News+ is not an “it just works” solution. I would have paid $10 for the paywalls in News to go away. Why would I pay if I still have to deal with that?
Smart move by WSJ, to compete with NYT and WP as well as global competitors.
"only select content will be made available to News+ subscribers." Where Business/Finance content will not be made available. Do people subscribe to WSJ for Politics/Social/Lifestyle type of news?
It has general news with an emphasis on financial stuff as well as targeted financial sections/columns like "heard on the street", "CFO Journal", etc... it also has a life and arts section and a well known, highly regarded but very conservative opinion section.
They could offer the general news section and leave off the specialty sections and still appeal a to lot of people.
Good, if it works for you then. WSJ created one new subscriber with the help of Apple News. This is not for existing WSJ subscribers who subscribe for Business/Finance news. There are many sources for general news even on Apple News (Not +) for general news.
I guess I wasn't clear: It has general (mostly financial & business) news. It also has specialty news sections. Their front page is what most people read and it has both general interest and business and financial news -- and its probably the main draw for most people. I look forward to reading it on AppleNews -- it's always good reporting.
I would love to subscribe to the paper, but I'm retired and can't justify the high cost.
Why don't you subscribe and confirm if most financial and business news available as per your claim.
Better yet, why don't you so you can back up your unsubstantiated claim that business and financial news will not be available?
Really not that hard to figure out…. “Censorship.” Nothing is being purposefully denied the reader in what they can read based on what’s offered. Perhaps the other person meant to use a term like “limited” (in selection, etc.)?
So I guess you aren't concerned by the article's claim that people are "dictating" what we can see and read: i.e., "While WSJ editor Matt Murray is in charge of dictating what content makes it onto Apple's service". To me "dictators" are as bad as "censors". But you are comfortable with dictators? I'm not. That is "purposely denying" what we can read. And you refer to "the other person". I have no idea what person you are talking about. I never mentioned anyone else. Feel free to explain who is on your mind.
It’s a business and WSJ isn’t going to fully cannibalize their existing paper and online subs for Apple’s experiment. This has nothing to do with censorship.
Actually, more likely I think, WSJ is trying to tell their regular (mostly business class) subscribers not to cancel their $30 a month subscriptions. And, the only things withheld from Apple's News will be a few specialty sections.
Really not that hard to figure out…. “Censorship.” Nothing is being purposefully denied the reader in what they can read based on what’s offered. Perhaps the other person meant to use a term like “limited” (in selection, etc.)?
So I guess you aren't concerned by the article's claim that people are "dictating" what we can see and read: i.e., "While WSJ editor Matt Murray is in charge of dictating what content makes it onto Apple's service". To me "dictators" are as bad as "censors". But you are comfortable with dictators? I'm not. That is "purposely denying" what we can read. And you refer to "the other person". I have no idea what person you are talking about. I never mentioned anyone else. Feel free to explain who is on your mind.
It’s a business and WSJ isn’t going to fully cannibalize their existing paper and online subs for Apple’s experiment. This has nothing to do with censorship.
Are you okay with Apple's current pitch for Apple News+: "Full Accessto hundreds of leading magazines and Newspapers." Full access means no censorship. Apple says full access. I'm not sure what percent access I'm actually getting, but it feels under 5%. That's 95% censorship. I like the magazine access, and I may keep the subscription. But calling it News+, it actually feels more like SQRT(News).
There are 2 Wall Street Journals- the quality news side and the crazy opinion side. One is worth paying for and the other is good for a belly laugh or lining your Parakeet's cage.
Really not that hard to figure out…. “Censorship.” Nothing is being purposefully denied the reader in what they can read based on what’s offered. Perhaps the other person meant to use a term like “limited” (in selection, etc.)?
So I guess you aren't concerned by the article's claim that people are "dictating" what we can see and read: i.e., "While WSJ editor Matt Murray is in charge of dictating what content makes it onto Apple's service". To me "dictators" are as bad as "censors". But you are comfortable with dictators? I'm not. That is "purposely denying" what we can read. And you refer to "the other person". I have no idea what person you are talking about. I never mentioned anyone else. Feel free to explain who is on your mind.
It’s a business and WSJ isn’t going to fully cannibalize their existing paper and online subs for Apple’s experiment. This has nothing to do with censorship.
Are you okay with Apple's current pitch for Apple News+: "Full Accessto hundreds of leading magazines and Newspapers." Full access means no censorship. Apple says full access. I'm not sure what percent access I'm actually getting, but it feels under 5%. That's 95% censorship. I like the magazine access, and I may keep the subscription. But calling it News+, it actually feels more like SQRT(News).
According to the "clarification" they are, in fact, offering full access to the WSJ, they are just limiting access to content within the past 3 days. That seems like an excellent compromise.
Really not that hard to figure out…. “Censorship.” Nothing is being purposefully denied the reader in what they can read based on what’s offered. Perhaps the other person meant to use a term like “limited” (in selection, etc.)?
So I guess you aren't concerned by the article's claim that people are "dictating" what we can see and read: i.e., "While WSJ editor Matt Murray is in charge of dictating what content makes it onto Apple's service". To me "dictators" are as bad as "censors". But you are comfortable with dictators? I'm not. That is "purposely denying" what we can read. And you refer to "the other person". I have no idea what person you are talking about. I never mentioned anyone else. Feel free to explain who is on your mind.
It’s a business and WSJ isn’t going to fully cannibalize their existing paper and online subs for Apple’s experiment. This has nothing to do with censorship.
Are you okay with Apple's current pitch for Apple News+: "Full Accessto hundreds of leading magazines and Newspapers." Full access means no censorship. Apple says full access. I'm not sure what percent access I'm actually getting, but it feels under 5%. That's 95% censorship. I like the magazine access, and I may keep the subscription. But calling it News+, it actually feels more like SQRT(News).
According to the "clarification" they are, in fact, offering full access to the WSJ, they are just limiting access to content within the past 3 days. That seems like an excellent compromise.
They aren't surfacing the full WSJ results in finance and business categories (and perhaps others) in the Apple News+ app, instead promoting more general news stories and opinion pieces instead of the Wall Street Journal's strengths. They're ven putting on a staff of around 50 for stories of more general appeal to Apple users.
If you want to search for other stories (if you are aware of them) you can of course do so, as long as it was within the past three days. Those with a full subscription do not have those limitations. I believe that's what the WSJ said in the clarification, but correct me if that's wrong.
According to the "clarification" they are, in fact, offering full access to the WSJ, they are just limiting access to content within the past 3 days. That seems like an excellent compromise.
I guess the dust hasn't fully settled on these points quite yet, and things could still change. I agree with you that the idea you described is a "compromise". But I don't like it at all and I think if that's true Apple could be in legal trouble for saying "full access." Some business news has only a 3-day window of usefulness, and to say Apple News+ users get only information outside that window of usefulness is disturbing to me. Even worse for us Canadians is that I couldn't find ANY news from the LA Times, and Apple News+ didn't mention that paper was excluded from our subscription.
According to the "clarification" they are, in fact, offering full access to the WSJ, they are just limiting access to content within the past 3 days. That seems like an excellent compromise.
I guess the dust hasn't fully settled on these points quite yet, and things could still change. I agree with you that the idea you described is a "compromise". But I don't like it at all and I think if that's true Apple could be in legal trouble for saying "full access." Some business news has only a 3-day window of usefulness, and to say Apple News+ users get only information outside that window of usefulness is disturbing to me. Even worse for us Canadians is that I couldn't find ANY news from the LA Times, and Apple News+ didn't mention that paper was excluded from our subscription.
You have to do a search to find the LA Times then add it to your channels. That might be why you are not seeing it?
Comments
One is worth paying for and the other is good for a belly laugh or lining your Parakeet's cage.
If you want to search for other stories (if you are aware of them) you can of course do so, as long as it was within the past three days. Those with a full subscription do not have those limitations. I believe that's what the WSJ said in the clarification, but correct me if that's wrong.