Wow.. that's way too expensive 4.99 gbp for an issue! And is a subscription any cheaper? Who can tell? I wouldn't dare hit the subscribe button to try to look. Similar magazines lists crochet today. Says it all about the quality of Google search these days...
Online/physical copy price balance is wrong The content is not the issue: it's interesting. Deliver online copy that uses IT well (links to relevant files and other resources - adds value BECAUSE it's delivered online ) and I'll pay the equivalent print price. I will continue to buy the magazine in-store. But treating online copy as if it were paper-based is crass.
Great magazine. Terrible price. No incentive to switch to digital. It doesn't warrant the one star reviews as the content is great. It really does need to be cheaper through the play store than a real copy though.
Good content hugely overpriced for digital! In the past I've dipped into the printed version and always enjoy the high quality content, good mix of practical examples, a bit of news, gadgetry (but slightly too much commercial stuff at the end). I feel like many others here that the price is way too high, so only buy it when I've got special reason (eg about to take a flight etc)
What am I missing? I have been a subscriber to net in the very recent past. I probably paid 100USD for 12 issues. That is what we have to pay in the States. Less than $40 for a digital subscription seems very fair to me. Especially since you can access it on any pc or Android device. And if you can get a physical copy of the mag cheaper than that in the States - please tell me where.
A great tech magazine Well written and surprisingly diverse. I'll be buying another issue next month and at $6.99 it is cheaper than the newsstand. January's issue is loaded with web design tips, examples, editorials by experts that know what they're talking about. My only gripe is that Google's app doesn't allow for copy and paste, searching, or linking URLs features I consider important in a tech magazine. I can't fault the publisher for Google's flaws.