Bidding war with Salesforce drove up Microsoft’s LinkedIn bill

Re:Bidding war with Salesforce drove up Microsoft’s LinkedIn... by cm2187 on Saturday July 02, 2016 @06:38PM (#12024029)

When reporters do some actual work, like with the FT, I am happy to pay for a subscription. The FT is pretty reliable in term of the quality of information and that has some value.

Most newspaper were merely rehashing and commenting news agencies releases. I think the internet just revealed that they were adding very little value.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bidding war with Salesforce drove up Microsoft’s LinkedIn... by kartickv on Saturday July 02, 2016 @10:58PM (#12024644)

You seem to have read enough FT to reach that conclusion. In my case, since FT didn't let me read enough articles free, I didn't realise its value (assuming it is valuable), so I don't pay for it. Catch-22.

The Economist and NYT, by contrast, have loose enough paywalls that I've read enough articles to conclude that they are both high-quality sources.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bidding war with Salesforce drove up Microsoft’s LinkedIn... by cwilkes on Saturday July 02, 2016 @11:21PM (#12024689)

And do you pay for either of those?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bidding war with Salesforce drove up Microsoft’s LinkedIn... by kartickv on Sunday July 03, 2016 @12:39AM (#12024836)

I used to subscribe to The Economist, yes. I discontinued because of missing issues, atrocious support, like not taking my calls, etc.

In general, I don't mind paying for high-quality content. In fact, this morning I did a Google search for "donate to BBC" but nothing came up.

[ Parent | on HN ]