I also get it delivered and click-in on latimes.com routinely, I like the Los Angeles Times.

I can’t see the benefit of this. It’s redundant and the idea you have to flip through pages on the eedition as you would with a newspaper is clunky. I see no advantage to this over the current latimes.com, however if the goal is to get the public used to paying for news online, perhaps this is a way to introduce that.

Funny they chose “13″ as the dollar amount to charge. Seriously, why pay that when it can come with a regular subscription?

I’ll take my New York Times online, its free everyday in my email box.

Not that Arianna Huffington is the guru of online media, but here’s what she says in a recent Technorati interview:

“I would advise an ad-supported model rather than a subscription model. I can’t believe a number of newspapers and other sites are still trying to figure out how to close off their content and charge for it. I don’t think it will work unless you are offering something very special that people can’t get anywhere else.”

Yet they offer it for $9.99/month on Kindle? That’s pretty overpriced. I’d do it for $49.95 or $39.95. I don’t like getting a physical paper, but I like seeing the layout of the physical paper. Make sense?

Er, I’d do it for for $49.95 or $39.95 per year.

The LA Times has made itself irrelevant. People are always willing to pay for what they want, and few find the Times worth a quarter.