The value of an opinion is higher when more people hear it. They should have known this would fail from the beginning.

The fact is that there are lots of smart people giving out free content online. If you put a barrier to reading the smart folks in the NYT, then more people will go to the bloggers and other pundits out there.

A smart move, long overdue. The web news business will probably evolve and mutate significantly in the next few years, and NYT was already well positioned for that. Dropping the wall puts them in an even stronger position.

On the same day as the pronouncement of Dot Bomb 2.0. Timing couldn't be worse, according to that guy.

This is totally a great move for the NYT. Their ad revenue will go through the roof.

A quick back of the napkin math shows that they won't even recover a fraction of the revenue they're foregoing.

This move has nothing to do with ad revenue and everything to do with fighting Murdoch and WSJ. WSJ will go free (mark my words) and will take a away a ton of NYT's traffic. NYT is fortifying its traffic and is trying to boost it before Murdoch makes a direct assault.

Or not. This could be a disaster for them given that people like Friedman actually have a relatively loyal following. Going free is not the answer to everything.

True, but I think the exposure that Friedman will now receive by making his columns free more than offsets the loss of "pay" revenue. This move will enhance both the Times readership and its reputation.

As a consumer, it is nice to see market shrinkage.