Wall Street Journal. Some paid subscribers I guess is better than 100,000 free subs... Just sucks they're online sub base is going to be cut probably by 70% in this economy with so many other free sources of information.
...Some paid subscribers I guess is better than 100,000 free subs...
Yeah, but charging current subscribers (who subscribe to either the print or web versions) *yet another* fee for mobile access is *truly* absurd. I have no idea what they're thinking. What *I'm* thinking is they may actually LOSE subscribers out of nothing more than spite.
Further, IMHO, $2/week for mobile-only access is equally absurd and I'd be willing to bet they won't get even 1/3 to pay that sum given, as you indicated, the state of the economy and the many other sources of free information. So, lots of luck to them with this new deal - they're certainly going to need it.
Yeah, but charging current subscribers (who subscribe to either the print or web versions) *yet another* fee for mobile access is *truly* absurd. I have no idea what they're thinking. What *I'm* thinking is they may actually LOSE subscribers out of nothing more than spite.
Further, IMHO, $2/week for mobile-only access is equally absurd and I'd be willing to bet they won't get even 1/3 to pay that sum given, as you indicated, the state of the economy and the many other sources of free information. So, lots of luck to them with this new deal - they're certainly going to need it.
Exactly. I have an online subscription and will NOT pay an additional fee for mobile access. I'm going to cancel at the end of my subscription.
