“There’s been a lot of talk this year about finally charging readers for news, especially on mobile devices, where media executives see a chance to condition consumers to handing over a few dollars for a constant stream of updates to their pocket. CNN is among the first big news outlets to give it a shot. Its app costs $1.99 to download,” Vanacore reports.
“The new app follows an announcement this month by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch that the company will start charging a subscription — possibly as much as $1 or $2 per week — for access to The Wall Street Journal’s mobile applications,” Vanacore reports.
“Many in the industry are skeptical that readers will pay for much online beyond business and financial reporting — the kind of stuff that helps people make money,” Vanacore reports. “How CNN fares in selling its app on Apple Inc.’s iTunes store for the iPhone and the iPod Touch will be closely watched by other media companies as they struggle with the loss of advertising dollars to the Web.”
Full article here.
They want it both ways. Money for the app, then to pester you with advertisements.
Sorry, no go. Either/or. No sale, ever, especially when the source is a suckass organization such as CNN.
Agreed. CNN does, indeed, suck ass…
A- Greed
I maybe would have considered this application, but they really lost credibility with me as a viable news source once they decided to give 2 hours of programming to the dictators of Iran and Venezuela.
There is so much “free news” on the internet; why pay?
At least CNN doesn’t try to create the news like Fox News. That said, CNN should be a lot better.
@jjjj
Ouch. That cut to the heart of many Fox News fans. I mean it. Really. OUCH!
You were close, jjjj. You SHOULD have written . . . “At least CNN doesn’t try to report the news like Fox News.”
Since you started it (and I really wish you hadn’t), I’ll take Rupert M. over Ted T. any time. Both plutocrats, yes, but the latter certifiably insane.
I’ve already deleted the WSJ from my phone (the quality of what I read seems to have deteriorated) and I know I don’t want to pay $104 per year for fluff pieces I can read from Mobile Safari or watch online. Good luck with their experiment. I won’t be a guinea pig this go around.
How much time before we see the word “beleaguered” before the words CNN and WSJ?
I’ll pay for it if they can guarantee I’ll never have to read another story about some “celebrity”, a TV show or anything religious. Remove all the fictional BS and I’ll gladly buy your news app!
@ Touch
Most all print media is beleaguered these days and that goes for the WSJ as well, Cable News Channels are quickly on the edge of falling into the beleaguered status as well, but then all of cable TV is moving into the beleaguered zone!.
I love all the comments from the “I want everything free” generation.
I’ll have to think about this.
As soon as the WSJ begins restricting my use of their mobile app and ask for money, it gets deleted. I refuse to pay a subscription for news.
On the other hand, paying for a mobile app, especially just a couple bucks, can be passed off as paying for the app, and not as a “pay wall” for news, per se.
That said, I am put off by the ads.
So I will need to think about it.
As for Fox news, no, dude, they have been caught actually making sh*t up. CNN may shade things their way, but they haven’t actually made up crap to broadcast!
I just looked at the WSJ app on my 1st Gen iPhone. Still seems to work and it has not asked for any payment.
I usually use my bloomberg app and have not used the WSJ app in a long time.
I don’t necessarily want free, even though free is always more fun. Yet, I also don’t want to pay ongoing monthly (yearly, not so bad) subscriptions for second-rate content.
CNN has the right idea, but lousy content.
WSJ has the wrong idea, but decent content. I’m willing to pay about $9.99 yearly for the WSJ, but $104 is a bit steep.
Glad WSJ is charging. The news is worth it, and anyway if you have a normal online subscription with them anyway, its free on the app by logging in.
CNN and most other news organizations are shit piles of liberal journalism school crap. All a bunch of lib sheep licking Hussein’s ass.
There is little comparison between the CNN and WSJ apps. CNN wants to charge a couple of bucks one time to purchase the app; WSJ wants subscribers to continually pay more than $100/year to have access to content. Once again, if content providers want to build a paid app that simply repackages info available for free on the web, they have to offer some other value proposition. The app needs to be Ad-free, and it needs to provide additional navigational, storage, organization or other handling capabilities for the content that are unavailable while web surfing. If CNN’s app adds these kind of features, then maybe it will be worth $2 for news junkies.
I’m not paying a monthly fee either. I would buy a good news app that allows flexibility, but no monthly fee. For me, that’s what I like about the iTunes store-just buy the songs I want with no ridiculous monthly fees.
You know with $1.99 price rage and also the ads I was a little sketchy about it. But I read a few articles and decided to take a chance. It’s not the greatest app but compared to other news apps out there is totally worth the price. Remember, free updates
I don’t mind $2 bucks for a well-designed news app, but it should not include advertisements. A free version should come with those.
Regarding Murdoch, Fox News and WSJ…. Ignorant folk enjoy their propaganda.
Sorry rwahrens –
CNN is much less reputable* then Fox. Like comparing the worse of two evils I realize, but unsupported claims as yours don’t go far.
*if wikipedia is to be believed
WSJ I will likely pay for. CNN? laughing my ass off.
Why would I pay for content that is available for free. Just take your browser and head over to CNN.com. You don’t have that option with WSJ. I seriously question the sanity of almost ever decision CNN makes these days.
CNN isn’t charging a subscription fee! Just a small amount for the app. The advertising is what pays for the content, and yes, it cost money to provide content.
If you get a newspaper (yes, some of us old fogies still get newspapers) your subscription pays for the printing and delivery. Advertising pays for the content.
Same thing.