how-to block ads
|
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] | |
|  | 
Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
 ·Comcast
| 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. | |
| 
biggbrother
Premium
join:2001-11-07
Providence, RI
| 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
| Re: No Free Lunch 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] | |
| | | 
totamak
And they call me nuts?
join:2000-10-24
Los Angeles, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: No Free Lunch With cable TV, you're paying for the 'transport' of said channels. Also the cable (and DSS) pay a nominal fee for each network carried (not all ask for the fee, some are more than willing to go on for free).
The premiums are subscriber paid, note that HBO doesn't have commercials and therefore must generate revenue by subscriptions through the cable/DSS provider.
As for online, most content online isn't worth a dime, I don't bother with streaming video from most sites I visit even when I have the bandwidth (at work I have access to DUAL T-1's!).
The real killer is the price of bandwidth itself, until it gets down to reasonable, I don't see any content oriented business able to sustain itself through subscriptions (even if advert padded) unless it's extremely desirable and almost impossible to get elsewhere. | |
| | 
gomer1701ems
join:2001-08-23
Minneapolis, MN
| 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...... | |
| | | 
alex4life
Alex4life
Premium
join:2001-06-22
Delta, BC | Re: No Free Lunch lol, good one! | |
| | | 
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| There is no such thing as free. Is the Internet free? I pay $49.00 for my DSL ISP and $30.00 per month for the Telco just to access the "free" Internet. That is $79.00 per month. I soon will be dropping to a $12.95 dial up account but will be keeping the phone ONLY for the Internet connection. (I use cellular for everything else.) So that is $42.50 per month minimum there. That Sure doesn't sound like free Internet to me. (Please don't mention the library Internet access!) I pay something like $7.00 per month to pay everything electronically online directly from my bank account. So tack on $7.00 per month more for the free Internet. I also pay for an online Consumer Report's subscription.
Bottom line is if people want it or need it and can't get it for free OR conveniently they will pay--especially if it is affordable to them. It costs about $30.00 to have Jiffy Lube change your oil. You can easily do it yourself just for the cost of the oil, say $7.50. No special skills or tools required. So do most of you do it yourself for $7.50 or do you pay the $30.00? A no-brainer! | |
| | edwscott
join:2001-06-18
Englewood, CO
|  Re: Free is a four letter word.
If people are right that the lazy will pay, then they will lead the way for the rest of us to pay.
If very few people pay, the providers will need to rethink their business model. Provide less content, maybe, but not charge! | |
| 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Last time I checked, CNN comes on cable TV. 24hours a day. Why since I am already paying for cable, will I also pay for the website?
Maybe they are hoping 'comcast' will pay a limp sum for its subscribers to be able to access CNN.
Good luck with that.
Besides, the good news is never on the news sites, the web has spawned lots of enthusiast sites which have targeted quality unbiased news. Not news to the highest bidder. And no political commectials on the free sites either.
I will NEVER pay. Not now, not eventually. NEVER.
Basic economics. When I can't get it for free, I'll find something else to like. Baseball in the park maybe...
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. | |
| | 
Hop
Prostate cancer sucks
Premium
join:2002-03-16
Tarpon Springs, FL
clubs: | Re: No Free Lunch EXACTLY RIGHT!
Why in the world would anyone pay to watch a one inch square news video on their computer when they could watch it for free on a huge projection tv?????? | |
| MGP
join:2001-01-01
Olathe, KS | hehehe... good luck CNN -- I don't watch your shyte content on TV, so I'm sure not gonna PAY you to see it online! | |
| | | |
|
·