

Backward Steps by the WSJ and the NYT on the iPad - ojbyrne
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/backwards_steps_by_the_wsj_and.php

======
hkuo
This isn't just a symptom of the iPad. I've always been confused when news
sites build an iPhone app for people to read the same news they can read in
the browser or a news aggregator. It seems the time, cost, and energy could be
spent improving the site experience, making accommodations for the differences
in finger and mouse inputs.

Is it just for the ability to boast that they have an iPhone or iPad app?
Perhaps it's just another avenue to increase readership?

Regardless, it's their choice to build the apps and users choice to pay for
and use them, so c'est la vie.

~~~
vegashacker
There's evidence (both anecdotal and numeric) suggesting that people prefer
using an apps to the "raw" web. My mom says about her iPhone, "Safari is still
kind of hard for me. So I always look for an app first." I suspect her usage
pattern may be somewhat typical, and if so, it may make a lot of sense for
these companies to build these apps--because they're what the users want.

~~~
_delirium
It raises their visibility too, because it puts them in the main list of apps,
as a top-level thing.

------
ghshephard
The most bizarre part - WSJ won't even let me subscribe to the iPad edition.
Every time I do, they ask me what my account is for wsj.com, and when I give
it to them, they tell me "Hey, we'll let you use the iPad version for no
additional charge." So, for right now, it's really only $1.99/week for the WSJ
(Web + IPad).

Meanwhile the NYT, which is completely and totally free on the Web at nyt.com,
is trying to charge me $19.99/Month Now, for the times reader, which is only a
_subset_ of the nyt.com (they don't include business graphs and figures last
time I checked, just before I canceled my subscription)

I don't really understand their pricing/marketing strategy, and I'm one of
their core audience.

Why, precisely, am I supposed to pay the NYT $19.99/month for a _subset_ of
what they offer for free on NYT.com?

bizarre.

------
gmatty
eh... not to crazy about the article. It makes some statements about how
things were deliberately left out of apps without backing up that statement
with a quote or anything by those controlling the app. Isn't it possible that
these features were left out because the app developers simply didnt have
enough time to add those features for the first release??

------
CamperBob
Wow, this sucks. With as much as the NYT and WSJ are charging, why do I have
to look at any ads at all, much less intrusive Web-style popups?

