The article on content and backlash

So much isn't appreciated until its removal is threatened...

the something for nothing philosophy is entrenched on the net frogboy. It's not going to go away overnite.

Good riddance, I say. But I wouldn't take kuro5hin as a "general" site.

Well, a few variables come into play here. First, you have to look at their visitors. Most of them are strong members of the open source community, all of which who are use to getting everything for free. So kuro5hin isn't exactly the most ideal site to try out a membership system on. However, none the less, I think the way they are working their membership system leaves a lot to be desired. It is clear to me that the Internet is going to move towards this revenue model, the problem is that no one has done it right. Regardless though, I would imagine that although you see a good number of people "threatening" to leave (note the people who claimed they'd never come back to skinz.org, and did), most will continue to visit the site and many will in fact pay. I don't think their idea was thought out very well, but I do commend them for trying the idea.

-gorman

*waves goodbye to the idiots that just dont understand*

people like that are obviously not worth keeping. if they can't realize that the site is still free, just an added feature, then they're not worth participation in the community.

To clarify a bit, I don't think their idea was very well thought out due to their lack of offering to paid users. They want to charge 5 dollars a month to not see ads; well, who in their right mind is going to pay that? It's all about planning, and it seems to me that this was a spur of the moment thing. Anyway, this can be done right; they just aren't doing it that way.

-gorman

I agree with you Jark. If I was running the site I would say See Ya and don't bother coming back until you grow up.

I agree with both jark and gorman...

Keeping users has to be a priority for many sites. After all, hits matter when it comes to getting advertising.

However, since many of these users may be a little reluctant to actually put the effort in on using some intelligence, approaching this in a more pacifying way may have avoided such rebellion.

For some people the line between making them understand and insulting them is way too fine.

Ditto. All the people who want a free lunch should be shuttled off into dark places.

people think that the $10 they pay their isp is all they should pay to get everything. but if you want a quality website it's going to eventually cost somehow unless ad revenue comes back.

Well, I'll tell ay this much, I do not pay $10 a month for my line. I pay $50, for it. I pay my $$$, to have all these banner ads, pop up, and what not shoved down my throat. I pay the same amount for my DSS, subscription, give or take a few bucks. I have content on both, one is merely Televised, programming, and the other is Web Based programming. I do not see the Television Networks Clammoring about the downfall, of their Media. The only problem I have with all of this pay or play, crap is that, if in fact it weren't for the Dot Com'ers running the Net into the ground, we wouldn't be where, we are now. Finally the Chickens come home to roost, and everyone wants us to Pony up to the Bar, and pay the new Tab. I don't mind paying a Subscription to the Sites I care about, just don't Niggle me to death about it. And for those of you, griping about the folks that expect everything for free, "What do you expect?" It was built and they came...
Every Person on this board has accessed for free, for a long time, so don't cop an attitude towards Others for doing the very thing, you have done yourself. It's kinda like all the Baby Boomers, blowing the Resources, made available to them, making tons of Money and Pillaging the Environment, and Now expecting the later Generations, to support them and their excesses.
Also I want you all to remember, the driving force behind this Media is commerce, and and commerce pushed it to the edge, with Multiple boxes in every home, Set-top devices, Mobile Devices, devices of every nature, with the intention of bringing everyone, to the party.
Don't get mad, because all of a sudden, where out of chips and soda.

It's when we are out of beer that I get really pissed... [or is that 'because'?]....

Heh, CygnusXII expressed most of what I'm thinking here.

Some more, cause I think it's going two ways here. Revenue model is gonna rule and that's ok, worthwhile I guess and believe, really...

..but I'm not gonna pay. I just won't. Most people will, eventually. Some won't, and guess that will be some underground thingy or whatever...

..no, that's too easy. I really believe that "free" spirit kinda thing is not gonna die, but will live, and get stronger even, it just might find it more easy to stick to its own corner, where people will find it anyway.

Look at the amount of people offering their "little" creations for free. That's still very possible, free hosting and such are available, but just might die.

While it all might look easy, you'll find some people there that are actually paying to provide stuff for free. Why ? Because they find themselves recognized and stuff, got caught in some good webvibes. A friend of mine is convinced this webthing brings up the most evil, but also most honest characteristics of mankind. I'll sticjk to the latter...

Problem with paying to provide things for free is when you start having to pay so much that it begins to affect your life and the one of those that depend on you.

On the web, as previously stated before, sites are victims of their own success - this because there are literally millions of people surfing the web at every instant. A site becomes too successful and the bandwidth bill goes through the roof. No can do (unless you're some kind of altruistic Bill Gates, of course).

Successful free sites where thus supported by advertising until recently (as are magazines, newspapers and tv). When you buy a newspaper, its actually the advertisers that are covering most of the costs - you just pay some minimum amount. When you pay your cable TV, you are not supporting the networks (actual content), just the cable service... again, its advertising that supports the networks.

Unfortunately the advertising business model does not work on the net. Magazines, for instance, have two advantages: first advertising is targeted, second you will see that full page article wether you want it or not when you flip the page in the middle of an interesting article.

With TV it's something similar: There you are, completely hipnotized by that great show, when BAM, they switch to comercials. Of course we can break the spell and walk away or turn the sound off, but most of us will just do nothing and wait for the show to resume - in the mean time some or all of those adverts came through to you.

On the net we don't exactly flip pages like we do with magazines... so the adverts were mostly peripheral and we learned to ignore them, or used ad blocks. When the pop ups came, we would close those irritating little windows faster than they could show their content... Add to that the fact that advertising was not targeted and you can see why the advertising-pays-all business model failed on the net.

Some other solution must be found... just don't ask me which one(s). However, one good thing came out of the dot com collapse: people started to realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too. As in real life, generally speaking, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Good things come at a price, which you or someone else will have to pay.

Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.70 - The Desktop Revolution Begins Here!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet

Well, to further the Overburdening, issue,
and to show, how ludicrous, commerce is
pushing this issue, and to further my point
about access devices, here is a link about
MS and a Park Bench in England.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/601116.asp?0si=-&cp1=1

Sounds silly, but I guess they will wire, anything.

Excellent points!

"However, one good thing came out of the dot com collapse: people started to realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too."

This is so very true, and I've often found myself saying the exact same thing. People have finally realized that they can't run a website or web-based company off of just ads, or out of pocket; they have now realized that in order to stay afloat they must employee some sort of a true business plan.

The Internet will move to a membership model. It’s just a matter of people getting use to it, which they will. Two or three years down the road people will think back upon the days when things were free and wonder what in the world webmasters and ‘net company CEOs were thinking. You pay 7 bucks to see a movie, 30 a year for a magazine subscription, so how does it make sense not to pay for things on the Internet? Yes, the Internet was free for some time, but I disagree with the fact that things on the 'net are suppose to be free. The only reason people say that is because they were for so long, mainly because people couldn't figure out how to create a proper revenue model. Additionally, everyone and their brother use to be able to get funding; now only companies with a real plan do. It makes sense, things are finally coming to the make it or break it point. Either the Internet starts to become profitable as a whole or it’s all going to fall apart.

In all, I would very joyfully pay money for sites which I visit daily. I know how it is, I've run sites for years, and I know that membership systems are the way of the future.

-gorman

Gorman, the subscription model will only succeed if there are no free alternatives and I believe that will not happen for a very long time yet.

I wouldn't pay a dime for the sites I visit daily. Not because I'm a miser, but because most of the stuff I get from them, I could get for free elsewhere or because I can find "real-world" alternatives. I'd rather pay for a newspaper subscription, than to pay some news site.

A lot of people still pay lots of money for internet access, they will not be willing to fork out additional cash from their already overburdened budgets in order to download some skins for their free MP3 player or whatnot. If skin sites were subscription based, I doubt they'd generate such a following. Software companies would in turn have to have their own free skin repositories or face bankruptcy in a very short time. Can you imagine WC being subscription based? How many people would buy WB, DesktopX, IP, etc and then pay WC to download skins? Access to skin repositories as part of a cost of the product, that might work, but an additional cost...I doubt it.

quote >>
Gorman, the subscription model will only succeed if there are no free alternatives and I believe that will not happen for a very long time yet.
>
I wouldn't pay a dime for the sites I visit daily. Not because I'm a miser, but because most of the stuff I get from them, I could get for free elsewhere or because I can find "real-world" alternatives. I'd rather pay for a newspaper subscription, than to pay some news site.
<<

Last time I checked, you couldn't find a skin site in the real world. Nor could you find all of the content on a site like news.com in the real world. If you can get all the content you get on the Internet in the real world, why even bother being on the Internet? Also, I don't understand why you'd pay for a subscription to a tech magazine (example) and not something like news.com, geeknews, or any other site like it. If you are trying to say that the quality isn't up to that in print sources, I definitely disagree.

I agree that people aren't willing to pay for 50 different websites; that would be insane. I won't go into too much detail, but imagine a situation like this ... you pay an extra 10 dollars a year for the Object Desktop Network and you get unlimited access to WinCustomize, and maybe some exclusive material (like they had on their CD). That's just an example, yet a viable one. Regardless though, with thinking like that, the Internet will be nearly empty in a two years or so. No one wants that, do they?

-gorman

Wow, what I had above didn't submit correctly at all. Let's try that again.

-- quote --
Gorman, the subscription model will only succeed if there are no free alternatives and I believe that will not happen for a very long time yet.
----

It's already getting to that point. But that's sad; it means that quality sites are closing down. This problem needs to be corrected BEFORE these sites close, not after.

-- quote --
I wouldn't pay a dime for the sites I visit daily. Not because I'm a miser, but because most of the stuff I get from them, I could get for free elsewhere or because I can find "real-world" alternatives. I'd rather pay for a newspaper subscription, than to pay some news site.
----

Last time I checked, you couldn't find a skin site in the real world. Nor could you find all of the content on a site like news.com in the real world. If you can get all the content you get on the Internet in the real world, why even bother being on the Internet? Also, I don't understand why you'd pay for a subscription to a tech magazine (example) and not something like news.com, geeknews, or any other site like it. If you are trying to say that the quality isn't up to that in print sources, I definitely disagree.

I agree that people aren't willing to pay for 50 different websites; that would be insane. I won't go into too much detail, but imagine a situation like this ... you pay an extra 10 dollars a year for the Object Desktop Network and you get unlimited access to WinCustomize, and maybe some exclusive material (like they had on their CD). That's just an example, yet a viable one. Regardless though, with thinking like that, the Internet will be nearly empty in a two years or so. No one wants that, do they?

-gorman

Well, I'm with plastic on this. I'm greedy.

How Much have we lost to Internet II ?
The Free Ride continues, on that medium. I am sure, that as long as it does, it will promote the feelings that Net Content, should be FREE.
And Once, again the American Public is footing the Bill, via Tax Dollars. So you ask me am I going to pay for, this or that. Excuse me Buddy, but I already have. Every deduction from my Paycheck, from Uncle Sam, has paid for the development of this Medium. Lest we forget our past....DARPA. I was there in the beginning, tresspassing and freeloading, with the others.

I'm not sure I see your point. Yes, you are paying tax dollars for further development/research of Internet II, and I'm sure to some extent, the Internet itself. However, I'm unsure as to how your tax dollars help webmasters get paid even enough to pay their server bills.

-gorman

The Point I am trying to reinforce, is the fact that, I am at dual purposes, here.
I am financing the New Generations, that expect free content, and I am also being asked to pay for content, because everyone expected it for free, and noone is making any money, anymore.
I paid for them to shove ads down my throat,Now I am going to have to pay to NOT have ads shoved down my throat. The Grand Money Ploy that was the Dot Com Revolution, has just about driven this Country into a recession. After everyone has enjoyed all their toys, and money, they are leaving it to the little people (once again), to pick up the pieces. Frankly I am getting tired of it.

Hmm not sure what to say or how to put this :

I feel that in order for any business to survive in the world, it has to have some kind of contributions to the business in order to survive. Ok, there is over heads to pay for in a business which revenue has to come from some kind of source. An Option in a web Community whereby you could have a Free area whereby you get pop up banners, and such compared to an 'additional' feature in the Web site where you pay membership not to recieve the banners, doesn't seem like a bad idea. Many sites use this idea particualry Web Space Providers.

A system where you can be a member and choose to recieve or not recieve banners and such seems fine. I cannot see a problem in this philosphy. People just expecting a free ride arn't being realistic to the pains of running the Web site/Etc. Users then become to the point of taking it for granted that it all should be free. Web Site Masters, Anyone who is in the serious business of providing a Good service and reliable FAST bandwith's, al realise to do that you need money. But I wonder how many of the general users who log on to their site's realise that ? [Just my thoughts]

I do not want to seem like a total idiot, when it comes to the finances of keeping things running.
I do see a need for other monetary funding.
I understand, that Honest Joe Company, want to provide me with a nice website to visit, and is seeking an alternative to Banners, and whatnot.
I am just a single, person on a box, coming over a wire. I am part of the machine that, has become fed up with all the wastefull, practices, of this Industry. If alot of the Companies, saved their monies, and used them properly, we wouldn't be at this point. I am reminded of that darned Grasshopper, and the Ant Parable.