an ocean of garbage out there.
Agreed! I find CNN's Anderson Cooper unwatchable, as he "um's" and "err's" his way thru interviews. It's too annoying!
Can't anyone on CNN talk extemporaneously anymore? Using complete sentences?
Best.
TV news is all about ratings. It's sad. If I hear "exclusive" or "only on this network", I just cringe.
Or how about when the invited guest is interrupted by the interviewer before they can get three sentences out. Or cutting off the guest b/c they "only have a few seconds left." Ugh!
Android dominates the world with 80% market share. iOS is all but irrelevant. Why would any business release a product that only works on iOS? United Airlines did the same thing with in-flight video services. What’s up with that? Don’t these people understand that Apple is doomed and their efforts are in vain? AndroidFTW!
I would mark this as sarcasm but, incredibly, there are people actually asking these questions.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/united-airlines-to-roll-out-free-in-flight-video-streaming-service/#!BsKQR
Crud products running android does not equal an iPhone. Plus most of those users are noobs who don't even need a smartphone or use for more than making calls. That is in part why 60% of mobile internet traffic is iOS vs 25% android. Android can have the wannabes and the bargain bin sales.
At first I had thought they had finally figured out what business they are in and thought $8 was reasonable, but now I see it won't be the full newspaper and they different rates for the iPad.
They always try to see if they can find enough bozos to buy an overpriced model before trying a real one.