A Letter from the Publisher of Nautilus

http://m.nautil.us/blog/a-letter-from-the-publisher-of-nautilus

by juretriglav • 9 years ago

313 135 9 years ago

m.nautil.us

Mr Steele is, on the surface at least, running Nautilus from his heart. For that, I am grateful, although I'm sure his freelancers see it quite differently. I've read a lot of excellent content there over the years. I hope that there is a way that they can pay off their debts and carry on in a similar fashion.

cma2• 9 years ago

(removed, it shows they paid a company fully owned by him, but there is no way to know where that company spent it's money)

pvg2• 9 years ago

You should stop saying this, or if you are going to say it, you should be able to back it up specifically and clearly. 'Filings show' is no good for that kind of accusation, especially since you got your info from some comment someone else made.

pdabbadabba4• 9 years ago

Not true. See my comment above. The filing shows a payment to another company that he owns, not to him. These could just be publishing costs.

patkai• 9 years ago

We need an alternative to free content on the web. I often read Nautilus and never pay them anything, it's wrong. Any SV-based disruptors interested in this? These contributors are special, they contribute a lot to society and they are probably underpaid and under-appreciated.

robin_reala2• 9 years ago

So pay them? $24/year for ad-free membership: http://nautil.us/primeuser

RBerenguel2• 9 years ago

I agree, long time prime user, and have gotten some friends to join. Also donated a while ago. It’s dirt cheap for the quality of the issues. If you read one article online a month, it’s 2$ per article you give them and get all the digital editions as a bonus

ajmurmann• 9 years ago

Speaking as a subscriber to Nautilus who also donated subscriptions to local schools: Subscribing to Nautilus is great but doesn't solve these problems for other publications. I get to my news sources primarily through HN. So for example I read about one or two articles from the Guardian and NYT because of that. I appreciate their great work, but I'm not going to get a full subscription from those magazines as well. I'd love to give back proportionally to what I consume, but don't know how.

codewritinfool• 9 years ago

$12/year if you just get the digital version. I just signed up.

yoodenvranx• 9 years ago

I said it before and I will say it again: We need a non-profit, simple, and universally supported small-payment system which enables a user to easily donate 1-5$ to a random website without relying on Paypal or creditcards.

Flattr was a good step in the right direction but unfortunately it never reached critical mass.

If Google and Facebook combined their market force to introduce such a system then it would be an instant game changer when it comes to supporting websites. Nowadays I can use Facebook/Gmail to log into random webpages, why can't I also use those accounts for tipping?

RealityCzech• 9 years ago

Because those sites make their money on ads.

MasterPI• 9 years ago

Honest question: Wasn´t the original idea of cryptocurrencies to be able to do exactly that? Small transactions for the web.

rtpg• 9 years ago

Serious question: what about PayPal?

zanedb2• 9 years ago

How do you propose the money will be collected without credit cards?

I'm assuming you're including debit cards in that statement, but if not: Debit cards? Bitcoin? Wire transfer? ACH?

ClassyJacket• 9 years ago

I doubt facebook want to help support any other websites. They want everything on facebook.

ms013• 9 years ago

Why is an "SV-based disrupter" at all necessary? That's an absurd and bizarre question. Just pay them - you say you read it often, yet you don't pay. Say you read 6 articles there per year - that works out to a whole $4/article, or equivalent to one fancy coffee every two months. To defer instead to some "SV-based disrupter" to act as the person who will pay for it on your behalf seems exceptionally lazy on your part. Just pay for the things you benefit from. Constantly using services while hoping someone else will pay for them is why we can't have nice things that last.

(And yes, I pay for it - I like the print version that shows up every so often, in addition to the articles I read online).

igravious3• 9 years ago

I often read Nautilus too and never pay them anything. Moreover, I run an effective ad-blocker, uBlock Origin, so the little they may have derived from my visits that way evaporatwes.

I am very conflicted. I love consuming quality journalism online. But there is no way I'd be able to subscribe to every site I visit – off the top of my head I regularly read The Register (UK), Economist (UK), The Atlantic (US), The Grauniad (UK), Nautilus (US), The Intercept_, and quite a few more …

Maybe I should just disable ad-blocking on the quality news-media sites I visit. However online ads are just so _ugh_. They destroy the reading experience in a way print-media ads don't. They load in unusual places, they contain animations or audio, they track me (what the hell?), they may contain malware. It wasn't so bad back in the day but there came a point when it was just easier to install an ad-blocker and blanket ban them rather than to vet them on a site-by-site basis.

It's why I like podcasts. Ads there are read out by the host. It's not jarring. They can even be fun they way someone like Bill Burr does it. They don't track me. It shouldn't be my job to figure out for online text-media how to package their advertising in a way that doesn't repel their audience. How about a consortium for advertising solely in quality news-media? Set standards. Feature the benevolent ad promise prominently. Communicate your standards. Have a way for ad-blockers to have a switch for Content R (Responsible Ads).

If they can't make that happen then the only alternative would be some kind of way would be to bundle news media together (a la Spotify for diverse labels, and Netflix for diverse studios) and let me subscribe monthly to a swath of online titles. Kind of like how I get access to a whole host of journal publishers via my university's subscription channel.

Otherwise …

To re-iterate, I can't afford to pay a subscription to every news org I visit online. I won't disable my ad-blocker until quality news media and advertisers figure out together how to deliver appropriate, responsible, and vetted advertising alongside their quality content, just an static image in an appropriate place, not repeated with no fancy CSS or JS.

Maybe (you have every right to argue) that if I can't afford to pay and won't disable my ad-blocker then I should be deprived of the content by a paywall. And I say, fair enough, if that's what the solution turns out to be – I'll go back to buying print media. Is there no halfway house by which my browsing/consuming could be subsidized by responsible advertising thus increasing readership?

Are others in the same boat as me? I'd love to know. How can we make our voices heard?

marbletiles2• 9 years ago

I regularly read The Register (UK), Economist (UK), The Atlantic (US), The Grauniad (UK), Nautilus (US).

This is basically three monthly magazines, one fortnightly and a daily newspaper. That’s a fraction of my load in the days of print — I was regularly getting eight or nine magazines a month, on student money.

I don’t want to make assumptions about your financial situation, but your argument is one I hear a lot — “I can’t afford all that!” - even from well-paid people.

I don’t think it is a case of “can”. People certainly can afford to pay their regular reads. I think the problem is more that people’s expectations have been changed to expect media for free, and maybe carry a load of 2-3 subscription charges a month for things like Spotify or cloud services.

This is a big, big expectation change from eg the 1990s.

gtf21• 9 years ago

Without wanting to guess at your financial circumstances, I don't think that the problem is not being able to afford subscriptions in most cases, it's that subscriptions are way more than the £0 people are used to paying, so they feel really expensive.

The way I look at it is that the £5 I pay the Economist (for example) per week pays for the hundreds of hours of writing and editorial time (not to mention everything else) that enables this thing to be in front of me. If I didn't pay it, it couldn't exist, so I don't really see it as a choice. If I only read one article once in a while, I would feel differently, but I regularly read: The Economist, the New Statesman, The Grauniad, The FT Weekend, Nautilus and I just choose how to allocate my resources to support them (otherwise I don't really feel comfortable consuming their work without compensation). Yes, it cuts into other spending money, but one has to make a choice. I don't take coffee from a coffee shop every day without paying for it (also, compared to the price of a coffee in London, these subscriptions really aren't _that_ expensive).

if that's what the solution turns out to be – I'll go back to buying print media

I mostly consume the print versions of these things anyway.

Is there no halfway house by which my browsing/consuming could be subsidized by responsible advertising thus increasing readership?

I think a good halfway-house would be having a model like the one Brave was trying (I think) where you pay for content in small blocks every time you consume something. So when I read an article in my browser, a small amount of value is transferred, automatically, to the publisher. This is a model I like to an extent, but I think the problem is that you end up biasing things on popularity, rather than actual value (imagine how much money clickbait will make). Publications are really just bundles of contributors and topics, and paying for them as a bundle allows less popular (but still important and interesting) content to be created. This is one of the nice things about the BBC, the decreased commercial pressure allows them to make some really amazing programmes that no commercial house could, because everything is bundled into a single budget.

rjtavares• 9 years ago

Just a quick shoutout to Blendle (https://blendle.com/). They're basically a wallet for top quality publications, which you pay on an article basis instead of paying a subscription (from your list, The Economist is there)

Articles cost around 0.2$ to 0.5$ each, which is pretty fair for medium-long pieces (they provide a time estimate for each article before you pay).

CaptSpify4• 9 years ago

IMHO: This is a broader economic problem, and should be addressed as such. We really need to get away from the idea that you should pay for digital media based on the time you receive said media.

I'd love to fund journalists, and reputable news-sites, but there are far too many for me to keep track of, and not enough time and interest. I'm not sure what the solution is, but doing things the old way, just because "we've always done it that way" is silly.

pocketstar• 9 years ago

inlk has the publications you listed(excluding Nautilus) and is only $15AU/month [~$11USD] its not the greatest but it is a decent service that I can use to support journalism.

newscracker2• 9 years ago

Blendle [1], which is still in beta, tried solving this problem with micropayment, where there's a specific price per article based on different factors (including the publisher), and you decide whether you want to pay that or not. It even gives a small starting credit to try the service out. I tried it, but found that even at 25 cents or 15 cents each, things add up quite quickly. It also becomes awkward to decide whether to pay or not when skimming some articles and getting just a little bit out of it but not really enjoying it fully or appreciating it fully (most people, IMO, skim stuff on the web because we have attention deficit).

[1] https://launch.blendle.com

aeorgnoieang• 9 years ago

My problem with Blendle is that you have to go thru their site. That's an eminently understandable technical constraint, but still one that makes the site/service of little value to me given that I read mostly via a feed reader (and to whatever those items link).

reeteshv• 9 years ago

I have voted with my money! It is one of the best science magazines out there.

lukego• 9 years ago

Me too. I resisted in the past because they ask for a phone number and I don't want magazines to have that in their CRMs (fool me once...) but it seems like they can accept an obvious fake.

tbatchelli• 9 years ago

I am a print subscriber. They do an important job and the articles are mind expanding and very high quality. If you ever read their articles you should consider a subscription, it’s well worth it for what you get and for what you support.

tanto• 9 years ago

Just voted for Nautilus with http://nautil.us/primeuser

Its definitely one of the best sources for long reads and tbh I never thought about it. They should display a support us banner like theguardian does.

stingraycharles• 9 years ago

Just did the same. It’s one of the few sources of quality content, and voting with your wallet makes sense.

samschooler• 9 years ago

Just got the print subscription. One of the best outlets I've ever read from; I'm glad to support them.

earenndil• 9 years ago

Can you mention if you actually receive it? Some others were complaining that they never actually got their print subscriptions.

maaark• 9 years ago

Why is he paying them in full, one at a time? "7 of you get to enjoy Christmas, Fuck the other 12?"

sylvinus• 9 years ago

Some may not need it short-term as much as others?

pjc502• 9 years ago

Part-paying an invoice is such a pain to both parties that it's hardly ever done. I suspect he's paying in the order that they were recieved, longest-standing debts first.

kristofferR• 9 years ago

Sounds like a decent idea for a startup.

napoleoncomplex• 9 years ago

Might be an absurd proposition, but according to their website, the publisher is a non-profit called NautilusThink, meaning it's eligible for the Pineapple Fund (https://pineapplefund.org/).

Now I don't know what the odds are, but considering there's about $79m left, I'd say they aren't too far from the odds of the potential acquisition talks coming through.

It won't solve the underlying issue, but it will make possible to at least think about better ways of solving it.

zanedb2• 9 years ago

Wow, that's very interesting. I hadn't heard of it before.

As a minor technical note: If the site is truly hosted by GitHub Pages as it proclaims, how does it have HTTPS support on a custom domain?

SanderMak• 9 years ago

I've done that by putting Cloudflare in front, as discussed here: https://blog.cloudflare.com/secure-and-fast-github-pages-wit...

tgragnato• 9 years ago

The domain resolves to IPs in AWS. If they’re using Pages, there’s a caching layer with TLS.

OisinMoran• 9 years ago

There are workarounds for this, but as I understand it GitHub won't validate an SSL cert for a custom domain.

I found this tutorial [1] very helpful when setting up my own site [2] (which you can see is HTTPS and served by GitHub Pages [3]).

[1] https://www.jonathan-petitcolas.com/2017/01/13/using-https-w...

[2] https://oisinmoran.com/

[3] https://github.com/OisinMoran/OisinMoran.github.io

tokenizerrr• 9 years ago

Certificate is issued by cloudflare

jocatalin• 9 years ago

I'm a prime member for nautilus for 2 years now. I can't support all the good journalism sites I visit. But that doesn't mean I (or you) shouldn't support any. Just pick one.

Rabei• 9 years ago

I find the publisher morally reprehensible, i understand that he had a dream a wanted to pursuit, but he gambled on unwilling parties money.

Hope he solves it, not for his sake but that of the people he owes money.

pjc502• 9 years ago

"Still, my over-confidence that a merger was around the corner prompted me to over-promise, continually, when payments would be made"

This sounds very similar to trading while insolvent to me. It happens a lot in small businesses and it's a major pain to freelancers who have to wait for payment.

andai2• 9 years ago

From what I've gathered in this thread, people support the writers, not John Steele, but he ends up with most of the money they give.

monster_group• 9 years ago

Their annual digital Prime subscription is on sale for only $12. That's dirt cheap for such quality content. I just bought one. I encourage others to take advantage of this sale price and buy their subscription. (Note - I am not affiliated with them in anyway - just want to support good content.)

kasey_junk• 9 years ago

I got the yearly print subscription this year. They managed to get me one copy & it was 4 months delayed. I too just want good content but if you can’t provide it without stiffing the content creators or your customers go away.

wut422• 9 years ago

Kinda the same. Brought a 2year print subscription in May.

Haven't received a single issues, contacted them a couple of times, said to wait & then they "shipped themselves". Still got nothing. :(

Omnus• 9 years ago

Same here - I got my first issue about 4 months late, and then never received the 2nd one, then the 3rd magically showed up on time.

ejp• 9 years ago

I'm at 50% delivered for my year-long subscription, one of which I had to specifically request through their support site. These delivery issues are the key thing that has prevented me from extending my subscription or buying Prime for other people.

I want them to succeed and really like the content, but success is self-reinforcing in media.

newscracker2• 9 years ago

FWIW, I had earlier subscribed to digital prime at $29 or so when they had a promotion several months ago, and later they ran another promotion for lifetime digital subscription at around $65. When asked about it, they promptly responded and let me pay the difference and upgrade to the lifetime subscription. I value such prompt and relevant customer care wherever it is, and I sincerely hope Nautilus can find a better source of funding for the long term.

paulcole• 9 years ago

Turns out you can sell content cheaply when you don’t pay the people who create it.

tedunangst• 9 years ago

I tried subscribing a few months ago. Their payment form was busted. The state entry on the billing address was a "smart" dropdown that could only be advanced by keyboard and only one state per focus. Advancing from Alaska to Arizona required switching focus back to the city field, then tab, then down arrow. Getting to Arkansas required doing that again. I closed the tab well before I got to Pennsylvania. Was whatever conversion boost this javascript abomination was designed to achieve worth it?

koliber2• 9 years ago

Mr. Steele,

thank you for being forthright and explaining the situation publicly. I am a reader and your open letter has prompted me to buy a subscription.

I empathize with you. Making predictions about the future is difficult and there are times when they will be incorrect. When these predictions concern incoming cash and they fail to materialize, the situation becomes frustrating.

I wish you all the best and hope that you will be able to overcome this challenge, as well as any future ones that come your way. I do so for the very selfish reason of being able to continue to read quality content in the future.

engi_nerd2• 9 years ago

Why would you give him money after this?

koliber2• 9 years ago

It made me realize that I have been freeloading the entire time. The backpay issue arose because they do not have enough revenues. I was consuming their content for free without contributing. This letter explained the issue plainly.

febin• 9 years ago

If they would accept bitcoin donations, I am sure a lot of people here would help.

4h53n• 9 years ago

As a reader and supporter, sad to read what's going on at Nautilus, one of the best science magazines ever. I hope they get over this in no time.

jawns2• 9 years ago

I find Steele's argument that his staff never knowingly commissioned work that they knew the magazine couldn't pay for to be a total red herring.

It may be true that his staff were in the dark, but he wasn't, and to the extent that he authorized them to commission that work, he permitted them to commission work that he knew the magazine couldn't pay for.

Nautilus might be a first-rate science magazine, but it's only first-rate because it commissioned first-rate writers.

Do you think it will ever be able to attract and retain that caliber of writers now? I certainly don't. Definitely not with Steele at the helm.

EDIT: I looked up NautilusThink's 2015 IRS Form 990 (the latest available on GuideStar) and found an interesting line item. In that year, John Steele was paid $2,408,000 for "consulting fees" for the publication of the magazine. (The previous year he was paid a more modest $134,000.)

Angostura• 9 years ago

I read it very much as a ‘don’t blame them, blame me’ statement, no?

saidmasoud• 9 years ago

That's how I read it.

pessimizer4• 9 years ago

John Steele was paid $2,408,000 for "consulting fees" for the publication of the magazine.

That can't be true, and if true, disgusting. That's half a million more than they claimed to have paid for the totality of their content from the start of publication.

If an editor who made millions from a publication by extracting what must be a majority of its revenue as personal income allowed it to go $180K into arrears with the low-paid providers of its content without even making a personal loan, I'm grossed out.

I'm deciding this isn't true. You should add a link.

dmethvin• 9 years ago

Here's the 990: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/463/4634857...

See the bottom of PDF page 8 under Independent Contractors and the bottom of page 27. Note that p27 is NOT saying that all that money went to John Steele, just that he is an interested person in the transaction.

It looks to me like "Nautilus Ventures" is a for-profit that actually publishes and the non-profit pays that entity. All the operating expenses are there so the 990 doesn't really tell you what they spent.

andai2• 9 years ago

Unless I am mistaken, you have allowed your feelings to set the limits of what you are willing to accept as true?

nautilus• 9 years ago

In 2015 Nautilus was transferred from an LLC to a 501(c)(3). As the transfer was in process, NautilusThink paid Nautilus Venture LLC to produce the magazine because the staff and contracts were still in the name of Nautilus Ventures. Is was a cost passthrough. Nautilus is fully owned by NautilusThink and Nautilus Ventures was closed.

pdabbadabba4• 9 years ago

In that year, John Steele was paid $2,408,000 for "consulting fees”

This isn’t true, and people here should stop repeating it. These payments were to Nautilus Ventures LCC, which Steele owns. It’s not totally clear what this is for, but if I had to guess I’d say these are publishing costs that Steele has spun out into a separate entity (probably for tax purposes). It’s possible that Steele is using these payments to enrich himself, but this line on the 990 isn’t good evidence of that.

jawns2• 9 years ago

I can't edit my post anymore, but you're correct that the payments went to an entity that Steele owns, and Steele's own comment (as user nautilus) describes it as a pass-through. So I'm willing to let that go.

The rest of my opinion hasn't changed, though. I think Steele is using his staff's ignorance as a red herring, and I highly doubt that top-rate writers will want to work for Nautilus in the future.

pessimizer4• 9 years ago

and people here should stop repeating it.

Or maybe they should repeat it until it's acknowledged, corrected, and they're satisfied with the answer?

zitterbewegung2• 9 years ago

I find it very disturbing that other commentators on this post are encouraging to subscribe to this magazine. If you don’t pay your employees that’s pretty bad. If you actively mislead people into thinking that you can pay them that’s even more horrible. I find this behavior reprehensible and we should wait for this joke of a magazine to end.

volkk2• 9 years ago

i don't know, i wouldn't call this magazine a joke. I think the quality of the writing is top notch, and the level of the topics is extremely interesting. i don't disagree that what's going on financially is pretty reprehensible, but at the very least i can still attempt to support the writers who probably spent a lot of time writing these awesome pieces by reading their work.

zitterbewegung2• 9 years ago

I would rather figure out who the writers are and send them money directly . Maybe then they could feed their family.

room271• 9 years ago

Is Mr Steele being paid himself during this period?

postit• 9 years ago

They stopped shipping my magazines to Europe. I believe I'm two numbers behind since august. I've sent a couple of emails complaining about it and got the same response all the times - "we're facing delays".

Regardless, I believe I got at least 10 emails about donating to the magazine in the last 6 months.

Maybe they're just broke, which is sad.

brudgers• 9 years ago

This is what a company looks like when it runs out of money...except for the part of admitting it. I know it sucks for the writers that haven't been paid, but a business not paying $50,000 across more than a dozen contractors is hardly news.

nwatson2• 9 years ago

Here's an incredible "How I Built This" podcast with Stonybrook Farms (yoghurt) founder Gary Hirshberg. He over-promised for years to suppliers, customers, investors on things he couldn't deliver, but made it work anyway. It's about the grittiest founder story I've heard. They ended up selling to Danone (I think) and did very well, but the company was on precarious footing for around 10 years.

EDIT: clarified industry

sigil• 9 years ago

That Stonybrook Farms episode is a wild ride! Pretty much the opposite of my entrepreneurial style, but that’s why I love “How I Built This” so much — you get exposure to a wide variety of strategies that worked, including some you never thought would.

QAPereo• 9 years ago

My family was a very early investor in (Stonyfield btw) that venture, and honestly Gary got lucky, not smart.

abakker• 9 years ago

You might like reading "Beyond the Pale" by Ken Grossman, founder of Sierra Nevada. Years and years of just barely making it and tons of reinvestment to keep on top of production, but basically no free cash flow for a decade. As a perk, it's really well written.

hluska2• 9 years ago

I've been involved in the publishing industry as both a freelance writer and a publisher who has hired freelance writers. If you have a modicum of experience and relatively good financial records, it's quite easy to estimate your publication's cash flow.

In this case, by his own words, John Steele is either completely unqualified to run a publication or he is completely full of shit. Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does. Subscribers don't just magically stop subscribing...a qualified publisher will see complaints build and will recognize a groundswell of frustration for what it is.

And, seriously, who keeps commissioning work because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner??

barrkel• 9 years ago

And, seriously, who keeps commissioning work because they're convinced a merger is right around the corner??

I think almost every founder of a new enterprise makes promises like this.

jonnycomputer• 9 years ago

A little off. Nautilus is a fantastic publication, and if John Steele was completely unqualified it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand, not everyone is really well suited to run business operations.

jseliger• 9 years ago

Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does

I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies (and some research-based businesses). Publicly funded grants generally don't just disappear, except in the case of recission: http://seliger.com/2011/01/09/as-predicted-in-january-2010-t... . We've had clients who've suffered from recissions.

Private foundations, however, can play by just about whatever rules they want, as long as they give away 5% of their assets every year. So a foundation that promises $1 million over three years (say), may give away a third of that in the first year and then say "just kidding" in year two.

Or it may say nothing at all.

I'm not saying that happened here, but I am saying that it's possible for grants to "just disappear," even if that isn't common. I've had clients experience just that.

tylermenezes• 9 years ago

Grants don't just magically disappear...you know one will expire for several months before it does.

That is absolutely not true. Even if the grant is well-managed and the outlook seems positive, a foundation can simply change their priorities or staff.

danielfoster• 9 years ago

I also wonder on what promises the grants were awarded. Was Nautilus up-front in grant applications about how the funds would be used to pay off debt?

pmc1• 9 years ago

More accurately, this is what happens when a company operates based on illusion and not reality. Sooner or later reality rears its ugly face. Their business was created on handouts and grants, but when that money dried up they couldn't generate their own revenue. Had they focused on being self-sufficient for revenue since their inception they most likely wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

acqq• 9 years ago

For those who ever read the articles of the magazine and wondered why the special flavor of doubt in scientific knowledge is often present there, as well as veiled "spiritual" agenda, see:

http://nautil.us/about

Nautilus has received financial support from: "John Templeton Foundation"

Which themselves state:

"By supporting multi-disciplinary scientific, theological, and philosophical research, we aim to deepen our understanding of the possibility and purposes of the divine."

https://www.templeton.org/funding-areas/science-big-question...

hackinthebochs• 9 years ago

The low bar for evidence some have these days is appalling.

chiefalchemist• 9 years ago

"I want to again make clear that nobody on the Nautilus staff commissioned any work that they knowingly thought wouldn’t be paid for..."

On one hand I feel for the guy. This is every dreamer's nightmare.

On the other hand he sounds naive, if not a liar. To commission work on a deal that was still 100% unfinalized isn't exactly playing fair.

Entrepreneurs are by definition optimistic. They see the opportunity as brighter and risk dim. That's great when things are going well. However, it's a dangerous trait when things go sideways.

Perhaps he should have been more transparent sooner? Ya think?

engi_nerd2• 9 years ago

I am so disgusted that I have given this guy money. What a ridiculous non-apology.

a13n• 9 years ago

The deal's not done till it's done.

satyajeet23• 9 years ago

As a reader, this is sad to hear. Nautilus provides real quality content. One of the best magazines out there.

__strisk• 9 years ago

nautilus was the first publishing company that I subscribed to... Although I feel bad for the company, I feel worse to have given money to an organization whose owner is gambling the livelihoods of their employees.

tptacek• 9 years ago

If you don't know that you can pay for work that you contract, there's no high ground to seize over not knowing that you couldn't.

desireco42• 9 years ago

Some form of Kickstarter campaign would be nice. Only to bridge current situation. Nautilus is seriously good source, I would hate to lose it.

A Letter from the Publisher of Nautilus

Related Stories