So this was inevitable. But there's hope, read whole thing.
- Dear Nautilus reader,
With your help, we’ve had an amazing two years. Two National Magazine Awards, a Webby for best science website, and dozens of other awards. Nearly 10 million readers. Print subscribers in 40 countries.
What a great start! But it’s just the beginning. There are many more stories to tell.
To help us tell them, we are changing the way we serve our content. Starting September 3rd, the first seven feature articles you read each month will be free, as usual. But further feature reading will be restricted to Nautilus Prime members.
It’s an incredible value at the special price we’re offering you, our newsletter subscribers: just $10 for a whole year. You can subscribe here
with the coupon code prm15. Or you can get a print subscription
, which includes Prime for free.
Joining Nautilus Prime gets you free and unlimited reading of all of our content—plus free tablet editions of our print magazine, and free eBooks of all our issues. We even remove all the ads from our site when you’re logged in.
(Our Facts So Romantic blog, and our Three Sentence Science news feed will be free and exempt of the monthly read limit. Same for shared stories, or links that you follow from social media, top aggregators, and search.)
Your continued support will help Nautilus remain one of the best sources of science journalism anywhere. Join us!
Our very best,
The Nautilus Team
So, ten bucks. War Nerd pricing this ain't. I think I'll pull and I bet a good number of you will as well. If for some reason you can't afford a ten dollar entertainment expense, cool, message me for access. shrug
PS what the shit is markup
PPS kill me
I really wish people would refrain from using the word 'free' in these circumstances. Articles aren't 'free' if you're a prime member. Prime isn't 'free' if you're a print subscriber. Those are the exact things you're paying for. It would be like saying McDonald's will give you a cheeseburger free after you give them $1. You see it all the time. If you pay for a specific thing, and you get several other things, then those things are available at no additional cost. They aren't free. Please, advertisers, stop using this language. It's not just incorrect; it's insulting.
But, not really. By buying prime you're paying for a magazine to show up in your mailbox on occasion. The online thing isn't free per se if you want to amortize the dollars out but it's a bonus. It is not, in fact, the exact product a prime buyer is purchasing. Still yeah I mean nothing is free.Prime isn't 'free' if you're a print subscriber. Those are the exact things you're paying for.
This isn't very surprising and for $10 that's well worth it if the quality of their articles stays where it is or even manages to improve with this decision. I'm hoping the subscription decision goes the way of NSWFcorp and now Pando for them. Well worth it for a full year of well written and informative articles if you ask me.
I wanted to reach out to Nautilus and see if they'd be interested in a partnership with Hubski. I think they could benefit from implementing DvH. I wanted to wait to approach them till after our rewrite/API. I want rob05c, insomniasexx and forwardslash to all be in a good place to ensure we can handle such a thing. But, they're the ideal candidate imo. I love their publication. flagamuffin, I would definitely pony up $10, I agree with nowaypablo it's not too shoddy.
If you all made that happen it would be an amazing move, I think it would grow the site a lot while bringing in the kinds of people you want to bring here culturally. One of the professors from my college/alum has written a few articles which have been posted here. There are certainly a lot of potential positives, but what would be potential difficulties?
I'll never misspell the word shoddy again. However you set up that partnership, I'd definitely be interested and willing to cough up a 10 for it.
Well, there goes $10. I'll still send people to you from #thesundaypaper so they can access Prime content. hehehe
Nautilus has been great but, aren't they shotty with their content updates?
I meant "shoddy" as insom pointed out. Someone told me their news wasn't "recent" so to speak, like National Geographic as opposed to the Economist. This may lend itself to an eventual spiral into repetitive and empty stories, like NatGeo.
I think in this context, he means "shoddy"? As in, their updates aren't always top-notch, frequent, consistent, etc.
Oooh -- I was like, shorty? Shot...s? PS I just got internet back after some sort of modem failure but I read your "job quitting postcript" from a few days ago at work and couldn't comment but I LOVED it, loved hearing the details. Y'all who throw time at hubski, it's always good to hear you're doing well.
I did mean shoddy, pardon my lack of brain cells.