Hacker News Reader

Comment by jspthrowaway2 | Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting reflection on the Hacker News community that a not-insignificant portion of these comments are about circumventing the paywall. (I count 13 of 53 as I write this.) There are a number of conclusions to draw from that, some of them thin, some of them interesting, some of them depressing.

I pay $20/month to read the Times in bed on my iPad. I mean, it's five trips to Starbucks/Peet's/whatever, guys. The majority of you are programmers clearing high-five or even six figures for, in the grand scheme of things, easy work (not exactly breaking rocks, are we?). Don't forget, those of us who even know how to edit cookies or alter referrers are a small minority; the Times doesn't care if you bypass it because they know you will no matter what.

View on HN

"I pay $20/month to read the Times in bed on my iPad. I mean, it's five trips to Starbucks"

If I have ever read a comment that summed up HN perfectly, that was it.

It's the most applicable comparison I could drum up. You could also say it's one typical lunch for two people.

It only keyed in my memory because I watch people pay $4 for coffee every work day but balk at something that's $80/month, or even $20/month (in this case). Perspective is strange.

I don't mean to sound snarky, I just thought it was a wonderful summary of the stereotypical HN reader - reading a paid Times subscription on an iPad and comparing the value to Starbucks coffee.

I don't think it's reasonable to consider that a stereotypical HN reader - after all, the discussion started with an observation of how many people apparently do not read a paid Times subscription, on an iPad or otherwise.

And I can only speak for myself when I say I consider Starbucks coffee prohibitively expensive. In that respect, the comparison is apt.

Definitely not comparing value. Comparing cost.

The same thing. I believe he was pointing at the "well-off white male / hipster" smell of it all, not implying that they underappreciated the NYT.

Paying for journalism is not a yuppie/Valley phenomenon. Newspapers were a staple of working class cities for a long time. Though I'll agree with you on the iPad and Starbucks.

I think beyond anything else, it reflects a community which is interested in tinkering with systems and figuring out how they work. I don't think it's because the community is fundamentally interested in stealing access. Most people on HN are extremely well compensated (or could be, if they weren't doing a startup), and $20 isn't going to break the bank for most of us.

The interesting thing about the New York Time's paywall is that it, by design, bypasses itself. When you are reffered by sites like facebook, you do not hit the wall. This means that the majority of people hitting the paywall would got to the Time's directly, making the oppurtunity cost in terms of network effects much lower.

That covers me. I never land in the Times except via a link from somewhere. I never go there directly.

Once or twice in the last year, I've hit the ten-article limit. One of those times, I actually cleaned out the cookies.

> clearing high-five or even six figures

> those who know how to edit cookies or alter referrers

On a global scale, these are both minorities, and I'm not even so sure which one is tinier.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com