Kindle Beats iPad with NYT Paywall Bypass

By

Photo by B.K. Dewey - http://flic.kr/p/69d65J
Photo by B.K. Dewey - http://flic.kr/p/69d65J

First, Amazon beat Apple and Google to the punch, announcing a cloud-based music locker. Now the Internet retailer says owners of its Kindle e-reader – which competes against the iPad – can avoid the New York Times’ newly-erected Paywall.

Subscribers to the Kindle version of the NYT will get free access to the newspaper’s online articles, avoiding paying a subscription requirement that went into effect Tuesday. Web users are able to read up to 20 articles each month free, afterwards paying either $15, $25 or $35 every four weeks.


“Given the Times’ transition to a digital subscription model, we’re excited to be able to offer Kindle subscribers online access to all the digital content available at NYTimes.com at no additional cost,” Amazon announced Monday. The NYT is the best selling newspaper at the Kindle Store.

This is only the latest swipe at Apple Amazon has recently taken. Along with a cloud locker to store digital items, including music and music, the Seattle-based Internet bookseller has added its Kindle app to the Android Appstore despite Apple’s trademark infringement lawsuit.

[9to5Mac]

  • Captain Snicklefret

    Some people, like myself, have received sponsor paid subscriptions to the NYTimes. Amazon is just doing the same thing.

  • CharliK

    Yep. it is likely they made some kind of bulk payment deal to NYT to cover the charges. Hopefully the gamble works for them

  • Markonmac

    How does this beat the iPad or take a swipe at Apple? Kindle users still need a digital subscription to access the web version of The Times, just as iPad users do. The price is about the same, too: $19.99 a month (Kindle) vs $20/4 weeks (iPad).

  • Greg Braddock

    Users looking for purely information will most likely use the Kindle and users looking for an experience will pay for the iPad paid version. I guess…

  • Seanleethompson

    There was some sort of race between iPad and Kindle over NYT content services? When did I miss this news?

    Sorry, Amazon isn’t even in the same league as iPad, and for the most part offers a substandard product for the league it is in.

  • LarryP

    The whole issue is idiotic. It is amazing that Amazon, which is a quite smart company, would pick up a losing battle. Kindle can compete with Ipad as well as BW movies can compete with color version. Kindle simply is technological dinosaur, and Amazon should face this simple fact

  • stu.b

    Have you even used a Kindle? They’re far from being a technological dinosaur.
    I think people need to realise that they’re in a totally different price & usage category to the ipad.
    The ipad is far more advanced in other areas, but falls very short of doing what the kindle does.

  • fortninety

    Anyone that has seriously compared the Kindle and the iPad when it comes to reading ebooks will tell you the same thing; there’s no comparison. The Kindle is just stronger in that regard, so as a means to read the Times, it makes much more sense. Sorry. The fact that it’s also cheaper is definitely a bonus.

    As much as I’m interested in an iPad, mostly for all the apps, when it comes to reading books and PDFs and the like, I’m pretty close to get a Kindle myself (more so than an iPad since I already have an iPhone, so having both is a bit redundant in certain regards).

  • 300AShareMakesMeSmile

    Amazon is being made to look like it’s really smacking the hell out of Apple lately. Amazon seems to have launched a couple of first strike nuclear attacks on Apple. I agree that Amazon is making some bold moves recently. I tried out their Cloud Drive earlier today with some mp3 files I uploaded and it’s nice. However, it’s no better than when I use Mycast with the Orb application running 24/7 on my iMac which has gigabytes of stored movies and music. I don’t read the NYT so that’s no big deal for me. I’m surprised that Amazon did get a special nod from the NYT to get free articles to Kindle subscribers. I’d figure that the NYT could have made more money from iOS users.

    I like the Kindle and I believe it holds its own as an eReader. However, I don’t believe it competes with the iPad at all. Both devices have their own distinct advantages.

    Obviously, Amazon investors seem to be rather pleased with Amazon’s recent offerings. Their shares are up and Apple’s are down. Apple investors aren’t even impressed with global iPad 2 queues and stockouts, so Apple is playing to a very tough crowd. Hopefully Apple’s cloud service will give Apple shares a needed kick, but I’m not counting on it. These patent lawsuits might be weighing Apple shares down. Negative news usually outweighs good news for Apple.

  • nizy

    Firstly regarding the headline. I think its very unfair to say they beat Apple as anyone except the most casual reader will pass that 20 article limit and thus have to pay similar fees to what they would on the iPad. Hell most people I know would likely reach that limit in just a few days.

    Secondly, about iPad vs Kindle. You need to think about it like this: the Kindle is a 1 trick pony. It does 1 thing, but does that very well. Conversely the iPad is a jack of all trades, capable of doing many things adequately, but not quite as good as a dedicated device. The question you need to ask yourself is will you want a device for more than just reading some books?

  • George Wedding

    “…Anyone that has seriously compared the Kindle and the iPad when it comes to reading ebooks will tell you…”

    Bull. The Kindle doesn’t do eBooks. The Kindle really only does one small category of eBooks — e(Text)Books as in “books without photographs and art.” It is useless for modern books with multimedia as well as text, and anyone who’s interested in all other kinds of books, newspapers or magazines knows this.

  • Easyguy11

    Kindle does a superb job reading books…iPad is a toy compared to a laptop, without Flash to boot

  • benjaminsolah

    One small category? You mean most modern fiction that doesn’t use pictures, which is actually most books.

  • Adrian Werner

    It’s not a dinosaur. All e-ink devices sold 12 mln last year and the number is growing. While iPad can do books, reading on it isn’t actually much different from reading on your laptop, while reading on Kindle is actually quite close to reading from paper. If you don’t read a lot of ebooks the difference might not seem big, but there are many heavy readers who can appreciate e-ink. And companies will support those devices, especially since their users buy far more books on average than iPad users do.

  • jondrew55

    There is another loophole in the paywall; having a subscription to the paper version of the times. You get free access to all digital content then. So Amazon isnt really privy to something special here. And can you get the times on the regular Kindle, or just the Kindle DX?

  • Jo Finder

    I have both an ipad and a kindle. I use the kindle for reading books since reading on the ipad hurts my eyes after an hour or so, plus its alot heavier than the kindle. When I surf the web, play games – do it on the ipad. I read magazines due to color on the ipad, newspapers I do on the kindle for ease of reading.