Is that £1 per day? ie. no reduction in price from the print version?
All people will do is go to the BBC or SKY news sites - more up to date and free ! The Times will change it's mind once the number of readers starts to drop and so the online advertisers go elsewhere.
Yes but £2 for the week.
As one commentator pointed out, I'm surprised there's no cross-product pricing: half-price to Sky users for example.
It's an interesting move: I don't think it will be short-lived: the FT and WSJ charge and Murdoch obviously thinks that the Times is a big enough brand.
The Torygraph is interesting: they're up to something and there's speculation that they're going to charge to. - I think they'll certainly keep a close eye on it.
Murdoch is set to introduce charging across all News International sites: Sun and NOTW are next, I expect Sky will be next in line.
The BBC has already said that it's going to reduce the content available on its sites.
Clippdedgull is right that micropayments is the way forward but we're not there yet - that will probably come with e-readers.
I think this experiment is different from previous ones: all media companies are interested in charging and reading on mobiles/ereaders does offer new opportunities.
It's quite clear what's happening ...
Murdoch is trying to establish a "market price" for on-line access to The News. His aim is to get the government to demand that the BBC must stop delivering free news on-line, using licence fees to fund it.
As a licence fee payer, I say differently. Keep the free stuff coming, BBC. Murdoch can f*** off.
But I bet "Dave" Cameron will be persuaded to back "market pricing".