In addition to Blogger, another popular blogging website is Wordpress. One of the things I really like about Wordpress is their "Freshly Pressed" page, which is a home page of sorts that features recently updated user blogs on various trendy topics. Today, one of the freshly pressed blogs was Hightalk who had written about the Internet's "Free" Problem.
According to this blog, a recent survey found that 49% of Internet users have tried free micro-blogging services like Twitter, yet 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.
This introduces the Internet's Free Problem-- users do not want to pay for anything that they already receive for free. We have been conditioned to expect certain online services like email, social networks, music, etc. to be provided for us at no cost.
Of course, not all of these free services will be sustainable without eventually asking income from it's users. Just this past month, The Tallahassee Democrat newspaper started charging for online content, and some other periodicals do as well.
What I'm wondering is, if you had to choose between paying for Web 2.0 sites and applications, would you do it or go without? Which ones would you pay for and why?
I would pay for an online email account like Yahoo or Google, but that's about it.
According to this blog, a recent survey found that 49% of Internet users have tried free micro-blogging services like Twitter, yet 0% of them would be willing to pay for it.
This introduces the Internet's Free Problem-- users do not want to pay for anything that they already receive for free. We have been conditioned to expect certain online services like email, social networks, music, etc. to be provided for us at no cost.
Of course, not all of these free services will be sustainable without eventually asking income from it's users. Just this past month, The Tallahassee Democrat newspaper started charging for online content, and some other periodicals do as well.
What I'm wondering is, if you had to choose between paying for Web 2.0 sites and applications, would you do it or go without? Which ones would you pay for and why?
I would pay for an online email account like Yahoo or Google, but that's about it.
I am thinking most of us already pay for Internet service and truly believe we shouldn't have to pay for more content.
ReplyDeleteI might pay a nominal amount for Google email, but would probably go with the 'free' account I get as an AT&T customer.
At this point in time, I don't think there is a service that I would pay for. There are so many free options that there isn't one service that has the market cornered.
ReplyDeleteOn a somewhat related note, Newsday, the Long Island newspaper, recently started charging for access to the online version of their paper. I chose not to pay for access to their site. Since my favorite hockey team is the New York Islanders, and Newsday is the "hometown" paper, I do miss their coverage, but there are many other media outlets that cover them, so it is not like I had to choose between all or nothing.
Not only are sites beginning to charge for access, but some sites are charging a nominal fee (.50) to post a comment to news stories. This is a meager attempt to cut down on the number of malicious comments.
ReplyDeleteCharging to cut down on spam and flames is really an ingenious idea - not too many that spew verbal waste are willing to do it.
ReplyDeleteI concur with the majority of opinion here, this is much like the early years of television. It is already inundated with corporate sponsors and other paid ads - no one is going broke here. The only possible argument against that is that the government hasn't been able to tax us on it YET. I can see charging for a commercial free service, akin to Sirius in radio, of for premium content, such as Showtime, etc. I do not see any justification in charging for internet services, such as I currently receive. I pay for the equipment and the access and the government gets plenty of revenue from taxing THAT!