 
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! | |
|
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:
| Re: No such thing as a free lunch... 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! | |
|
| |
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| 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 | |
|
| 
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| 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. | |
|
| 
Confuxed
@207.217.x.x
| HAHAHAHA! You think THAT"S gonna happen? You'll have the honor of paying a fee to have customized ads pumped down your pipe. You think there NOT gonna track that kind of info. These companies do not see us people; rather as a renewable source of income. ANYTHING they can do to increase that revenue will be fair game. | |
|
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. | |
|
| dbarc
join:2000-01-22
Fort Wayne, IN
| 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. | |
|
| |
| 
richb01803
Rich
join:2001-02-14
02100 | Re: Quality of content It's sorta like subscribing to a 500-channel cable system, with a separate fee and different terms-of-service for each channel.
I think this has been tried and rejected a few different ways over the years. What is AOL/TW thinking??? | |
|
| | 
aalmolah
join:1999-12-24
Boulder, CO
clubs: | Re: Quality of content I do not think that they took an example of the DIVX collapse! | |
|
|
| 
MortySnerd
join:2001-07-26
Mclean, VA | 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! | |
|
| |
| | TJ_665
join:2001-07-04
Fairview, OR | Re: RealPlayer premium content | |
|
| |
Hop
Prostate cancer sucks
Premium
join:2002-03-16
Tarpon Springs, FL
clubs:
| .
Yeah, I was really P.O.'d this weekend when I was unable to log onto the race streaming audio at all. I must have tried 100 times foolishly thinking that I might sneak in.
Don't anyone waste your money buying anything from Real. (Those idiots!)
__________:[______:[______:[______:[______:[__________
--
What if they took our computers away? | |
|
|
| sightblinder5
join:2001-03-06
Duncannon, PA
| 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 | |
|
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. | |
|
|
mags2
Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| 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] | |
|
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: let the companies pay now.... Think about it this way:
That public park you went to was free all that time. Now, someone puts up a fence and wants to charge you to go in. You already pay taxes for the "public" park but they want more. You stay in your own back yard.
Many people feel that paying $20 or more a month just for Internet access does mean that that is the entrance fee. Not $20 to get in, $5 to see this site, $10 to see that site, etc.
How many banks steer people to ATM machines and charge for tellers. Why? ATMs are cheaper. Computer companies have 900 numbers for help but free driver download from the net. Start charging and see who gets a bad review in the next website or PC Magazine.
Cable TV is the same way. You pay to get it and, if you want, pay for the premium stuff like HBO, Showtime, etc. What would happen if cable TV charged you every channel "a la carte?" Watch people flock away. | |
|
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- | |
|
|
Cuchulainn
The Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| But the real Scare Is... Anyone care to take this bet??
The Telcos and the ISPs will make the logical inference that if people are willing to pay for content, then they must be willing to pay per Mb for the privilege of downloading that overpriced content. NEVER MIND that we are already paying too much for broadband access as it is, some smartass marketing droid is gonna figure out that the telcos can charge for downloads...
I can see it now "lessee, sir, you downloaded 100mb this month...at our ComLinkStarPointBandMegaTelCo discount rate of only $4.00 per mb, that adds up to $400 per month. Will that be cash, check, charge or shall we just take your first born and your left testicle??"
Personally, I'm not ever gonna pay for content. Who needs CNN's shitty little videos anyway? "Kamal Hyder reports on the race to determine the fastest Pinworm in Paktia province this year.....a bargain at only $20 per download."
How dumb do they think consumers are??
--
Me fail English? Un-possible!!Ralph Wiggum | |
|
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | IF I PAY If i pay for content, it should be DECENT QUALITY. That means NO WMV or REAL format. | |
|
cstrippie$
join:2001-12-19
Ceylon
|  Where is the COMPELLING content?
Music is a compelling app - I would *love* to have a 100% reliable and legal source for music, but it must be of high quality, portable to any device I choose, and be reasonably priced ($1.50/song?), I will NOT pay a monthly fee, unless that fee is for unlimited downloads and is reasonable (say $30/mo).
Give me something WORTH paying for first...
Craig | |
|
|
| omar93
join:2001-10-17
Mission Viejo, CA | Re: Who cares? Yea but Fox news is bogus. They aren't a real news organization, that's why people call them FAUX news. Try reading the BBC web site for news. | |
|
| | 
Pyrion
Liquid Metal Nanomorph
join:2001-12-01
Poway, CA
clubs: | Re: Who cares? Fox News is bogus?
Gee, the truth must really hurt, don't it?
--
Try and describe me, and I'll change shape again! | |
|
Fuzx
Premium
join:2001-12-13
La Grange, KY | Maybe CNN's ride is over They can't make money if nobody buys.. heqq they don't even answer their email with anything but canned messages for their 'FOR SALE' products
C'ya on the tube CNN | |
|
djrobsd
join:2002-01-24
San Diego, CA
| Wake up!
If you take a look at online dating services, you will know what I mean.
The first major company to stop offering online dating for free was AOL's Love@AOL service. They switched over to the pay match.com. So i told myself, great, I still have Yahoo.
Months later, Yahoo turned pay..
That left Excite..
Well Excite went under, and the new owners of Excite aren't doing it for free either, so ya gotta pay.
Of course there were plenty of other online match making sites, but NONE of them are free any more.
Sure you can browse ads for free, but as soon as you want to email someone, ya gotta pay, $19.95 a month.. that's a hefty price just to get a date, but it must be working, since the sites are all still around.
 | |
|
sphinx1189$
join:2001-07-23
Bronx, NY
| THIS IS INCREDIBLE | |
|
|
n0alpha
@attbi.com | Re: No More Free Ride Why would anyone even want to watch the Comunist News Network in the first place? | |
|
Dirtyping
join:2001-10-30
West Haverstraw, NY
| CNN Big Mistake Since CNN started thier website I would check the site several times throughout and there was always plenty of content with frequent updates throughout the day
Has anyone noticed with each passing month there is less and less content on CNN's website and it is also not being updated as frequently.
With the recent changes over the last 6 months I hardly ever visit the site now anyway. I am sure I am not the only one and they will lose more users once they start charging for video content.
I wonder what genious at CNN thought of this idea. | |
|
|
|
Net Surfer
@gtei.net | Re: Look at TV Even with cable for whicy you pay $40 to $90 per month you still have to watch billions of commercial on all but the premium channels such as HBO, and even with them you have to watch a ton of promos. | |
|
| |
Hop
Prostate cancer sucks
Premium
join:2002-03-16
Tarpon Springs, FL
clubs: | Re: Look at TV And many of the promos are worse then the ads!
--
What if they took our computers away? | |
|
|
| gss4w
join:2002-02-25
Charlottesville, VA | Re: You gotta love irony I wonder what they think of the fact that 80% of the people responding to their poll question, "Do you currently pay for online content?" responded with, "No, and I won't." | |
|
| |
Baine25
@207.30.x.x
| Re: You gotta love irony When you begin to add up the total costs of subscription after subscription it easy to realize that taking a few classes in programming is far cheaper. Why programming you ask....learn a few hacker skills and hell just steal the content you want. Thats what everyone does with movies, songs, software etc. etc. anyway. I would much rather spend countless hours online searching for free content until my eyes bled than give another single f-ing penny to corporations that offer crap at the price of filet mingon and try to convince us that it really doesnt taste like shit. I've grown sick to death of companies that refuse to back their products simply because they dont have to, what are you gonna do....sue em, for a $10, $20 or even $50 item, I dont think so. So it is not nescesary for them to provide quality because if crap is all that is for sale and nothing even worth crap is free whatcha gonna do...... | |
|
| | | 
WildGod
God Is Dead
Premium
join:2002-01-30
NYC
| Re: You gotta love irony Just wondering. If we do pay for access are we still bombarded by advertising and popups and pop unders?
Hmmmmm seems to me regular TV has been free forever so why would I pay to see CNN clips? Ill either watch the local news or watch CNN on my cable.
Besides how can you tell me they are losing money? How can CNN.com lose money? The streaming video is from footage they already have and the news stories are already prepared for the day. Such crybabies. Im so sick of companies complaining they are losing money. They are not losing money, they just arent making more than they did last year. Ill give CNN a clue, fire Larry King and his bloated salary which he doesnt deserve (hes the biggest moron i have ever heard speak not to mention a criminal) and there would be more than enough to cover the cost of CNN.com for the next century.
--
AOL DSL SUCKS
[text was edited by author 2002-03-20 18:42:56] | |
|
| | | | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | Re: You gotta love irony The only actual cost I can think of is moving it to html format and bandwidth...but the compensation should be the the adverts they dump all over the page. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
Support the sites that are worth supporting
