• athos77
      link
      fedilink
      351 year ago

      Also, this is for people who’ve installed the app. For me, installing an app implies a dedication to the site or service. So they’ve installed the app, read 150 articles, and are reading more than 50 a month? Pay the guys.

    • @duncan@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      125 is approximately 4 a day, so it’s really not that much. I suspect a lot are just opening articles (eg, by accidentally swiping sideways) rather than fully reading them too.

      • @senoro@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        291 year ago

        I don’t know man, if you are reading the guardian that much it might be time to start paying, it’s not like they are asking an extortionate amount from you either. Especially if you want to support the newspaper as it’s not a super profitable business to begin with.

        The financial times is £35 a month on the cheapest subscription they offer so you could be paying much more.

        • @duncan@feddit.ukOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To be clear, I’m not against paying for it - they do fantastic journalism and it’s worth supporting them. It’s just a surprise that they’ve implemented this given their stance has previously been very anti-paywall, instead making their money through other means.

          In terms of the numbers, the usage to hit the paywall is about 4 articles a day, and they send out on average around 3 breaking news notifications a day so you just need to click on all of those to come very close to the limit. That might just mean that they send out too many notifications though!

          • @senoro@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            That’s fair enough, who knows what changed at the guardian to cause this feature. Perhaps they just wanted to make some more profit, perhaps they are down on revenue from other means. Who knows. It is unusual for them to make this move after being anti-paywall you’re right. However they are definitely giving a decent amount of free articles in comparison to most other reputable newspapers.

      • @Ryumast3r@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        I start paying local news after about 1 article per day, and usually more like $20/month not the £10 they’re asking for.

        Pay up or stop expecting them to give you unlimited service for free.

        Hell, I’m paying my local union paper $25/month to support their strike against their corporation and I hardly read their stuff at all.

        • @Mane25@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I’d potentially pay someone who is upfront about it, but the Guardian has always said they won’t do that and has introduced this without announcement.

          • athos77
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            The Guardian says in their notice that access through the web is still free. This is for app access.

          • @wahming
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            You’re looking at the announcement. Were you expecting a personalised letter?

            • @Mane25@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              This seems to be more of a notice that you’ve reached the limit than an announcement.

    • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      I’ve been kicking them money for a while now. Only infrequently, but maybe $25 at a time because I appreciate their journalism. This makes me wonder if I’ll donate again. I’m not opposed to paying for content (I have numerous subscriptions). I just feel better about it when things are open and accessible.

      • LUHG
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        You’re donating to keep the site free for casual use, not to bank roll them to be unlimited free. This approach the guardian have introduced is absolutely fair use.

      • ianovic69
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Sometimes I give a bit to Wikipedia, maybe do that instead? It claims to be not for profit but I’ve seen accusations against that. I don’t really know, but I do know I use it quite a lot.

  • @soyagi@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    191 year ago

    Just use the website; there are annoying pop-ups asking you to subscribe, but they don’t limit how many articles you can read.

    • starlinguk
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      I used to subscribe, but I still got the annoying pop ups so I unsubscribed.

    • @galmuth@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      I uninstalled the app last month and use the website instead too. I put a shortcut on my homescreen so there’s barely a difference.

  • @DavidGA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    A headline with “quietly” in it is guaranteed to be clickbait.

    “Quietly” means “They told everyone but we want you to be more outraged.”

  • southsamurai
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    Worth it tbh.

    The only thing I object to is having to sign in. Even with lemmy, if I could stay fully anonymous, I would.

    But the Guardian tends to do responsible reporting, which is vanishingly rare.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Sometimes the lifestyle stuff is quite funny. Wasn’t the one guy at one point who was documenting his war with a squirrel?

      • southsamurai
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        That’s the truth, but that tends to be true of any newspaper type news service now (and has been true of lifestyle sections going back as long as I’ve been alive lol).

  • Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Quietly?

    I’m not sure how quiet it is if it’s a image that covers the screen.

    Perhaps a better title would have been “The Guardian website has a paywall.”

    • @butterflyattack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Yeah, I read it in a browser. It started restricting my access to compete articles so I had a think and decided I’d pay for it. I don’t read it loads and I’m not rich so I pay IIRC £2 a month. Problem solved. Real journalism seems to be having a hard time these days, and I can see why - back in the days before everything was online I would buy a physical newspaper every day. So news media have lost the income from all those people like me who stopped buying newspapers, they’ve got to make it up through advertising or through a pay-for-content model.

      I don’t like paywalls because I don’t like the idea that information should be restricted to those who can afford to buy it. But TBF that was the way it was back when you had to physically purchase a newspaper. The alternative is a load of intrusive advertising. Or articles written cheaply by chatGPT or whatever. Money to pay the wages for journalists to research and write articles has to come from somewhere.

  • starlinguk
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    Get Pressreader. Your local library probably has a membership. It has the Guardian for free.

    • @galmuth@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Ooh,. Is pressreader any good? Do you just get a PDF-ish version of the print edition which you have to try and zoom and swipe around to navigate and read, or is it a bit easier to use than that?

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      Or you could just pay for quality journalism. Otherwise the likes of the Sun win and the entire industry of journalism will just descend into propaganda pieces and ex MPs pushing whatever particular agenda they’re being paid to push today.