zlacker

"Reuters.com will remain free for a preview period, but will require users to register after five stories. It is not immediately clear when it will begin charging."

Reuters reporting about Reuters in the third person is amusing. "We asked ourselves when we would begin charging but we didn't know."

>>bombca+(OP)
Clever way of demonstrating the separation between reporting and finances, I think.

>>bombca+(OP)
Snark toward the suits, taken to an art form. I love it.

>>bombca+(OP)
I used to work at Reuters (last century) - in technology, but had occasional contact with the news side. They would treat it as a badge of honour to be the first to publish stories about Reuters - however embarrassing. There was no possibility of interference by management.

I don't know if that's the case now or how many other publishers would live by those rules.

>>bombca+(OP)
A tangent, but I love that the wikipedia article on Humans is in 3rd Person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human Reads like some alien civilization documenting us.

>>bombca+(OP)
Not at all unusual for [formerly?] serious news organizations. Most of the navel gazing at the NYT is in the third person, for example.

>>aero-g+M1
> ... and with humans solely on the Moon, two at a time for brief intervals between 1969 and 1972.

Their slapdown about our presence on the moon is brutal!

>>aero-g+M1
A fun one: "They're made out of meat" [1]

[1] https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...

>>bombca+(OP)
The answer to 'when' is likely going to be: after we collect data about user views, sign in rates, return rates, etc.

Someone highup wants a money grab but they also want to know roughly how much money there is to grab and how much will be lost to see if the strategy is worth pursuing first. I cherish these innovative businesses and all their high-risk taking that leads them there.

>>bombca+(OP)
Makes you seem more important https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FxhUA0SKM

>>bombca+(OP)
Does anyone pay for these kind of sites? I just can’t imagine doing it. I already have streaming subscriptions I just cannot imagine paying for news. I know that is a problem for the internet and journalism in general but what person will buy a Reuters sub? I can maybe see a NY Times sub or WSJ for some people but it has to be the best of the best. And still I personally wouldn’t do it. I don’t need to know news. It’s likely the news will make me feel worse, as opposed to my streaming subscriptions which will make me feel better.

>>JohnJa+h7
I'm not sure, but I would have thought it would be the opposite — you should not pay to read (or read at all) biased journals such as the NYT, WSJ, or Fox etc., and instead only pay attention to journals with minimal bias like Reuters and AP.

>>JohnJa+h7
I pay for NPR. I mean, I know that's different because their content isn't behind a paywall.

My mom pays for the NYT, but I think that's mostly for access to their cooking site.

I think these big news companies need to form a federation or something where you buy access at one and get rights to read over multiple different magazines.

>>JohnJa+h7
I suspect people whose living depends on keeping up with the news will pay. Consider Bloomberg, FT, WSJ, etc. Many people pay for those, and for good reason.

>>mywitt+J9
> I think these big news companies need to form a federation or something where you buy access at one and get rights to read over multiple different magazines.

Exactly! I tried coil.com for a while and it would be amazing if you could pay a monthly subscription and then it distributes to articles that you end up reading.

>>mywitt+J9
Apple News+? I know it's not necessarily the most popular or well thought of, but it's the only widespread platform (I'm aware of) that provides that kind of service for the price point I'm wiling to pay; i.e., Netflix-ish monthly fee.

>>JohnJa+h7
They seem to be aiming at professionals, although it also says they're after their current audience, whatever that is.

> the newly revamped Reuters.com www.reuters.com is hoping to attract professional audiences prepared to pay $34.99 per month for a deeper level of coverage and data on industry verticals

>>divean+Ra
I'm essentially an Apple Fanboy but I've tried Apple News + a few times and I just don't like it. It spends too much time trying to suggest stories, bother me with news, there's ads I can't block, etc. so I just don't use it. Leave me alone! I don't want your suggestions. I don't want to discover new content or follow some trend. At least sequester those things off to some tab or setting or something.

>>helsin+m1
I think Techcrunch is similar w.r.t. Verizon but, given Reuters didn't acquire Reuters, this seems more unusual.

>>yaksha+l9
You can't equate WSJ/NYT with Reuters or AP.

They serve completely different purposes. The "biases" of them is hardly relevant unless you are routinely taking their opinion sections as fact.

>>bombca+(OP)
They should consider https://www.digitimes.com/index.asp 's model:

   The news articles are free for a few days.   After that, access to older articles require premium subscription.   This generates eyeballs and ads revenue for the site especially for hot news.

   They also generate the premium quarterly industrial reports which are very informative and marketing, product folks of certain industrial love to pay for them.

>>aero-g+M1
"Conservation status: Least Concern."

>>ericma+pe
I'm with you on those downsides, they all bother me too. The value add for me is that I get access to publications I'd have to pay separately for otherwise; e.g., WSJ, Wired, etc. My use case is primarily to open it and navigate to the content I want under the Subscriptions tab.

>>helsin+m1
Still the case! (Journalist at Reuters)

>>divean+El
Yea definitely. I like the idea of it, I just wish I could turn off all suggestions and discovery unless I go search for something. Oh and turn off ads too if I'm paying.