Dave Winer thinks the NYT has focused too much on itself:

They're not offering anything to readers other than the Times' survival, and they're not even explicit about that. Wouldn't it have been wise to, at this juncture, offer something to sweeten the deal. Something truly exciting and new that you get when you pay the money. Something that makes your palms sweat and your heart beat faster?

I put down $700 last week to get a few minor improvements to my iPad. If they had said "Give us $700 so we can survive," well, I might have done it. But I feel better about getting the new features.

Darrell Etherington finds the new plan myopic when it comes to apps:

[A]pp users will be most affected by the new subscription plan. Apps will still work for iPhone and iPad readers, but they’ll only provide access to the Top News section (remember the Editor’s Choice app? Like that.) and all other content will require a digital subscription. No monthly limit will apply in either app.

This, I suspect, might be where the Times sees its biggest decline in readers. Light to moderate app users faced with the choice of becoming a digital subscriber or going back strictly to the web with its broader access, I think most will choose the latter, which could hurt the Times’ ability to attract lucrative advertising deals to the apps.

Nieman Journalism Lab rounds up more reactions to the new pay-fence.

(Hat tip: Chris Rovzar)

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.