mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| No Free Lunch
It was never a question of IF web surfers would eventually be charged for content on premium sites as much as it was WHEN. A sustainable business plan dictates that eventually everyone must pay if the enterprise is to survive in the current economic landscape. As for whether the digerati will be persuaded into paying for something they have always gotten for FREE is quite a different story. Personally, I believe that when push comes to shove, reluctantly people will agree to pay for content -however- I do not see that happening on a wide scale basis...but then again, give the ol' magic 8 ball a shake and you may get a different answer.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-18 11:31:54] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| said by mags2:
reluctantly people will agree to pay for content
Only if they can't get it elsewhere for free first.
--
- |
|
spg
Grrrr
join:2001-10-31
NOT Texas! | No such thing as a free lunch...
I agree, but if you charge me, the subscriber you'd better not subject me to any advertising. |
|
MexiCubAZ
join:2000-06-09
Phoenix, AZ
clubs:
| I agree here.. If it is to be a paid subscription... then no ads please.
But I for one would not pay for video clips.. I have the damn TV and can view the news on the many 24hr news stations available.
--
Join the DSL Reports SETI@Home Team! |
|
Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
 ·Comcast
| reply to mags2
Re: No Free Lunch
said by mags2:
reluctantly people will agree to pay for content -however- I do not see that happening on a wide scale basis...
I certainly don't believe that - most people (well, that is, computer/net-experienced people) will not reluctantly agree to pay for content that was once free! I for one will either find alternatives, or simply do without (it's not like the internet is the only source of information yet!). At least he got the 2nd part right, sure some lazy-asses will pay just to continue the convenience or because they really enjoy whatever particular site's content quality, but it sure won't happen on a wide scale basis, you can count on that. |
|
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Quality of content
When it comes to paying for content I guess customer will be very picky about the quality and currentness of the content.
I think the most critical content will be financial data in this respect. I CNN has to do a lot more to attract paying customers.
Secondly, content providers must understand that few people will be paying for each and every content provider. Perhaps, they should 'pool' the content from a number of sites and have one monthly fee to be paid. |
|
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| reply to MexiCubAZ
Re: No such thing as a free lunch...
Then again there do exist premium content websites such as
-Hoovers.com and Edgar-online, the source for SEC filings- the information contained on these pay-as-you-go sites cannot be found very easily anywhere else so you almost *have* to pay. At least that has been *my* experience.
--
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. -T.Jefferson |
|
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| reply to mags2
Re: No Free Lunch
Funny that while I was reading the article portion regarding CNN, I thought to myself, "I guess I'll be using MSNBC now...", and then the article brought up that same issue!
I will be using MSNBC now. I figure video on that site will stay free for a while, with Microsoft funding it and all. That is one thing no one can complain about MS. I paid $90 for friggin' Windows XP, but at least MS keeps stuff free such as IE, Windows Media, PowerToys, and Streaming Video. I like WMP better than RealPlayer anyway.
If we were to pay for all the stuff these companies want us to pay for, most of us would be broke with over $100 a month going to our broadband ISP, and the various online subscriptions they want us to pay for.
What's next, ALL traditional over-air radio going subscription like XM Radio? Or maybe UPN will start charging me to watch Enterprise every week? Or maybe the friggin Red Sox will start charging me $1.00 per game I watch on TV and still not win a World Series...
--
"Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value." - Editorial in the Boston Post (1865)MSN MESSENGER HANDLE: JMSYLVIA |
|
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| It is ridiculous to have to pay for every single thing we read online -however- as always, there is the bottom line. Look at cable tv. We *still* have to pay to get the line for basic content and pay even more still for the premium channels such as the HBOs, etc. I think that is the model the web will emulate provided the market will support it.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-18 12:03:52] |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to spg
Re: No such thing as a free lunch...
No advertisement and content at high enough quality that I will be blessed to have a high speed connection! I want a true 5 inch display of video viewing area. I want the option of streaming content at 700K, that when I make it full screen it actually is less pixilated. I'm not merely looking for audio highlights of events, I want video coverage. That is what the broadband dream (and selling point) was for me.
Don't make someone pay for sub-quality content that was previously free, make the premium content worth paying for!
--
-- Someday, I'll be the most powerful Jedi ever. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
|  RealPlayer premium content
This reminds me of Big Brother - the TV show. The first season, AOL sponsored the show and had free live video streams (220kbps). It worked very well, AOL never had any trouble keeping up with demand. The next season, however, was another story. RealNetworks hosted the feeds. To continue watching you had to become a GoldPass member.
As a paying customer I'd expect quasi-decent quality. Wrong. Real kept tapering the quality back. The video window got smaller and smaller. They instituted time-outs after 15 minutes to keep bandwidth usage to a bare mininum. Absolutely horrid experience. To make matters worse, Real made it VERY difficult to cancel the GoldPass. You couldn't cancel online. You had to call and talk to a sales rep who just would not take no for an answer.
I will NEVER buy Real sponsored premium content again. |
|
gomer1701ems
join:2001-08-23
Minneapolis, MN
| reply to biggbrother
Re: No Free Lunch
said by biggbrother:
Or maybe UPN will start charging me to watch Enterprise every week?
Yeah, they'll probably charge 2 bars of gold pressed latinum per episode. 
--
Sprint DSL saved me from AT&T Broadband...... |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
|  Support the sites that are worth supporting
This is something we all do. Lets face it, we all like and dislike certain content here on the internet. We all support the sites that have that content in one way, shape, or form. Some people post on message boards on the sites, write articles, reviews, purchase items through affiliate links, and even donate. I do all of the above.
The title says it all. The free ride is over. Advertising on the internet doesn't weild the same strength it had during the dot com boom. Advertisers see that they aren't getting a huge return on their coin on the internet and can demand to pay less for their ads to be placed. Bandwidth is an expensive commodity and isn't getting any cheaper. The internet usage continues to grow.
Case in point...»www.uscho.com
I have been working for Uscollegehockey.com for many years now. You would think that being an ESPN affiliate and the advertising on the site would be enough to keep it rolling. It isn't. The bandwidth needed to support 1.5 million views a month costs a lot.
My recommendation? Support the sites you find the most useful.
--
Nightfall - »www.nightfall.net |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| let the companies pay now....
One of the main reasons I use the net is for researching purchases. Catalogs, operators, phones etc. all cost a company money. The net provides a way where people can get instructions, product specs, almost anything for products. The charge for phone support on most computer help lines. Drivers are free (for now) on the net.
Now as for content, if there is a free alternative, people will use it. What if tomorrow, dslreports.com became a pay site? Many would leave and find another outlet. Should people pay for network TV? Should people pay for radio? Yes, there is cable TV and even satellite radio. Some will pay for it but a lot won't and if the internet becomes a lot less free, there will be a lot less internet usage as time goes on. |
|
dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to DrTCP
Re: Quality of content
said by DrTCP:
Perhaps, they should 'pool' the content from a number of sites and have one monthly fee to be paid.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Maybe at some point the RealNetworks things will be more encompassing and provide that structure (or a third party). As it is, the price point is absurd. If aggregated and based on more a cable system model, the user would be paying pennies, ok, maybe dimes, for a channel. 4.95 / month is absurd, since as others add priced content, the total per month would be astronomical.. it'd be like asking cable users to pay 400-500 DOLLARS per month for cable. And this is for clips? not even a stream of their actual live broadcasts? They used to have headline news simulcast over the internet and I used to watch that at times. Once they went to their tiny several minute clip, I just left the real one on in the background on the TV. (Though since they destroyed the format of that, Headline news isn't even on the TV anymore, let alone would I pay for it over the internet at an absurd price.) They have to realize that if they're charging and as more charge, the aggregate paid by the consumer has to be reasonable for many available channels. To think they can charge 4.95 / month, it's as if they believe they'll be the only provider. That's a little arrogant, but then again, that doesn't seem to be new with some of them anyway. |
|
banditws6
Shrinking Time and Distance
join:2001-08-18
Naples, FL
·Comcast
|  reply to DrTCP
Consolidated Subscription Service
This is what I've been thinking all along. There's no way I'm going to want to keep track of $4.95/mo. here and $2.95/mo. here, one monthly fee for every friggin' provider who wants to charge me for some service I might use once every couple of weeks. There's going to have to be some sort of standardization created whereby people can pay a consolidated charge to one entity, and receive enhanced content at a VERY wide variety of sites.
That's the only way I'll agree to pay for anything short of "vital" features on the Web, that much is for sure. The RealNetworks SuperPass idea is a step in the right direction, I think, as far as the concept is concerned.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -Albert Einstein |
|
Gravital2
Deus Ex Machina
join:2002-01-09
Maple Shade, NJ
| Free eh?
I just followed one of the links in the story, and read the article. In it, there was a quote from some computer consultant in DC - "The Internet was supposed to be free"
Excuse me? Do you have that in writing anywhere? When I signed up with my first ISP, I don't remember seeing that listed under the guarentees anywhere.
The content on the Internet used to be free because it was either hosted by the government, large universities, or some small guy paying for it himself.
Things change, the Internet included. I think it's ridiculous to expect everything to remain free, based soley on the reasoning "that's how it always has been"
Now, I would expect people to flock from newly non-free sites to ones that still offer free content. That's just human nature. But don't expect anything to remain free forever.
The wild west days of the Internet are gone.
--
-Gravital- |
|
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: let the companies pay now....
said by moonpuppy:
Now as for content, if there is a free alternative, people will use it. What if tomorrow, dslreports.com became a pay site? Many would leave and find another outlet. Should people pay for network TV? Should people pay for radio? Yes, there is cable TV and even satellite radio. Some will pay for it but a lot won't and if the internet becomes a lot less free, there will be a lot less internet usage as time goes on.
So what you are basically saying is if charging for content becomes the norm, then the collective, nameless "they" will be shooting themselves in the foot bc the web will cease to exist since no one will want to ante up. Interesting theory, but it's still way too early to comment on a prediction like that. I guess we'll find out as the web grows out of its infancy.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-18 13:18:31] |
|
MortySnerd
join:2001-07-26
Mclean, VA | reply to djrobx
Re: RealPlayer premium content
And to top it off, the Real Player always crashes about once every hour or so. I haven't used the new version, but I bet that hasn't changed. They're really good at putting up 3 pop-up ads every time I start the free player though! |
|
sightblinder5
join:2001-03-06
Duncannon, PA
| reply to Nightfall
Re: Support the sites that are worth supporting
Web sites should never have consented to the click through model of advertising ever. That is why companies are not seeing the "returns" that they think they should be seeing. People don't buy when they see the adds, they remember the adds when they want to buy. All sites should return to selling add space based on views for a set cost, similar to how all other industries such as tv, radio, billboards, etc... sell add space. The current models with payoff based on clicks either means that advertisers never understood how their adds worked or they thought it would be different on the net. How many people here buy things because they saw an add, or because they remember an add they saw when they want to buy that product?
sightblinder |
|
