Top positive review
1,289 of 1,320 people found this helpful
Very good, but could be better
on December 22, 2007
I currently pay $35 a month for a six-day subscription to the print edition. The Kindle edition only costs $14 a month. So, if the Kindle edition of the NYT can replace my print subscription, the Kindle pays for itself in just over a year and a half and I get the Sunday NYT 'for free'. Beyond that, the Kindle edition doesn't involve killing trees or using noxious chemicals to turn them into paper, and beaming my paper to me every morning takes a lot less fossil fuel than trucking trees to a mill, trucking paper to a press, then delivering the printed paper to my driveway. Plus, I never have to go out in the cold or the rain to find my paper in the bushes or under my car; I should never have to deal with a missed paper, which happens once or twice a month with my delivery service; I never have to suspend delivery when I go on a trip; and my newspaper will actually go with me.
So, I have a lot of incentive to like the NYT on the Kindle.
After three days, I'm still not sure if I do.
On the plus side, my biggest worry before my Kindle arrived turns out to be a non-starter. I wondered how I'd take to reading the news on a screen only a few paragraphs big. As promised, this is not an issue. After a very short time, you don't really notice the paging any more than you notice turning the page of a book, or moving your eyes to the next column. I've read a whole novel without any annoyance, and actually find the comfortably sized Kindle less of a hassle than a broadsheet newspaper. (My SO is looking forward to no more piles of old newspapers on the kitchen table, even if that means our 13 yo won't be reading the paper any more.)
Also, I find I really don't miss the experience of flipping through the paper, looking for those interesting stories that didn't make the front page. You can browse section by section, and paging through a section a story at a time is really not bad.
You can store a lot of days worth of news in a stock Kindle, and can search them all quickly; you can store even more if you add a cheap SD card. In the unlikely event that the Times uses a word you don't know, you can quickly look it up with the Kindle's great search feature.
On the minus side, comparing my print edition to the Kindle edition, I can see that the print edition includes stories that the Kindle edition does not. I'm really not sure quite what to make of this: so far, at least, I'm actually reading more of the paper than I used to, because I can carry my Kindle to work and read articles in dead time. It's hard to know how to balance not even seeing some stories vs reading a lot more of them. (I do know that I really miss the Market Gauges pages even if, realistically, I only look at them a few times a month.)
A less ambiguous minus is the pictures, which (to use a technical term) really suck. They're hard to make out, and there's a max of one per story, no matter how many there are in the print version. Even worse, many of the pictures and - so far as I can see - ALL the charts and graphs are omitted. This hurts business coverage; I haven't seen a Science Section yet, but I imagine this will be really painful.
So. Convenience, greenness, and economics vs the loss of maybe 15% of the content. This is a hard call, for me, and I sure wish the NYT would make it easier by including the missing content.