Also, this is for people who’ve installed the app. For me, installing an app implies a dedication to the site or service. So they’ve installed the app, read 150 articles, and are reading more than 50 a month? Pay the guys.
125 is approximately 4 a day, so it’s really not that much. I suspect a lot are just opening articles (eg, by accidentally swiping sideways) rather than fully reading them too.
I don’t know man, if you are reading the guardian that much it might be time to start paying, it’s not like they are asking an extortionate amount from you either. Especially if you want to support the newspaper as it’s not a super profitable business to begin with.
The financial times is £35 a month on the cheapest subscription they offer so you could be paying much more.
To be clear, I’m not against paying for it - they do fantastic journalism and it’s worth supporting them. It’s just a surprise that they’ve implemented this given their stance has previously been very anti-paywall, instead making their money through other means.
In terms of the numbers, the usage to hit the paywall is about 4 articles a day, and they send out on average around 3 breaking news notifications a day so you just need to click on all of those to come very close to the limit. That might just mean that they send out too many notifications though!
That’s fair enough, who knows what changed at the guardian to cause this feature. Perhaps they just wanted to make some more profit, perhaps they are down on revenue from other means. Who knows. It is unusual for them to make this move after being anti-paywall you’re right. However they are definitely giving a decent amount of free articles in comparison to most other reputable newspapers.
I’ve been kicking them money for a while now. Only infrequently, but maybe $25 at a time because I appreciate their journalism. This makes me wonder if I’ll donate again. I’m not opposed to paying for content (I have numerous subscriptions). I just feel better about it when things are open and accessible.
You’re donating to keep the site free for casual use, not to bank roll them to be unlimited free. This approach the guardian have introduced is absolutely fair use.
Sometimes I give a bit to Wikipedia, maybe do that instead? It claims to be not for profit but I’ve seen accusations against that. I don’t really know, but I do know I use it quite a lot.
50 articles a month AFTER 150 to start with? Idk, if you read it that much then maybe they deserve a little money.
Also, this is for people who’ve installed the app. For me, installing an app implies a dedication to the site or service. So they’ve installed the app, read 150 articles, and are reading more than 50 a month? Pay the guys.
125 is approximately 4 a day, so it’s really not that much. I suspect a lot are just opening articles (eg, by accidentally swiping sideways) rather than fully reading them too.
I don’t know man, if you are reading the guardian that much it might be time to start paying, it’s not like they are asking an extortionate amount from you either. Especially if you want to support the newspaper as it’s not a super profitable business to begin with.
The financial times is £35 a month on the cheapest subscription they offer so you could be paying much more.
To be clear, I’m not against paying for it - they do fantastic journalism and it’s worth supporting them. It’s just a surprise that they’ve implemented this given their stance has previously been very anti-paywall, instead making their money through other means.
In terms of the numbers, the usage to hit the paywall is about 4 articles a day, and they send out on average around 3 breaking news notifications a day so you just need to click on all of those to come very close to the limit. That might just mean that they send out too many notifications though!
That’s fair enough, who knows what changed at the guardian to cause this feature. Perhaps they just wanted to make some more profit, perhaps they are down on revenue from other means. Who knows. It is unusual for them to make this move after being anti-paywall you’re right. However they are definitely giving a decent amount of free articles in comparison to most other reputable newspapers.
I start paying local news after about 1 article per day, and usually more like $20/month not the £10 they’re asking for.
Pay up or stop expecting them to give you unlimited service for free.
Hell, I’m paying my local union paper $25/month to support their strike against their corporation and I hardly read their stuff at all.
pay them
I’d potentially pay someone who is upfront about it, but the Guardian has always said they won’t do that and has introduced this without announcement.
The Guardian says in their notice that access through the web is still free. This is for app access.
You’re looking at the announcement. Were you expecting a personalised letter?
This seems to be more of a notice that you’ve reached the limit than an announcement.
I’ve been kicking them money for a while now. Only infrequently, but maybe $25 at a time because I appreciate their journalism. This makes me wonder if I’ll donate again. I’m not opposed to paying for content (I have numerous subscriptions). I just feel better about it when things are open and accessible.
You’re donating to keep the site free for casual use, not to bank roll them to be unlimited free. This approach the guardian have introduced is absolutely fair use.
Sometimes I give a bit to Wikipedia, maybe do that instead? It claims to be not for profit but I’ve seen accusations against that. I don’t really know, but I do know I use it quite a lot.