MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Isn't Murdoch rich enough?

Well, there goes another app off my iPhone.

Sep 17, 09 - 05:55 pm Comment from: breeze

bye bye rupert...stick it

Only newspaper in the US worth reading and worth it's price.

The app has already been deleted.

The WSJ use to be 'The Paper' now it's just 'a paper'

Sep 17, 09 - 05:58 pm Comment from: John

@Z, I disagree. Obviously those who find it worth the price will read it, but for the rest of us, buh bye indeed.

Sep 17, 09 - 05:59 pm Comment from: Jamie

Up yours Murdoch you fucking cock sucker.

Sep 17, 09 - 06:01 pm Comment from: twodales

Already gone from my iPhone. Screw them

Sep 17, 09 - 06:12 pm Comment from: iPhoner

just deleted - too many other freebies - get ALL news sources to start charging and I might pay - but it still won't be WSJ.

get ALL news sources to start charging and I might pay

Wouldn't that be collusion? (Kind of like what the music business cartels are already doing, actually.)

TechDirt as usual has some good things to say on why putting news behind a paywall won't work: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090707/0207585464.shtml

Sep 17, 09 - 06:22 pm Comment from: HolyMackerel

What is the problem - the $1 per week is surely less than the news stand rate for 5-7 editions?

It may get expensive to read a few online papers, but so do the print editions now. If this improves the quality and increases actual reporting rather than just regurgitated opinion then that would be a good thing. It doesn't stop us reading other free news sites.

Good. The less people have access to this right wing propaganda, the better off our society will be.

Can't you search for WSJ articles through Google News and read them for free?

I love my WSJ reader. This bugs me, I don't think I'll be paying $2.00/week for it/

First, by "less people" you should have written "fewer people." Consider that your freebie grammar lesson for the day. ("Less" = singular objects, "fewer" = plural.)

Now, let's revise your posting to read (regarding the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, Seattle P-I, Washington Post, et al.) . . .

"Good. The [fewer] people who have access to this left wing propaganda, the better off our society will be."

There. Much, much better.

Is $8 a month really too much? how much did some of you pay for it in paper? does good content really have no value any more?

does have value--but how much better is it than ad-supported other sources? For most of us, not $100 a year better.

Meanwhile, News Corp has plenty of other reasons to earn a boycott.

Sep 17, 09 - 06:53 pm Comment from: ron

Jamie, wash your mouth out.

Sep 17, 09 - 06:57 pm Comment from: Spark

The WSJ has always been a subscription medium for those that find value in Business and Finance news. If that is you, and you need access on the go with your iPhone, then a couple of bucks per week might be a good value. For those whom $2 per week is too much, then you are not within the WSJ demographic. Don't buy it. It's a very easy decision that does not require histrionics.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:01 pm Comment from: LeftCoastDude

WSJ is THE most important business newspaper in the US. For those of you who sit around doing nothing productive for the economy of the US, of course $1.00 is excessive. It will probably take away from your obesity driven potato chip habit.

For those of us who actually help build the economy of the world, the WSJ is invaluable. And by the way, it is not a right wing paper. It's editorial policy tends to the right. It's articles are very liberal. Most business people detest Republican social policy and Democratic economic policy. But cash matters, so they hold their noses about Republican social crap to get more money in their pockets. The WSJ seems to follow that schizophrenic personality.

Newspapers matter in this country. They are the third estate that help balance the excesses of the government, business, and military. The internet is filled with lies. Look at MDN...they just blather on about whatever is Apple, without regards to checking sources, or doing any kind of real, rational and intelligent research. The Washington Post, New York Times, WSJ, LA Times, and other papers are critical to an open and fair democracy. If they cannot make a profit, and only the WSJ is profitable, then they fail, and our democracy fails. Without newspapers, then we get the Drudge Report on the right or Daily Kos on the left, neither of which writes news.

So, you fat, lazy, unemployed fans of this website. I'm sure the WSJ is wetting its shorts because you are refusing to pay for it. And I'm fairly certain they aren't paying multimillion dollar bonuses because I will pay for it.

Get over yourselves.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:03 pm Comment from: LeftCoastDude

@Spark. You are much nicer than I am. The group that hangs out here is 10% intelligent, rational, educated, and, dare I say, employed. I enjoy reading their comments. I think MDN is actually somewhat useful in finding out what's going on with Apple, so that I can get excited about new products.

The remaining 90% of users are idiots.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:03 pm Comment from: justme2

@Johnny -- $2/week = $104 a year; I pay less than that for print version of my local paper, and I can supplement that with other online sources. I don't need my money to go into Murdoch's wallet.

With Murdoch's plan to charge for all his online content, he's going to find pretty quick what people think it's really worth.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:05 pm Comment from: LeftCoastDude

@ Gabriel. And you qualify as part of the 90% group here. Your source of information is blog, written by someone who did nothing to really investigate it from an economic or market standpoint. Moreover, WSJ subscribers are wealthier than your fat, potato chip eating, lazy, uneducated twits who populate this place and teh internets.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:07 pm Comment from: LeftCoastDude

@justme2...another one of the 90% idiots around these parts. $104 for your fat, lazy, uneducated butt probably means the difference between buying some twinkies or investing in money market funds. Do you think that people who read the WSJ for investment, market trends, technology, international markets, are worried about $104? Go get an education, instead of sitting here downloading porn and getting your potato chip grease on your keyboard.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:21 pm Comment from: Jubei

Thats a great deal as long as the content is not restricted or reduced compared to the paper. I'd subscribe for both NYT and WSJ for my iPhone gladly!

Hurray for conservatives! You get to bend over and take it from Rupert Murdoch some more. He already decides what and who you hate. He might as well squeeze a little more out of you.

Very few people are going to pay $1 per week to read that neocon rag on their phones. Good riddence. The WSJ is your grandpa's newspaper.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:30 pm Comment from: iPhoner

@ LeftCoastDude

Whoa dude! People not willing or wanting to pay for WSJ really touched off a nerve dude! Or maybe you react this way to every time people don't agree with your opinion?

So, let's clarify:

1. If you pay for WSJ:
"... You are helping to build the economy and are supporting papers who are critical to an open and fair democracy".

2. If you don't want to pay for WSJ:
" ... you are fat, lazy, unemployed fans of MDN and spend your days stuffing your fat fucking face with potato chips and downloading porn.

Hmm ... sounds like a reasonable argument. I wasn't going to buy WSJ but sure as hell don't want to end up in group 2!

Thanks Dude! You rock!

Aren't the App developers not supposed to charge for content if the app is also free? Or did I miss something...?

@@Rob

Your entire rebuttal to my post is completely inaccurate (not surprising coming from a wingnut).

First, by "less people" you should have written "fewer people."

Dead wrong. In this case, "less" modifies "access," not "people." i.e., I could have written
"The less access people have to this right wing propaganda, the better off society will be."

Consider that your grammar lesson for today.



Now, let's revise your posting to read (regarding the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, Seattle P-I, Washington Post, et al.) .

Let's not. Basically you're saying "let's remove every other newspaper except WSJ/Fox News." In other words, let's remove all the legitimate newspapers in the country and keep only the two blatant right wing propaganda sources. Wow, that's an incredibly dumb idea.

Please don't be surprised by this announcement. Rupert Murdoch telegraphed this months ago. There are some issues to consider:

1. You don't mind paying for music, TV shows, movies and apps via iTunes, and most of you pay these gladly. You see value in the music and other content (and apps), and value in the iTunes Store. The same can hold true for newspapers, magazines and other traditionally printed media.

2. Traditional newspapers and many magazines are in desperate financial shape. Newspapers are being hammered by the creative destruction of the Internet, and frankly, have been very slow to respond with an effective business model. Many newspapers are on life support as a result.

3. What Rupert Murdoch is doing will likely be joined by other publishers and sooner than you think. It is one of the reasons why people by an Amazon Kindle, and may be one of the reasons why Apple is rumored to be developing a tablet device.

4. None of us like to pay for things if we don't have to. We're used to reading news online for free. But free news does not help publishers. At this rate, printing presses might not just stop rolling, but the reporting and content with it. While I often disagree with journalists, there is much valuable content to be had, which I find essential to my professional and personal life. I don't know about you, but turning to a blogger you've never met and don't know the accuracy of his or her information for your news and facts is, to me, a terrifying prospect.

5. You might not like Rupert Murdoch. Many publishers through time have been hated, and Murdoch is hardly alone. But as LeftCoastDude correctly pointed out, traditional newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal are an essential information resource to investors and businesses. Without a viable business model, we could lose many of these sources of information. And if that happens, we all lose.

6. I predict that it will be Steve Jobs and Apple that saves yet another industry from oblivion, this time, newspapers and magazines. (Previously, it was the recording industry, even if the comb-overs who run the record companies refuse to acknowledge or understand that.) Before iTunes came along, file sharing sites ran wild, and RIAA treated consumers as the enemy. The introduction of iTunes put a stop to much of that insanity.

The traditional publishing industry has never successfully adapted to create a viable business model on the Internet. And it will take someone like Steve Jobs to do this for them. Journalists being journalists, they will never understand or appreciate that they owe their jobs to no less than Steve Jobs, should he pull off another huge win with iTunes, the iPhone, an iTablet (or whatever it might be called) and a working micropayment business model, something the publications should have done on their own years ago. If Apple reaps huge profits from taking the chance, betting the farm and doing it right, all the better. Perhaps some day, historians will recognize Apple and Steve Jobs for many things that reporters, bloggers and pundits will never comprehend.

Deleted this crud software from my iPhone today. Bye bye WSJ.

I have enjoyed reading the WSJ, but when they start charging for the content, there goes another app off my iPhone.

Sep 17, 09 - 07:56 pm Comment from: iPhoner

@LeftCoastDude, et al - well said.

See LeftCoastDude! - it is possible to present an articulate argument without resorting to name calling. I bet you're a lot of fun at parties! Until someone has an opposing point of view of course - then everybody quickly finds a reason that they "have to take off". Sound familiar?

Sep 17, 09 - 08:19 pm Comment from: Seaman Stain

Every single print or web publication needs to come to terms with the fact that their "revenue" comes from advertisers - not their fucking readers!

They also need to come to terms with the fact that when they begin to charge their readers for the privilege of reading their material, they will lose those readers - forever!

If readers go away, then there is no reason to advertise. Companies pay for advertising to connect their product to the eyeballs of readers. If there are readers, then advertisers have a reason to pay to be in that publication.

If any print or web publisher isn't making enough money, then they simply need to charge more to their advertisers. It is pretty damn simple and any dumbfuck publisher that can't figure it out doesn't deserve to be in business.

And thats all I have to say about that...

Leftcoastdude is correct from many standpoints. However, there are probably better ways of presenting his opinion.
As far as ignorance is concerned, it's a global phenomenon.

@ LeftCoastDude

It's editorial policy tends to the right

It does more than just "tend to the right." When it publishes a rebuttal to Obama's healthcare speech by Karl Rove, 3 hours BEFORE the speech is even given, there's something wrong.

Since I get all my news from the internet I'll continue to buy the hard page copy to line my cat's box. I might consider The WSJ if they Paid me, then I could use the money to get a subscription to Fox news.

@LeftCoastDude:

Obesity driven potato chip habit?

Um, try Doritos, beatch.

I think Investors Business Daily (IBD) is a much better paper for investing. Some may agree, some may not, many won't have an opinion. But hey, let the market do its thing. If people want to pay for that paper in that way, they will. If they don't, they won't. Next.

Sep 17, 09 - 11:13 pm Comment from: rws

Hey, I just registered finally!

Annnnnd.......*deleted*.

Don't forget to give it only one star, kids.

Shame too. It was a really well-done app.

But there are plenty others for FREE.

SUCK IT, MURDOCH.

--
MDN Keyword: HELL

I understand that WSJ needs to make money, but there is not reason they can't make an ad based version. I won't be paying for news even if this is the best source for it.

Damn Murdoch and the freaking boat he came in on. I payed for the Print journal up until 2000 when I decided to use only the online journal. It was 49.99. Somehow between 2000 and 2008, It got up to 100+ per year. No added features, but a loss of access to Barrons and their other products.

Now, you would think that they would extend the online fleecing to cover the iphone, but no, if I want to subscribe to the web and to the iphone (which is the fuc***g web) I have to pay twice.

Now the paper has become a complete NeoCon troll wagon. Almost every freaking article is about how the US is turning to Socialism. Despite the freaking 50% rise in the market. Well, I've had enough! 50% good content (there are some good stories and hints) and this kind of pricing will make me head on over to Investors Business Daily. I've had enough!

Sep 18, 09 - 06:05 am Comment from: Ottawa Mark

At least Rupert Murdoch is old. He'll be dead one day. But his belligerent beliefs will live on. A true monster.

@Seaman
You're correct. A case in point from Seattle. The Seattle Weekly once charged readers for their newspaper. That was the norm until The Stranger appeared and only charged advertisers and gave the paper away for free. The Seattle Weekly soon afterward adopted that business model to survive.
It seems to make sense that if you charge everyone, readers and advertiser alike, it would bring in more money. Perhaps not charging readers would bring more readers and more advertisers when the readers increased.
I don't know. It's just a thought.
All newspapers have a bias. The one we disagree with smacks of propaganda.

What would we ever do without people like LeftCoastDude to point out the error of our ways, and Rob to correct our use of English in the written form to conform to what he considers correct. Qualifies both of you for the pompous ass of the week award.

@rob
good rebuttal to @Rob... but your original sentence was awkward and could've been restructured for clarity.

and @@rob:
Not only are you wrong, but your "grammar" lesson is wrong too. "less" and "fewer" is not about "singular" and "plural" it's about whether a noun is countable or not.

less water, less sand less electricity. fewer H2O molecules, fewer grains of sand, fewer electrons.

Glad he is charging.

he wants to get rid of lowlife scum who only read free, shithook stuff written by asswipe lib journalists and worthless.

Crybabies, carry your whining ass.

@LeftCoastDude:
Nice rant -- but the press is the FOURTH estate, not the third. You're quite the hotheaded fool, your correct observations notwithstanding.

I will happily pay for the WSJ content -- it's long overdue. And pretty cheap compared to the subscription price. Will this remove advertising from the app? I kinda doubt it, since even the physical paper -- which we also pay for -- has advertising too. However, an ad-free version would be nice.

Deleting of the Wall Street Journal iPhone app takes effect October 24