What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
76 Comments
- CoD4, on 05/11/2009, -3/+53***** murdoch
- 8FoldPath, on 05/11/2009, -1/+42Dugg for picture of sad sack rich guy.
- BorsKaegel, on 05/11/2009, -2/+20Rupert Murdoch looks like a Caucasian California Raisin.
Just sayin'... - synt4x, on 05/11/2009, -3/+19They can't setup an iPhone app to restrict access to paid content? *****. If you can do it from a web browser, you can do it from the iPhone. What's preventing them from using a username and password in order to view the "paid" content. Maybe what they're really looking for is a way to *take* payments from the phone directly, but I also can't see why they can't setup a network based API. And as for doing further purchases directly through the AppStore, that functionality is going to be available in the 3.0 firmware. This article isn't about something being impossible, it's about something not being point-and-click easy to program, and is completely moot with the 3.0 firmware.
- laterthandawn, on 05/11/2009, -1/+13Wait...what? This makes no sense.
Free App = General WSJ Content
$29.99 (or whatever) App = The Paid Stuff for a year (and then kill access by phone ID after a year)
Murdoch, you owe me 4 billion. - Janinco, on 05/11/2009, -2/+13FTA "That is, if Murdoch doesn't find a way to plug this loophole as soon as he can.
I hear the guy's pretty good with money."
LOL
THAT'S an understatement! - Aleman360, on 05/11/2009, -0/+9"The WSJ simply had to release an app for the iPhone if it was going to remain relevant."
That's quite an exagerration. - inactive, on 05/11/2009, -1/+10SUCKA. Does he want to charge me for looking at the WSJ while I wait in line at Starbucks? FU Murdoch.
- JasonCox, on 05/11/2009, -1/+9"Apple hasn't yet figured out a safe or easy way to charge iPhone users for the things they do within apps"
Obviously the writer hasn't heard of iPhone OS 3.0 - robo73, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7I never read the WSJ, but I just downloaded the app. Anything to increase the twist in Murdoch's panties.
- CaptainPanda, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7I couldn't say it better.
- toddsayshi, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7LOL. He looks like Droopy.
- JshMRsn, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7The author apparently knows nothing about the AppStore. It's not a "loophole" that you can't charge for content within Apps on the store. You just can't. The iPhone OS 3.0 will add the ability to have micro-transactions which is the solution they want. Why they didn't wait for that, I don't know. The fact that it has been pulled out of the store is their fault, not Apples. You can do it at a press of the button anytime on iTunes Connect...
- Chooxo, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7New York Times is completely free on the iPhone/Touch, can be read offline, and articles can be saved.
That's the bar. - laterthandawn, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6In other news, the NYT is nearly out of business.
I'm not saying Murdoch wins. I'm just saying we've gotta find a better bar. - s73v3r, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6When iPhone OS 3.0 comes out this summer, they'll have support for in-app paid content, so you can sell additional stuff inside the app. They just need to wait for it.
- Astark, on 05/11/2009, -6/+12When I first glanced at the headline, I though it said "Rupert Murdoch caught taking a ***** in a phone booth." That is all.
- Chooxo, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5The preview pic does look like a constipation face.
- wilhoitm, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5iPhone API 3.0
- ptsuk, on 05/11/2009, -1/+6No *****. Actually to all these uber rich *****. How much money do you really need? If you fire someone from job from a company that was delivering you a megar profit just to increase your profit that much more, your an ass. If you fire someone from a company that isn't profitable that another story. But frankly i'm sick of companies getting rid of the real workers just to "bump" a stock for their "shareholders" up a .1% point so instead of 2.00 profit they get 2.50! (or whatever the numbers maybe)
</soapbox> - gllopc, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5That's actually a pretty smart model. Can I borrow a cool mil' once you're paid? I'm good for it - I swear!
- MJG2007, on 05/12/2009, -0/+5That poor man. Which alley is the one where he keeps the cardboard box he calls home so I can help him find a soup kitchen or something.
(Unfortunately, the internet doesn't have a smiley for my heart bleeding purple piss for this guy) - laterthandawn, on 05/12/2009, -0/+3Right. That's why you'd do it on the server -- the app itself wouldn't change.
- skinturtle, on 05/12/2009, -0/+3charge charge charge...making money money money!!
Yeah having money makes you real happy...just look at that pic. There's happiness for ya. That man is the real Ebeneser Scrooge and if his face gets any droopier it's gonna slide off his skull. - 4phun, on 05/12/2009, -0/+3GREED like Bernie Maddoff?
- bmullins, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3Then why not just charge $103 for it and make it expire at the end of the year? If Apple won't let you do that, you could just pull the data connection down on the source side. Then sell another one next year.
And if you can change the price of your apps, start with $103 in January and take it down $2 a week. - inactive, on 05/12/2009, -0/+3WSJ has gone down hill ever since Rupert bought the company.
- Barackalypse, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2I must be missing something here, why can't an iPhone app be made to require a username and password to authenticate against a list of paid subscribers at the publishers website before sending content?
- 13att13, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2To be fair, the 30 dollars you give to AT&T for internet access isn't going to the people who provide the content. If the content creators want to be paid they have every right to charge for access to their content. I'm all for things being free, but you don't have access to everything on the internet for free on your home PC and the iPhone isn't any different.
Not to mention paying money to a company to get something for free... that's no longer considered "free" at that point... since you transacted your monetary funds to said company... that's actually the exact opposite of free. Just thought I'd clear that up too while I was at it. - lynx44, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Same thing I was thinking, but what about those who already pay for online access? I'm sure they could figure something out, but it's slightly less straightforward.
- laterthandawn, on 05/11/2009, -1/+3That suggests you know very little about what is happening in the world. And/or that you don't understand how the Associated Press works.
- Dested, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2That smiley face looks furious
- s73v3r, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2You can do most of these things. MLB has an app which gives you the scores of all the games for one season. At the end of the season, it doesn't work anymore, and you have to buy another version of the app next year.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2They can't find decent web devs who know how to set up user accounts and payment systems? Really??
- 8924, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2Epocrates does it just fine, you download a free app then go to their website and pay for a one or two year subscription for their professional content.
- BorsKaegel, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2Doesn't have the same ring to it.
- BooYah2, on 05/11/2009, -1/+3Nice!!
- JFallon126, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2Snit?
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1They could, honour their existing commitments for as long as they have to put pull the app and replace it with a time limited one!
- kiwiboyus, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1F**k em!
- inactive, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1Yeah, because they didn't think about that
FTA : "Unfortunately, the technology for charging iPhone users for the WSJ's content won't be available until the fall at least, "by which time the Journal app's user base will have gotten good and used to getting it for free," as the CJR puts it." - TheVirus, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1Can't understand how MacGyver hasn't killed him yet. Didn't he fall into a pit of lava?
- Elranzer, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1Seriously, are there more iPhone users than web browser users these days?
- MrSkills, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1It Can. I've already got apps that do this. And of course they save the password so you do it once and bob's your uncle.
In fact it's *better* for the WSJ to do it that way than to wait for SDK 3.0 because then they don't have to give any subscription money to Apple. - Psara, on 05/13/2009, -0/+1Just have the articles that are free anyway available for view on iPhone/iPod?
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1Do it on a story by story bases, in this story Rupert is the bear, Steve is the incompetent tigger (actually AFAICT apple does support what Rupert needs)
- inactive, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1Apples and oranges.
If you want free content like on your PC, just use your PC.
Some content provider don't mind having you download their story on your PC for the simple reason that you don't go around carrying it. If you spot an interesting headline, you are likely to buy their papers while on your way to work, and this is what they want, or at least watch the content on a PC, where you can see and click on ads.
That won't happen if you are already on a mobile device, especially one that offers applications that strip the ads out of the news.
It's all about selling advertisements, not the content itself. - stevelawrence, on 05/12/2009, -2/+3Rupert Murdoch is a fat *****
- inactive, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1"the technology for charging iPhone users for the WSJ's content won't be available until the fall at least,"
Apparently he did.
He is just not falling into the "If Apple announce something, it's good as done" trap. Next fall sounds about right for deployment of macro transactions if the update start being distributed near the end of summer. - alansky, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1Rupert Murdock = Miserably, greedy motherf****r.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is