Feb 10, 2012 - 05:30 PM EST — AAPL: 493.42 (+0.25, +0.05%) | NASDAQ: 2903.88 (-23.35, -0.8%)

Wall Street Journal iPhone app fees take effect October 24

Thursday, September 17, 2009 · 5:52 pm · 54 Comments

“News Corp. said Thursday that current print and online subscribers to The Wall Street Journal won’t have to pay extra to get full subscription content on their mobile phones,” David B. Wilkerson reports for MarketWatch.

“Chairman Rupert Murdoch said earlier this week that subscribers to the print-only version of the newspaper will soon have to pay $1 per week to receive full mobile access and non-subscribers would pay $2 a week,” Wilkerson reports. “The new fees go into effect Oct. 24.”

“The WSJ Mobile Reader is currently available on Blackberry and iPhone devices,” Wilkerson reports. “News Corp. said new features will be added to the reader and that customers who download it before Oct. 24 will receive 90 days of free, full mobile access to the Journal’s stories.”

Full article here.

Categories: All Sites, News

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

Apple Store Online:
• Order iPhone 4s. From $199. Fast, free shipping only at the Apple Online Store.
• New Apple MacBook Pro. Now faster than ever. Starting at $1199, plus free shipping.
• MacBook Air. Available in two utlracompact sizes. Starting at just $999. Fast, free shipping from the Apple Online Store.
• The new iMac. With next-generation quad core processor and advanced graphics. From $1199. Fast, free shipping at the Apple Online Store.
• The new Mac mini. Now up to 2x faster. From $599. Fast, free shipping. Buy now at the Apple Online Store.

Comment Feed

54 Comments

1 2 3 Next »

dumb

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 5:55 pm · Reply

Isn’t Murdoch rich enough?

Well, there goes another app off my iPhone.
breeze

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 5:55 pm · Reply

bye bye rupert…stick it
Z

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 5:56 pm · Reply

Only newspaper in the US worth reading and worth it’s price.
-wsn

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 5:58 pm · Reply

The app has already been deleted.

The WSJ use to be ‘The Paper’ now it’s just ‘a paper’
John

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 5:58 pm · Reply

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 5:59 pm · Reply

Up yours Murdoch you fucking cock sucker.
twodales

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:01 pm · Reply

Already gone from my iPhone. Screw them
iPhoner

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:12 pm · Reply

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:21 pm · Reply

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
HolyMackerel

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:22 pm · Reply

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.
Rob

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:23 pm · Reply

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:24 pm · Reply

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:29 pm · Reply

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

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:35 pm · Reply

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.
Johnny

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:37 pm · Reply

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?
Good content

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:40 pm · Reply

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.
ron

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:53 pm · Reply

Jamie, wash your mouth out.
Spark

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 6:57 pm · Reply

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.
LeftCoastDude

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:01 pm · Reply

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.
LeftCoastDude

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:03 pm · Reply

@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.
justme2

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:03 pm · Reply

@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.
LeftCoastDude

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:05 pm · Reply

@ 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.
LeftCoastDude

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:07 pm · Reply

@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.
Jubei

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:21 pm · Reply

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!
MacDonald

Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 7:21 pm · Reply

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.