WSJ to start charging for iPhone content

WSJ app......DELETED!!!!!

It never ceases to amaze me just how much they don't get it. The scope of content, and the opportunity to view it with advertisements for free is what makes Hulu so popular. It is a great platform to start building on. What would make it different if it were a pay per use service? No one wants pay "per use". It does not take an overpaid suit in with a fancy title to figure this out. I used to have a WSJ subscription, but I got more information on businesses from using blogs (free), or browsing through Google News (also FREE). Their paper is nothing special. Their business insight is nothing special. I have it on my phone now...and don't ever open it while it is free. So yeah...

Good call guys...keep up the great work.

Just a couple things to say about this:

1/ Since Ruppy took over the WSJ, it's turned into USA Today. This is not even damning praise, the quality of the paper / online version has gone...down. Anything Ruppy touches turns to PR and/or tabloid.

2/ Ads can be blocked. They're basically a stupid tax for any who cannot edit their /etc/hosts file, even on their iPhones.

So what does the sudden monetization of WSJ and other Ruppy properties tell us? That Ruppy is financially hurting from all of the M & A he's been doing for the last 5 years. And that he thinks that the sheeple are stupid.

It's not like MSCNBCBS is any better, but why PAY for tabloid entertainment?

Wel Murdock ha sto replace Glenn Beck's lost revenue somehow :-)

Thats crazy! esp. charging to use Hulu. They will be shooting themselves in the foot. They would lose their competitive edge against cable & itunes. I couldn't imagine paying to watch a show on Hulu esp since you can't watch shows on their orginal air date. If they start charging it should be pennies, because I could have sworn that they sell advertising!

yeah, I have to say this is bye bye for WSJ on the iphone for me. Can they be SERIOUS to charge essentially MORE than the website, for the limited content on the iphone app?

It won't allow a user to store more than 50 articles, maybe that will change, but I for one won't be paying for it.

just boo.

1) I will not pay for news that I can get for free from other sources.
2) If Hulu starts charging I may ditch it if they don't then get rid of ads and the cost is more the $4 or $5.

Is the WSJ app currently free? If so, what about Apple's stated "free apps stay free" policy?

I subscribe to the WSJ already - if they think it's OK to charge me an extra $1 per week to access the exact same content on my iPhone, they are nuts. These people, just like the movie studios, still don't understand that what they are selling is CONTENT. You can't sell someone a cup of coffee and then charge them again if they want to take it outside. Goodbye WSJ.