Forum menu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/25/guardian-editor-paywalls
I maintain unequivocally that if the Guardian (or as Kelvin Mackenzie has it, The World's Worst) abandons free access online or moves towards any kind of online paywall that Rushbridger will be gone.
So it's not a paywall, it's a tax on Apple users.
Smart move if you ask me.
😉
Pleae God can we stop calling it a paywall. There are plenty of other suitable words and phrases about to indicate charging for a service, we don't have to invent a new one. Grrr
Why not?
New products new ideas, new words, isn't the world a gorgeous place?
I don't see why it shouldn't be paid for?
Newspapers are businesses, aren't they?
Will they be keeping all that public sector job advertising behind the paywall, too?
If so, that could have a very big impact. Surely that's about the only revenue that's been keeping the Graun [s]not waving, just drowning[/s] just about afloat for years. Will it still be seen by sufficient numbers of people* to make it worthwhile as an advertising medium?
* People willing to pay for it, that is.
Will they be keeping all that public sector job advertising behind the paywall, too?
Read back, apparently it's not a paywall but a charge for the iPad app.
Will only cover a very small section of their users and I presume they can still use an iPad to look at The Guardian in a standard web browser.
Ah, OK, I see. My fault for not reading the whole thread first!
I'd imagine it will all go behind a paywall at some point though. Hard to see how else a newspaper can make money these days.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/25/ipad-kindle-newspapers-digital-print ]The Guardian softening the punters up for the paywall perhaps?[/url]