New York Times eliminates TimesSelect fees, what about Times Reader?

Huzzah! The New York Times has finally decided to drop the TimesSelect subscription fee, which was up to $49.95 per month. All too many times I would click a link to the Times only to see a teaser headline and a sign-in page. Effective at the end of the day today, the entire website is available for everyone at no charge and the Times will offer free archives as well.

What about the awesome for-pay Times Reader content that I lamented back in March? I just checked the Times Reader page and it still shows a 30-day trial with a subscription charge of $14.95 a month after that. Seems to me like that fee should go away as well; it's the identical content, only in a different application. Actually, is there even a need for the Times Reader software at all? With a good browser or RSS reader, you can view all of the same great content.

Comments

[Pam B.]

James,

I, too, am glad that the NY Times is no longer charging for access to the TimesSelect content. However, they should retain the charge for the TimesReader, IMO.

That the same content comes in a different application is not a reason to drop the fee. Those who pay to receive the paper in physical form pay for the same content (less content, actually); those (like me) who pay for the electronic edition of the paper (via NewsStand) pay for the same content.

Because I have a subscription to the paper, I can use the TimesReader at no additional charge. I used to think the Reader was useless, but when I'm trying to quickly read an article during lunch, I find the Reader easier and quicker to access than downloading my copy of the paper via NewsStand.

Rather than view the TimesReader as a competitor to reading the website or its RSS feed (though the experience of the Reader is superior, IMO), think of it as subscribing to the paper (and financially supporting newspapers in general) without making them generate a paper copy for you; that is, as a competitor to the downloadable electronic edition. Once I made this shift in my thinking, I was suddenly much happier with the TimesReader and its fee!

Now if only they would release a version for the Mac, I would *really* be pleased.

[Faeiz Hindi]

Not sure I agree...I too really like the TimesReader software. However, in a world where "content is king", it makes no sense whatsoever to charge monthly for the TimesReader use when practically all of the same content is available free via their website or RSS readers. It's merely a more pleasant experience to use the TimesReader software. Yesterday I downloaded the whole paper to my laptop and read the content on the flight back home. It was convenient, but it was also frustrating that I couldn't keep reading as we began our descent.

My favorite application is actually their mobile version at http://mobile.nytimes.com. That is VERY convenient for those short spurts during the day of 5-10 minutes while waiting on line, etc. for reading on my Treo.

[Scotty]

THe only way I ever see TimesReader coming to the Mac is if Microsoft ports it to SilverLight. But personally I think their time would be better spent porting MicrosoftReader to SilverLight first.

In my own case, when they started charging I uninstalled TimesReader and haven't felt any urge to re-install it. In my opinion, newspapers are like Palm Inc: they are all looking for a place to fall over and finish decomposing.

[James Kendrick]

I still enjoy my daily NYT fix daily with Times Reader. One of the most enjoyable reading experiences around.