Tablet Users Love to Read News; Don't Want to Pay For It

[Guest]

The Pew Research Center Project for Excellence in Journalism may cause some publishers to rethink their strategy of selling interactive magazines and newspapers for tablets.

Tablet Users Love to Read News; Don't Want to Pay For It : Read more

 

[shanky887614]

i refuse to pay for digital access to free information, im looking at you http://www.bit-tech.net/news/

why pay £5 for an app that i can only access with 3g or wifi access?

i can just use my browser and go to your website?

 

[ojas]

obviously. why would anyone pay more/as much for a digital subscription than they would pay for a hard copy? It's easier to read a magazine/newspaper anyway...

 

[Goldengoose]

News is nice and free, no need to pay for it.

 

[marraco]

Lots of companies want to pay to brainwash me with "information".

If I pay for it, they will keep the brainwashing anyways.

 

[dark_knight33]

It used to be that the sub fee paid for the printing (your copy of) the paper, and the advertisements paid for the news. Delivering me a webpage with the same content literally costs fractions of a penny. Why would I want to pay the subscription fee?

News papers are still stuck in the last century. They can't think outside the little box they put themselves in, and that's why they are failing. They want to charge sub fees so free news on the web doesn't cannibalize their print sales. However, the vast majority of websites and blogs are funded solely on advertisements. If they drop the sub fees, page hits would go up dramatically, and they can charge more for advertising. Everybody wins.

Problem is, dinosaurs like NYT are afraid of change, so their (web)paper doesn't get my view. I'm not paying for it, plain and simple. There are enough free news sources that I don't need them, they lose.

 

[sonofhendrix]

Propaganda

 

[kinggremlin]

Earth shatteringly shocking. People don't want to pay for things. Was a survey really necessary to figure out people want everything for free?

 

[stereopsis]

Exactly. This news is not news. Is anyone surprised? We are used to reading our free virtual rags.

 

[chomlee]

Shocking news!!! Just in. People would rather have things for free. OMG. I don't think this only applies to news on the tablets, it pretty much applies to everything.

Look at the amount of free apps vs paid apps people download.

 

[spentshells]

Fark.com

 

[chronicbint]

I buy several digital publications on my iPad, however these are not really everyday news. Such as Sunday Times and Mountain Biking magazines.

 

[igot1forya]

My question is, who WANTS to pay for anything especially if you are getting it for free already? The only reason I'd pay for something is to eliminate ads - but I don't think that model would work for very long. Remember when cable TV was commercial free back in the day because it was paid by subscribers? Alas greed wins in the end - one day we will all pay for the air we breath.

 

[cyberkuberiah]

i like stuff even more when its free 😛

 

[jwcalla]

[citation][nom]Igot1forya[/nom]My question is, who WANTS to pay for anything especially if you are getting it for free already? The only reason I'd pay for something is to eliminate ads ... Alas greed wins in the end - one day we will all pay for the air we breath.[/citation]

So is it greedy to expect to receive services and products for free? How are people supposed to provide for their families if the work they do (e.g., to run a website or develop an app) isn't reciprocated with some kind of revenue?

I'm telling you with all sincerity, there is this implicit bias that software developers should not be paid for their work.

Everybody wants something for free, and many of those people would claim that the person asking to be paid for his efforts is the greedy one.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]dark_knight33[/nom]It used to be that the sub fee paid for the printing (your copy of) the paper, and the advertisements paid for the news. Delivering me a webpage with the same content literally costs fractions of a penny. Why would I want to pay the subscription fee? News papers are still stuck in the last century. They can't think outside the little box they put themselves in, and that's why they are failing. They want to charge sub fees so free news on the web doesn't cannibalize their print sales. However, the vast majority of websites and blogs are funded solely on advertisements. If they drop the sub fees, page hits would go up dramatically, and they can charge more for advertising. Everybody wins. Problem is, dinosaurs like NYT are afraid of change, so their (web)paper doesn't get my view. I'm not paying for it, plain and simple. There are enough free news sources that I don't need them, they lose.[/citation]

you have to think of this in a more... realistic mannor than everything will be fine when its free... there is the time before and after they go free, that they will lose significant amounts of money, and many people who pay for it, may and probably will see it as a drop in quality.

i'm currently in the process of making a web show like thing, and its all ad driven, and that's where my money will come from if i ever get popular. im sorry but i honestly cant see big, must have money established places ever going to free with adds unless their balls are in a vise grip and they are a quarter turn from rupturing.

 

[jezus53]

I think the problem is people spend around $500 on a tablet and don't want to have to pay to actually do things they want to do on it. It's reading text, there is no value behind it so no one wants to pay for it.

 

[igot1forya]

[citation][nom]jwcalla[/nom]So is it greedy to expect to receive services and products for free? How are people supposed to provide for their families if the work they do (e.g., to run a website or develop an app) isn't reciprocated with some kind of revenue?I'm telling you with all sincerity, there is this implicit bias that software developers should not be paid for their work.Everybody wants something for free, and many of those people would claim that the person asking to be paid for his efforts is the greedy one.[/citation]
Believe it or not, making (keeping) a service free while others charges CAN have advantages. As I mentioned in my OP, the only reason for me pay is to remove advertisements. Keeping something free, while others charge can increase traffic to advertisers and therefor by extension generate revenue for software developers. We see this happening in video games and on TV - only in those cases, they still charge $$$ for the game/TV (even though they are making money on advertising too). This is the greed I refer too.

Anyone who works hard for their product certainly deserves to make money at it. But there are creative ways of generating those funds that otherwise would alienate a consumer. I personally watch every cent that I spend, and some things I simply would not spend money on, even if it had some value to it. Whereas if a product is made available for free (or cheap), then they have increased their market share to a point where the revenue is generated by advertisers and promotions. This is why I don't care if Toms wants to sell me Vipre Antivirus every time I come to the site, because they offer the site (to me) for free and not so free to advertisers.

 

[ct001]

I'd pay if it was worth it, but just copy/pasting off of routers is hardly worth it. Half the online articles I read don't even have proper grammar. If it was less sensational spoon-fed BS, and more original thought/content, they might have something worth charging for.

 

[legacy7955]

I agree, why should anyone PAY for propagenda disguised as "news" .