Why the New York Times Paywall will be novel

Finally, the New York Times disclosed details of its long-awaited digital subscription plan today, including changes affecting its online and smartphone readers. New plan starts today in Canada for examination prior to 28 March, the launch of a global, but it can actually scare away your readers, who have the opportunity to use the paper the most?
Non-subscribers will still have access to a limited amount of content, including articles 20 a month (which includes slideshows, videos, and other forms of multimedia content), after which you will be asked to subscribe. Users who achieve Stories with links in blogs, social media and search will continue to be able to access stories, even if they have exceeded the monthly limit. Start a digital subscription for $ 15 charged every four weeks, which provides access to the NYTimes.com site and use app Smartphones (Disclosed iPhone application, for example). The second plan will cost $ 20 every four weeks and includes NYTimes.com for access to and use of your tablet PC applications (such as the iPad app, which is currently available free of charge), and the third plan will cost users $ 35 for a period of four weeks and include unlimited access to digital content on all platforms. E-reader subscriptions similar to that available in the Kindle store, Amazon will continue to be sold and priced separately, and home delivery subscribers continue to have access to the full digital as part of their subscription.
Tiered access based on the device used is an interesting approach, but one I predict it will not be popular. Why, for example, access tablet costs more than the smartphone access? Because it is more convenient and enjoyable to read iPad app than it is to use Your iPhone? After all users are paying more for better features. You're paying for the same content, plus sliding premium on the basis of whether they choose a expensive consumption more or less, or if you want to gain access to content from multiple devices.
Dave Winer makes a big point in his initial reactions to the position: The New York Times is not sufficiently on the user's perspective, thinking. In short, he claims, the Newspaper offers nothing in return for which it now asks of its users. In fact, as mentioned, the plan seems to penalize you, depending on the platform you want to access the content.
In accordance with its iPhone app has been downloaded 6.2 million times since its launch in 2008, and the iPad app has been downloaded more than 1.6 million times since October. Officials Disclosed say iPad app has generated great interest from advertisers, particularly luxury, technology and entertainment companies. Studies have shown that readers are more susceptible to iPad advertising than with other mobile platforms. The times also plans to offer users the ability to subscribe digitally with an application that will work with the Apple subscription app system starting from 30 June, so it is clear iOS readers continue to be public, that it is important for the company.
Yet, in General, these applications will be most affected users a new subscription plan. Applications will still work for the readers, iPhone and iPad, but you'll ensure that they only have access to top news (Note Editor's Choice app? Like that.) and all other content will require a digital subscription. Monthly Limit will be applied in one application. This suspicion may be where their largest decrease times sees readers. Light to moderate app users in the face of the choice of becoming subscriber digital or going back firmly on the World Wide Web with its wider access, in my view, most will choose the latter, which could hurt times the ability to attract lucrative advertising deals with the application.
What is Your take? Will pay for the privilege of using the application, or simply go back to reading on the web?