Wall Street Journal Comes to Android in Tablet Form Only

Most of the world’s major news outlets have made their way to Android, but the Wall Street Journal was missing from that list, for some reason. It seems they were waiting on a device worthy of carrying their digital newspaper, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab is the first device to receive that honor.

“Our strategy is to serve readers whenever, wherever, and it’s critical that the Journal’s unparalleled news and analysis are available in a high-quality format across multiple devices and platforms,” said Daniel Bernard, chief product officer for The Wall Street Journal Digital Network. “The WSJ Tablet Edition for Android continues to blend the best of print and online with an experience that showcases our strength of innovation and original delivery of content.”

Your Galaxy Tab will download the latest edition of the newspaper every morning when the physical print version gets onto the streets. This comes at a premium however: a whopping $3.99 per week. It’s not much more expensive than picking it up at a newsstand or a newsbox every morning, and to have it in digital form without having to fuss around with paper might be worth the extra charge. (And we won’t act surprised about their pricing considering you have to pay to look at content on their website, as well.)

Content on WSJ Tablet Edition for Android includes full sections from each day’s newspaper with the ability to swipe through from section to section or article to article within sections, including What’s News, Opinion, Marketplace, Money & Investing, Greater New York, Personal Journal, WSJ Weekend and WSJ. magazine. The app has been designed to download each day’s paper automatically every morning when the paper is published, resulting in more efficient download.

wall-street-journal-tablet

So if you’re the WSJ type and you have a Galaxy Tab (which has already been available in other parts of the world and is available from T-Mobile as of today), go ahead and click here to download it.

[via an.droid-life]

Continue reading:

TAGS:



  • TigerPaw

    WHOA there, Hold on just a minute. Let’s see. The electronic version means no paper expense, no ink expense, no printing press maintenance, staffing, and depreciation, and no traditional delivery expenses. And it’s “not much more expensive than picking it up at a newsstand.” That works out very well for them: sell more copies with almost no overhead, and charge even more for them than the high overhead paper copy.

    Not as brilliant as getting people to pay $1.50 for a bottle of tap water, but pretty good, nonetheless.

  • StevO

    I used to deliver the wall street journal newspaper. These people need their paper before 7 a.m. and some people need it at 3 a.m. Now they don’t have to worry if they have it delivered electronically.

  • DanGrover

    TigerPaw, so? The cost of products aren’t based on how much they cost to make, but how much they are worth to the customer. The difference between these two numbers creates the markup (or loss), but the market sets the price, essentially. If $3.99 a week is worth it to people, they’ll pay it. If not, they won’t. But that has nothing to do with how much it costs WSJ to make.

  • marathon332

    TigerPaw: How do you figure almost no expense? How about professional journalists, editors, content production, layout, admin, management, building costs, etc… Professional writing and production HAS costs… The only thing being lowered IS the distribution and delivery costs. This is the WSJ, not some 2-bit high-school production or bedroom blog. Well worth the money to get great writing and convenience of an electronic edition…

  • Brad 2

    @TigerPaw – see just shows you how ignorant the average american is about business operations. Stop thinking like a slave (I only get what they pay me) and start thinking like a business owner. It’s a change in perspective. OR maybe take some Econ 101. Value is more than just what something costs to produce.

    -Brad

  • TigerPaw

    @DanGrover, exactly my point. The folks who figured out that the market would bear $1.50 (and more) for tap water in a bottle–brilliant. WSJ charging slightly more for the electronic version–good. Not brilliant, but good.

    @marathon332, my mistake. I meant almost no ADDITIONAL overhead.

    But are you seriously saying that WSJ is duplicating their entire reporting, writing, editing, and content production staff, as well as renting/buying lots of new building space, in order to produce their electronic edition? Wow. That sounds more like something you’d expect from some 2-bit high school production or bedroom blog than from a premier news organization that undoubtedly understands leveraging current talent and resources. OK, so there may be some changes, albeit not that serious, in layout and formatting, and some additional staff, but not on the scale which your flame seems to imply. So I stand by the point that this edition represents a MAJOR net cost savings in content generation as well as distribution and delivery.

    @brad 2, slave? So what is your point? Mine was that like the original bottled water people, WSJ analyzed what the market wants and what the market will bear and acted accordingly. They could easily have undercut their print edition and still make a profit on the electronic version, but they have a huge investment in printing presses,etc., etc.–and in the long run, lower e-pricing could well hurt their print edition revenues. Was that your point? If so, then stop calling names and articulate your point; don’t make me do your work for you.

  • TigerPaw

    @marathon332, Sorry, I forgot to mention the point you made at the end of your post, that you find great value in the product. Point well taken. And that’s something else that differs from my bottled water comparison. What you’re getting isn’t just tap water in a bottle, or the self-impressed musings of some of the competitors’ products; you’re getting the WSJ. But to communicate that in my original post I would have had to get serious instead of just writing some light extemporanea.

    Sorry. The fact that three people thought I was dead serious should tell me maybe my original post missed the light-hearted mark. Long day yesterday. Maybe I should have gone to bed before that post.