You linked to an article about people not paying off the entire balance of their credit cards each month, but the WSJ article is about people unable to make their minimum monthly payment. Those are two very different things. So, no, this could not "be a headline any month."

The headline does not make the "minimum monthly payment" part clear.

Fair enough. A case of different perspectives, perhaps. People who pay their full balance every month define "credit card bill" as meaning the full balance, while people who don't or can't pay the full balance (the majority of credit card holders) define "credit card bill" as the minimum payment due.

Almost like maybe you should read the article (not just the headline) before commenting ...

The 2nd half of the comment was about me not being able to do that.

This is not a story about people unable to pay off their full balances. It's a story about people unable to make even the small minimum payments.

If you use Amex, there is a one-time offer until 5/1 to get one year of digital access for $112 (after $75 statement credit).

http://wsj.com/amex

They're offering $1 for 2 months as a "Limited-Time Offer" right now.

Ah yes and then to cancel you probably need to send a snail-mail letter to Alaska signed by both of your parents.

Netflix for News is something that is urging to be invented.

Apple News+ tried to take that approach, and from what I’ve heard it hasn’t been working out as well as they had hoped.

Good for people who want to read WSJ anyways, but bad for the rest. They could just put a Paypal payment option there, ideally without registration. Chances are that I might read more articles and actually end up buying a subscription. Unfortunately every online magazine/newspaper is like this.

I think if Netflix for News is coming, even more newspapers will have to close or just end up copy&pasting news from AP and Reuters.

1. I think that has been tried. A lot. It never worked. Micropayments and custom browsers and “crypto”…almost nobody will pay for individual articles, unless it's in a highly lucrative and niche vertical.

2. But also yes, if it’s like trying to deal with a NYTimes subscription, break out the fax machine.

>Netflix for News is something that is urging to be invented.

Ehh seems like we skipped over the "Netflix" aggregator stage for news and went straight to the distributed content model for each news source.

Apple News ($10/mo) includes WSJ and LA Times

Selected highlights- you're not guaranteed to get access to any particular article.

So far I haven’t encountered any article that didn’t work. There’s an extension in the share menu to open articles from safari in Apple News. That’s how I bypass the WSJ paywall on articles I discover outside of Apple News.

Edit: I’m talking about Apple News+. I looked it up - it seems like News+ includes only the last 3 days of articles but other than that there doesn’t seem to be any other restriction. I could be wrong though.

Sounds like you might be looking for https://blendle.com

Apple tried that with news plus. Didn’t drive enough traffic.

So if we take the Netflix for News analogy literally, it will include certain classes of popular content, publications will go in and out of being offered through the service, it may pay a premium for some prestige sources in the vein of popular movies, but by and large the WSJs, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. won't be included.

It might still be useful if you could get a wide range of publications other than the big ones. But then I suspect that you'd be hard put to get $10-$20/month out of people for a subscription that doesn't include the paywalled pubs that are usually posted here.

This post baffles me. Your first point accurately describes this article as misleading/wrong, then in your second point you wish it was easier to pay for their wrong opinions. If I'm paying for news and opinion pieces, it better be the highest quality, and I've never been impressed with the organizations that try to paywall their content, at least not more than other mainstream news organizations.

But the article isn't wrong. The article is talking about minimum monthly payments, which _isn't_ happening every month.

Paying for the article would allow the GP to read the article and see that

The headline is uninformative. Now that I have read the article, the article is informative.

My initial assessment was incorrect. I assumed it was about people not paying balances. It is actually about people not paying minimums, i.e. they can't even carry their debt, yet alone pay it off.

A local newspaper in France (nicematin.com) has been sometimes offering micropayments for paywalled content in last few months: watch a short video ad, or pay 0.39€ for an article with your mobile phone provider. I watched the ads and it worked well. I really hope those kind of solutions will kick off.

Lol maybe it's just me but instead of paying $2 to read an article I just block all the paywall sources.

WSJ often has unique content not covered elsewhere.

Very true, it's the only reason I am paying for the subscription. Lots of good coverage of ecnomic and financial areas from the news branch. Opinion branch gets really crazy sometimes.

Don't need to pay. Just use https://github.com/magnolia1234-new/bypass-paywalls-chrome-c... to bypass paywalls.

Was on HN back in March ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22482329 )

Useful (and I am downloading) but then I am killing newspapers. I would happily pay $50 a month for news. The problem is that the news I read is spread all over the place so I really just spend $10 on the Economist.

Many of us are in the same boat. I would only read an article or 2 a month from any 1 source. But I'm expected a 1-size-fits-badly plan?

But yet, why these bypass paywalls even work is because they discriminate on who gets free and who pays. This tool wouldn't work if everyone had to pay.

And alas, rip score. Already at -2 in 15 minutes. And I was sharing something that was no less shared on HN. Dang needs to do something about this damned -1 brigades with no comments. (And I know you couldn't downmod cause you responded.)

Also same boat. I read a LOT of sources. Big reason I pay the $10/mo for Apple News+ ... but i am also frustrated seeing that even in that garden, the other sources still want more money and want their own dedicated subscriptions.

That isn't how News+ is supposed to work. I can't afford 17 different $16/mo subscriptions. (example price is actually my local newspapers fee)

It is probably the "Don't need to pay" part which is making people react viscerally.