ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Barry Diller: The Internet 'Absolutely' Will Become a 'Paid System'. Time Projection: Within 5 Years

By | June 10, 2009, 12:04pm PDT

Summary: The days of the free Internet will draw to a close over the next five years, according to the chairman and chief executive of IAC, the interactive services company which operates a collection of more than 30 Internet sites which produce $1.5 billion a year in revenue. The only missing link, according to Barry Diller, who [...]


The days of the free Internet will draw to a close over the next five years, according to the chairman and chief executive of IAC, the interactive services company which operates a collection of more than 30 Internet sites which produce $1.5 billion a year in revenue.

The only missing link, according to Barry Diller, who cut his teeth building up over-the-air and cable TV networks: a good billing system, akin to Amazon’s “one-click” button or the Apple iPhone’s slick downloading of paid applications.

“I absolutely believe the Internet is passing from its free days into a paid system. Inevitably, I promise you, it will be paid,” Diller said in a keynote discussion opening up the Advertising 2.0 conference held at his company’s futuristic glass building alongside the Hudson River in Manhattan. “Not every single thing, but anything of value. “

The fact that content and services on the Internet so far have been largely supplied for no charge is “an accident of historical moment that will be corrected,” he said, in an era of “creative chaos” that will span the next three to five years.

So far, news, content and service suppliers were “afraid of not being dinosaurs and slapped everything up on the Internet for free,’’ he said, in an interchange with BusinessWeek media columnist Jon Fine.

But, that will be change. The New York Times, for instance, likely will have to go beyond the “pay wall” in order to cover the cost of its worldwide reporting corps, even if it means having 1, 2 or 3 million paid subscribers, instead of 20 million unique visitors a month. And people will pay – if it is quality they’re buying.

“People have paid for content,’’ he said. “They always have.”

IAC’s Match.com, a dating service, already charges subscription fees. IAC also operates Ask.com, the search service, UrbanSpoon, one of those iPhone apps, Citysearch, a local information service, and The Daily Beast, a content site headed by former New Yorker editor Tina Brown.

Inevitably, Diller said, the “base model” of the Internet will be paid, at the end of the chaos. The forms will include not just subscriptions and individual one-time purchases, but rapid-fire micropayments and other mechanisms.

The early examples: Amazon’s “one-click” system, where a customer enters billing address and credit card information in advance. Then, a button on the screen for a shopping cart is pressed once and the purchase or purchases associated with that cart are confirmed, billed, paid for and delivered.

Similarly, with the App Store for Apple’s iPhone handheld computing and communication devices, “the real trick and key is the billing system and the way of doing it is absolutely a blink,’’ he said.

The right billing system, broadly applied, would remove “one of the greatest bars of buying anything” which “is the steps it takes” to complete a purchase.

The entire Internet, in effect, would become an app – or content – store.

“That little thing – that in fact that you scroll it, you do it, it comes, everything else is taken care of, is the answer to what’s going to happen on the Internet, when in fact, you get the applicability of that broadly across the Internet,” Diller said. “It’s absolutely going to happen.”

And given the movement of ad and subscription revenue to the Internet, “people who manufacture that content will have no alternative,” he said.

The biggest disruptor? When broadband pipes to the Internet are connected to large screens in living rooms around the world and users are interacting with its increasingly video-based content with a remote control.

At that point, television, radio and prior media founded on scarcity, like limited spectrum whose use is overseen by governments, “will be run over by this much more open, much much less controlled (medium) that is not based on scarcity, but based on unbelievable plenty,” Diller said

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Tom Steinert-Threlkeld is editor-in-chief of Securities Industry News, as well as a long-time media, technology and business journalist.

Disclosure

Tom Steinert-Threlkeld

Tom Steinert-Threlkeld has interests in two Web startups, which he cannot disclose until formally launched. They do not involve enterprise computing. He holds interests in technology companies only through mutual funds in which he has no say in their selection of investments. He has worked for Reed Elsevier PLC, Ziff Davis Media and the A.H. Belo Corporation.

Biography

Tom Steinert-Threlkeld

Tom Steinert-Threlkeld is editor-in-chief of Securities Industry News, as well as a long-time media, technology and business journalist.

He experimented with online news delivery a quarter century ago, with a text-only online service called StarText at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in Texas.
403
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Well, my ISP hiked my price about $5; and...
JCitizen 23rd Dec 2009
I promptly dropped my bundle with them, phone and cable.

In this economy we have to put our foot down! I can go back to biking and reading magazines, I could care less!

If it weren't that I make a living on the internet, I would have dropped the DSL too! If they hike that again, I'll go back to 10 dollar dialup, or simply start doing email off my cell service! I know I can get a good deal off that!!
0 Votes
+ -
News Flash: It has ALWAYS been a PAID system
BillDem Updated - 10th Jun 2009
Saying it will become a paid system in 5 years is basically living in a delusional bubble. It has been a paid system from the start.

Everyone pays for the Internet already. We pay for the speed of the connection. Some pay email providers. Some pay for online storage. Some pay by buying products online. Some pay for rare and valuable information or to receive specific publications. We also pay with the attention we give to advertisements on our favorite sites. We pay with the time we waste sorting through all the spam we get from advertisers.

Why doesn't it surprise me that it's an old fart saying how people have always paid for content and will continue? People have always been able to listen to the radio and watch television for FREE, too. That swings both ways and means nothing.

That sort of ancient-mindset is why the recording industry is having so much trouble these days. It reeks of the mindset of control freaks from a 50's industry like the RIAA or MPAA. Start charging for or somehow limiting the content people already get for free and you will go bankrupt unless you can add enough value to justify the charges.

These days people want more from content. These days the REAL product you need to sell is improved quality of life. How will your content make my life better? How will it save me time? How will it smooth out my daily routine? Focus on that instead of how much you can squeeze out of somebody because of X bytes of your bandwidth they used.

What people might pay for is value-added and highly-targeted content available on their own schedule. If you want an example of the RIGHT way to get people to pay for a content service, look at what TIVO did for TV or NetFlix with instant Internet streaming. Even digital music purchased through iTunes is an example of how to sell content to a busy, overstressed public. Charging by the megabyte will only piss them off by giving them one more thing to count and worry about. Make it simple. Make it transparent. Make it worry free. Make our lives better. Then we'll talk.
0 Votes
+ -
yep
djmik 10th Jun 2009
I was reading and reading, looking for the end so I could post the same comment. You are right. For what we pay for broadband, nothing is free. Strictly speaking of the services offered online, the comment in this article is correct, less people will pay for a particular service, like the Journal, but they will pay for quality. I think the Journal can pull this off. The disconnect will come with frivolous stuff, like Facebook and Twitter. People, by and large, will absolutely not pay for a service that is fun, but we can otherwise do without.
0 Votes
+ -
Barry Barry Barry
Teedoff 11th Jun 2009
I think what Barry is saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that we will have to pay for virtually every site we visit. Ain't gonna do it.
0 Votes
+ -
HORAY!!!
webmessia 12th Jun 2009
If he wants to eliminate the great majority of internet users who will never use a subscribtion or pay service, it will be his business that will dissapear. In a recession internet subscriptions are a disposable luxury no matter what the quality is. Theres also the matter of those who can not pay. Barry is obviously ignorrant that under 18's fuel the social networking profits, and they legally can not use a billing system. IAC is responsible for irritating websites like PopularScreenSavers and Smiley Central. I say good riddence! GM went bust because it grew too fast and became too big and unsturdy. Companies like this will find their free counter parts will rise even further beyond them and they will get left behind. Anyone sujesting such a billing system is saying they don't want visitors. Not a problem, we didn't really want to visit anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
Scum
John N. 1st Jul 2009
IAC is one of the robber-baron internet bottom feeders, right up there with Doubleclick...
So consider the source when reading such drivel. Or be one of the sheep they depend on, your choice... Death to internet scum!
0 Votes
+ -
I also....
maggietoo9 6th Jul 2009
Ain't gonna do it!
0 Votes
+ -
Not true think cents not dollars
nate12680 Updated - 25th Jan 2010
Premium content page five cents?... click.

10,000 hits later writer makes 500$ per article.
0 Votes
+ -
Ariel
LiteSoul 11th Jun 2009
Hey, That seems a good idea!
0 Votes
+ -
That's all well and good...
bishofthedump 11th Jun 2009
If you've got a credit/debit card in the black, and can spare a few
dollars every time you go online. What about the developing world?
We've spent all this money in R&D building cheap netbooks for them,
now we're going to say "Sorry you can only read this if you can spare
five cents"? The money quickly adds up, and only a small minority of
those from poorer countries would be able to tap into the content.

It's a fine model (Barry Diller's - this isn't a personal attack on you,
nate) if your aim is to reassert the two-tier nature of the global
economy, but if - as I've always been led to believe - we're actually
trying to atone for the sins of our forefathers and create a more equal
world, this can't be seen as anything other than a regressive and self-
serving plan concocted by greedy fat cats with no thought for the
harm it does those who can't pay.

Content provision needs some kind of subsidy, no-one can deny that
- but it can't be an all-or-nothing brick wall that favours those with
disposable income and marginalises those without. That flies in the
face of the entire point of mass-publication, which has educated and
entertained the less-affluent since its inception via the printing press.

I sincerely hope Diller's blowing bubbles from a place where the sun
doesn't shine. More paypal-style 'donate' buttons (and more self-
regulation from the readers/downloaders/users), and less fixed fees,
please.
0 Votes
+ -
I'll click the free page
nate12680 11th Jun 2009
I definately see a "If I had a penny for every time" model, but so long as there is a free alternative, Ill click that...

Im thinking that the basic fallacy with the " charge like the app store idea" is that there is no apple oversite to approve/deny websites.

Really Id guess the current system is pretty much how it is going to stay.

But its been fun considering options and future trends.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen!
cpodman 16th Jun 2009
I am in total agreement. Check out my earlier response.

Dr. Chris
0 Votes
+ -
$500
Tom Steinert-Threlkeld 16th Jun 2009
Or, $500, anyway, by that math (Five cents times 10,000). TST
0 Votes
+ -
True!
LiquidLearner 10th Jun 2009
Considering most "news articles" are just posts off the AP newswire with a slightly different wording from site to site why would you pay for several news subscriptions? If they provide content no one else does is the only way and very few news sites can say that.
0 Votes
+ -
No you wouldn't pay for several subscriptions but it is more pernicious and dangerous than that.

Whilst these secondary news services continue to regurgitate a primary new source, they are at least news services. Close them down and you eventually only have one.

Media outlets that concentrate news and information from very few sources are now a major impediment to the proper and accurate dissemination of that news.

Further contraction of media outlets--more concentration of the media into one voice--would be dire. Even with well-meaning proprietors/owners, there would always be the potential for Orwellian type control over information.

In any free society, even the potential for such a scenario would be totally unacceptable. It would be dangerous for our democracies and even more so for the citizens that constitute them.

They make money off adds. The more visits they get the more clicks on adds they get and some like this site are sending me news in return for looking at adds. I don't click on an add very often but if I'm interested I have.

0 Votes
+ -
Orwellian?!!! Really?!!!!!!
ayj8@... Updated - 18th Jun 2009
Yes traditional media outlets have concentrated and this is a danger; however, when it comes to the Internet, the outlets for information are so numerous that the danger is not the consolidation and control of information, but the lack of any meaningful way to parse out the truth from the false and misrepresented in a vast sea of information.
Sorry, I don't see the Orwellian reference at all - it is just a transition to a new preferred medium - like the shift from radio to television in the 20th century that caused the primacy of radio to wane. What's different this time around is that it is a medium capable of much more than all of the predecessors combined. Where tradition print and radio outlets begin to constrict, thousands more take their place online. The question is - which online information outlets do we begin to put our trust in?
Depends on what your definition of democracy and a free society are - but I can't imagine calling a society continuing to impose more and more financial impediments to vast amounts of knowledge progress towards freedom. If anything people are inundated with and seek out too much meaningless information, and continue to overlook information about the issues and events that are most significant to protecting their civil rights, preserving their long-term economic well being, and actively influencing their elected representatives.
0 Votes
+ -
gramps is right
nengels@... 11th Jun 2009
Only a small section of the vast Internet world requires pay to play. Paying an ISP for a broadband hook up has nothing to do with content or app providers. They dont share revenue, and would trigger anti trust suits if they did.
This old man knows that people always pay for good information, and he knows that it isn't very common to pay for quality via the Internet. As the nation's print news industry shrinks each day (NYT lost $75 mil last quarter), high quality free content will become scarce. Blogging is only interesting if it starts with an actual piece of news that some Princeton trained journalist spent two weeks researching and writing about.
Instead of thinking about Netflix (a model that proves Diller's point when you consider what movies are available online - you wont see harry potter there!) look at the financial news industry. The online wall street journal has always charged and people always pay because you cant find that quality of information anywhere else. People pay for traditional mediums that yield a lower quality user experience - why wouldnt they pay for higher quality experience over the Internet that isnt preceded by a trip to the store or bank? I like reading thoroughly researched well written articles, so I pay $4 for the NY Times when I'm in Manhattan.
The ONLY people paying the WSJ for their "Content" on the Internet are rich bozos who couldn't care less about paying. Trust me, there's no one making less than $50,000 a year paying for a WSJ subscription on the Internet unless they're a young stockbroker. Simple fact is, you're NEVER going to get the hundreds of millions of Internet users to go for paying for EVERY single page of content they visit. Might as well tell me people would go for ABC, CBS, and NBC all of a sudden sending bills to people who watch their stations over the airwaves...lol For every "subscription-based" site that is put up on the Internet, there will ALWAYS be a hundred sites that provide similar, and sometimes even BETTER content for free in order to capitalize from advertising dollars on those customers who will NEVER go for Diller's BS fantasy "Pay for everything" Internet world. The ONLY thing that could prevent that, would be if Barry and all the rest of his rich, greedy, piece of garbage buddies were to somehow get Congress to pass a law BANNING free sites. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen here in America. There would be a revolution if they tried. A VIOLENT ONE.
0 Votes
+ -
Pay attention, hotnuke 2007
dpabowen 11th Jun 2009
If there were 100 sites that offered the quality financial news and information that the WSJ provided, do you think the "rich bozos" would frequent the WSJ? They're not rich because their stupid. They recognize the value they're getting, and the leg up it gives them in terms of their understanding of the financial world, and they're willing to pay for it. The fact is that most news and information sites and blogs aggregate news that was paid for by the news services. That's not sustainable. God bless them if they can go out and do it on their own, but I find that prospect pretty unlikely. It takes time (which costs money) to deliver quality content.
0 Votes
+ -
Pay attention, dpabowen
hotnuke2007 11th Jun 2009
There are a 100 sites that offer FREE quality financial news and information. Again, the ONLY reason these rich bozos pay for the WSJ is because they couldn't care less about paying for it. The simple fact is, and you can dispute it all you want, and believe Barry Diller's BS all you want, his prognostications are sheer idiocy. Sure, some news services will begin to only offer their webpages under a paid for subscription service. But if you truly believe that ALL news services will, then you're simply a moron. Why? Because it ignores simple economics. The economics at play here? There will be a HUGE demand for free content on the part of news consumers that advertisers will recognize and have already recognized for a decade now, is a huge market. Those advertisers will GLADLY pay to advertise on the "free" news websites, as they're already doing. The ONLY way Barry Diller's fantasy world could EVER come about would be if you had congress BAN free web content. And trust me, moron, if congress were to attempt that, there would be a violent revolution in this country. Every single one of those members of congress would be six feet under inside of a month.
0 Votes
+ -
or maybe it will about when hell freezes over.................
0 Votes
+ -
Easy, now...
emcauley 11th Jun 2009
You might consider easing the rhetoric, bro; you have some good points but all of the hyperbole and name-calling makes your argument unpalatable. How will people ever hear what you're saying if they can't get past the extraneous virulence contained in your delivery? Are you familiar with the phrase: "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still?"
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed - US-centric view?
Dcarm 11th Jun 2009
Given the international nature of the internet, the only law the US congress could pass with any meaning would be to prohibit the visiting of free internet sites within the US. You will never eradicate free content, I agree with you there, but there will always be premium brandings such as the Wall Street Journal who will be able to charge because they have recognition within their industry as the Journal. A lot of time people are not paying for the content, they're paying for names they know and trust. When something terrible happens for these folks, and they lose money for whatever reason, they say "I acted on info X from the wall street journal" and they've followed their industry best practice. It's the same reason that despite MS flaws we use MS for corporate networks. MS is the industry standard. "quality" is a misnomer, "recognition" is the key to being paid.
0 Votes
+ -
Get Off Your High Horse!!
hackettbl@... 12th Jun 2009
He's absolutely right... The only way all Internet pages will have to be paid for is if Congress forces it to happen, just like it forced the auto and banking industries to do its bidding. That can't happen with the Internet unless ISP's start to go bankrupt... Ain't going to happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Grow up a bit.
deowll 12th Jun 2009
Nobody has to to hurt anybody. If a congress critter starts getting mountains of mail and email saying their voters are pissed at them they will act on principle. Do what ever it takes to make their voters happy if they can.

Course it would help if some Congress critters acted like they had brains, backbones, and principles other than short term expedience.
0 Votes
+ -
Just because they pay for that content doesn't mean that they get a financial return on it. This is especially true for the stock market which several studies have shown it is nearly impossible to beat by actively managing a portfolio as opposed to index funds. The people who pay for the WSJ do so for the same reason that people who pay to join Bill O'Rielly's site: the political philosophy that the site espouses. This sort of value however can indeed be had at many sites.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, but no
MacKeyser 11th Jun 2009
I've been reading the WSJ since I was 9 years old (dad was a banker
and brought home is copy from the bank a fair number or evenings).
I'd dog ear it. The quality of information was fascinating and
reasonably in-tune with the facts, even during the fantastically wrong
support of Supply-Side economics (which can be thoroughly
debunked in about 4 sentences, btw).

Since Murdoch bought it, the coverage has been terrible and the
support of monopolistic, parasitic, and sometimes illegal behaviors
over a meritocratic free market where your dollars are the ultimate
arbiter has been just staggering. The WSJ is just not what it once was
and it's a shame.

I would agree that it takes time and TALENT to create and creation
should be rewarded. But there are many models for that.

I think it WILL be accurate that there will be a sort of walled-off
community in time that is micropayment based and folks will face-off
like they do on PC v. Mac nonsense. Will it become like the internet
malls that were basically scams or viable enclaves of rich content,
better enjoyment, etc? I dunno. I'd suggest the former because the
first month would be fine. When some folks got their bills tho, they'd
realize "surfing the net" just wasn't worth it.

Now if the powers that be are trying to kill access to what little info we
had... then turning the internet into a fully paid space is a perfect way
to do just that.
0 Votes
+ -
Who has money?
deowll 12th Jun 2009
Google, MS, Yahoo. They can get content/data and have the money to put it into a usible form and they have adds to pay for visits.

That leaves the question of buying someones' opinion about the data which is going to be a matter of preference as who is worth anything.

The AMA and various bar assciations no doubt have their own web sites to which their members subscribe but for data I suspect people won't have to pay for it.

By the way web blogs still often get the news first or something like twitter.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm sorry dpabowen
joelw@... 15th Jun 2009
I appreciate what you and a few others are trying to say about information sources. I'm sorry that "hotnuke" didn't understand your message.

Please continue to speak up; eventually hotheads like hotnuke (and myself) will come around. It took me a while to understand the importance of diversity in news reporting, but I understand it now and it's changed my spending patterns quite a lot.

But in the meantime, don't forget the power of words, even in these forums. A kind, concise, and wise post can influence more lives than you know.
0 Votes
+ -
Banning free sites...
n00b-herder 11th Jun 2009
One wonders if that would be a violation of our right to FREE Speech... If you want to post content up for free, it would probably be unconstitutional to stop that. The revolution against mandated-cost internet would probably be the creation of a private "free" internet modeling the current system.

Even so, the companies and groups that were willing to provide content for free in exchange for advertising space would have a significant business leg-up on the pay-for-content rivals.

Sorry Barry, you moron, but the current Internet model has created millions of jobs, billions in ad revenue, trillions in sales, and allowed more free speech to permeate planet earth than any other single media type... hence why "old" media is dying away.

Go quietly into the night, you ancient fart.
0 Votes
+ -
Ha...ha... ha...
soldier1234 11th Jun 2009
Right on you old fart!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Sure, ad-supported content will continue to thrive (people, by and large, would rather look at ads than pay for content). But the difference between ppv and asc isn't what will drive this.
It's not what the big companies do that matters. It's the number of potential content providers. The Internet has a virtually unlimited number of content providers. Isn't that what drives crowdsourcing sites? If anyone thinks that the community can't provide as good or better than a corporation in terms of content, they're mistaken. It may take time for the wrinkles to iron out, but the community can do for "free" (actually for mutual benefits to itself) what corporations have to pay big bucks to accomplish. It may have a little less polish, a little less chrome, but what corporations don't seem to understand is that the presentation isn't what attracts people and gets the to return. Overall, the content is. And if the content is good enough and the presentation bad enough, someone else will buy, rent, or steal the content and give it a better presentation. But it's still the content that is the attraction.
0 Votes
+ -
Your Pride Punched me right in the nose
pcguy777 Updated - 11th Jun 2009
You quoted: "Blogging is only interesting if it starts with an actual piece of news that some Princeton trained journalist spent two weeks researching and writing about."

.......................

You are so so.... so wrong about this point.
Never met a person who agrees with that. You must be a princeton journalist major yourself lol.

good luck finding a job in media with that attitude.

nerd.
0 Votes
+ -
He's generalizing
Geek12 11th Jun 2009
You're right about people paying for information they can't get anywhere else, but how many people are willing to pay $4 to read 300 words about a news story when they can get the gist for free from Yahoo News?

Netflix is successful because it is more convenient than the brick and mortar video rental shops, and better than waiting hours to download the full movies from torrents. You can hardly generalize that to the Internet as a whole.
0 Votes
+ -
Anti-trust? Are you kidding?
corlandogcrta.org 11th Jun 2009
I can understand why you might suggest that the service providers don't share revenue with the content providers, but that's simply not true.

The truth is that service providers make as much money through exclusive deals with the contente owners as they do on the sale of the access itself. It's true of Mobile Broadband providers as well as taditional wireline providers. AT&T partners with Yahoo, AOL (of course) provide(d)exclusive content to Time Warner customers, etc, etc, etc. The big (and eben not-so-big) players make deals all the time that they think will make them indispencible to the consumer.

You see, there is money to be made all over the Internet in almost any role that a company can conceive of playing. One has to look no further than the 30-somethings who have become billionaires by creating something that the public wants and then selling it off to the Internet giants (who were, themselves, young start-ups only a decade ago).


It's always been a matter of whatever the market will bear. If the NYT can find stupid people to pay a premium for a newspaper, then they'll gladly sell it to them.

But there is always someone waiting in the wings, who is willing to do it faster, better, cheaper than the big guys.

As long as the Internet is operating in a free market, there will simply never be a time when peopel will pay for their content. Only when it gets a "bailout from the gubment", will it be at risk of becoming unprofitable.

And, although Barry Diller may have made his fortune in a pay system like cable TV, I think he has a biased view. He fails to realize that cable tv outlets aren't succefful because they figured out how to charge people for TV, but rather that they provided a something that customers valued. Like others have said before, if the content that is being provided isn't of value (Hello, Recycled AP sories, anyone?) then why would anyone pay for it?

0 Votes
+ -
pay per view
dhays Updated - 15th Jun 2009
I believe that print publications are losing subscribers because of a decline in quality content. My hometown paper that my 83 year old mother subscribes to, has cut back to publishing only six days a week, and has rearranged things, changed comics, removed comics putting ads or other content in thier place, eliminated Sunday comics, changed the crossword puzzle to a more difficult author or made the print so fine no one but a sixteen year old can read it or made it so big it takes up too much space..., if they keep this up she may close out her subscription too. These publications need to provide things their customers want, quality PROOFREAD articles, complete, spelled correctly, correct information, up-to-date, and the frills people actually subscribe for. Where I live now, the local paper, even though we live in a metropolitan area of over 1 Million people, has cut back its offerings, has cut back its distribution out of its major area, especially out of state distribution boxes. We dropped our subscription years ago, because of its small town mentality, not because of its political leanings, when it should have been offering a robust big city publication. (Still doesn't, so no new subscription, although it is the only daily in town, and I will read someone else's!)
I have several free to subscribe technical business related "trade Publications" that I review content from and the pay subscriptions are always over $100, but to many are free, based upon your qualifications that advertisers are willing to pay enough to underwrite such subscriptions, maybe the internet could continue to be funded this way. I rarely click on an advertisement and try to ignore those annoying self starting videos, while I frantically try to find a stop/Pause button or at least a mute button, just as on TV. I refuse to pay for a DVR that has a subscription price (eg. TIVO), I see no reason for a subscription fee. What value added is there? I have two DVD/VCR combos that record TV at my whim. True a DVR would be more versatile, just not necessary enough to pay a subscription fee, unless I don't have to pay for the machine!
I would guess that there isn't enough content to pay a fee for on the internet either. I don't read the NYT, or any other like that. I don't even like having to "log in" to read an article! It is none of their business who I am or where I live, etc.!
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry...but no.
MegaDude 19th Jun 2009
Its clear that many businesses such as a
newspaper would benefit immensely by the
internet, and of course they would charge the
same they do on their real world business, they
would not start giving newspapers for free only
because they are operating on a different media,
but see, thats not the same thing as "the
internet being paid", that will never happen,
every single one of the most successful and
popular web services/sites are free and will
always be free, being free is the key to their
success.

Theres only one thing really needed to say when
someone make such ludicrous claims: GOOGLE!
0 Votes
+ -
Barry Diller is Behind the Times!
vulpine@... 11th Jun 2009
The internet has been a 'Pay As You Play' system pretty
much since the desktop computer could get access.
Show me anywhere in the country that you can get onto
the internet without having to pay someone for the
privilege.

As for his assertion that everybody will have to pay for
content, I disagree. While a lot of content may become
'Pay More to Get More,' I believe the majority of sites
will remain ad-based or self-paid as it currently
exists. After all, who wants to pay (more than they
already are) to look at a catalog of products or
services? Even in the not-quite-defunct dead-tree
society, retailers and wholesalers knew that a free
catalog tended to bring in more sales than charging for
one. For every dollar they added to the price of the
catalog, their customer base dropped by a logarithmic
amount. The catalog may have cost the retailer money
to produce, but when potential customers had to pay
more than a token amount, they tended not to buy
either the catalog or from the vendor.

Remember how big the Spiegel catalog used to be
when it was free? Look at it now; and while you're at it,
look now big Spiegel itself is now. 'nuff said.
0 Votes
+ -
One Contention
hotnuke2007 11th Jun 2009
Although I agree with most of what you said, your contention that there aren't places to get on the Internet for free is simply ignorant. There are literally millions of places across this nation now where you can do so. They're called "hot zones". Hell, I find them all the time using my laptop, and there are even maps of them you can check out on the Internet. A good many of them are provided by the government, either local, city, state, or federal, and where they don't provide them, many businesses do as a way to lure customers to their business.
0 Votes
+ -
I think you've missed the point, Nuke
corlandogcrta.org 11th Jun 2009
Albeit free to you, these Hotzones are not "free". Like you said, businesses provide them free to you to attract you. But it wasn't free. They had to pay for it, and frankly, so did you. I'm just saying, it's no different than saying you can get "free heat" by going to a coffee shop. The shop is heated because they probably wouldn't have any customers if it wasn't. Heat or Internet, the overhead cost is worked into their product (ever gotten coffee at starbucks!?!?! I bet they pay for the "free" internet access in the first 10 business minutes of every month.)



0 Votes
+ -
Where has this guy been?!?
moviedemon 11th Jun 2009
Does Diller actually USE the internet?!?

Most of the things that make sense to be "paid content" already are! Hell, even my small-town newspaper charges to access its online version. Not five years from now, but NOW and it's been that way for years.

Granted, there are some free content providers who probably could be charging and just haven't made the jump yet - but most of those are heading that way right now. (Hulu being one that comes to mind.)

However, I would go so far as to say that such providers (porn excluded) are a small percentage of overall content on the internet. A lot of stuff that is free will remain free because there is so much competition.

This guy is spouting off like he's making some grand prediction, and all he's really doing is telling people old news. What a joke!



0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
exemplar1 11th Jun 2009
More points to verify the delusional ramblings of this man. We already pay - and through the nose, I might add.

0 Votes
+ -
Exactly
LegendsOfBatman 12th Jun 2009
Very few sites have been totally free since the dot com crash of 98 or 99, when people finally realized the new economy was nothing more than a fallacy. Sure, as long as stupid people were falling for it, and paying out the nose under the assumption "the way to make money was to spend as much as possible".
All I can say to that one is, "A fool and his money is soon parted". I just wish I had known some dang fool to spay me to spend as much money as I could. lol.
Anyway, as soon as people figured out they can't make money if they're spending it, and not bringing anything in, the internet sites started charging. And, somewhere along the line, advertisers started paying again; but, this time not for free services.
So, yep, you're right. This guy is predicting old news. Hmmm; maybe I can get someone to write up a huge article about me and my predictions:
By next year, we will have our first black American President.
Banks and the auto industry will need bail-outs.
Oh, hey, here's a good one: in 3 years, Republicans will try to win back the White House.
And, the Cubs will go at least 100 years without winning the World Series.
The sun will rise.
The sun will set.
0 Votes
+ -
Diller's Dribble!!!
skylight 12th Jun 2009
We don't need to go too far to make the point that good content can be paid for with traffic volume. Look at what we are doing even as we comment on Diller's dribble. I got ZDNet's email in my mailbox and I found the article that interested me and began reading the comments to which I am posting now. So far there is no payment in direct dollars. However, ZDNet wants to support community like ours because even as we make these postings we are creating content. If ZDNet was to charge us for reading their articles online or use other services they offer, there likely would be only info/systems professionals who would do so. And they presently have way more techie publications to which they subscribe along with ZDNet. The print publications of ZDNet are their primary revenue generators. They or any other print media does not have to create unique content for their websites, as different from their print media. As far as I can tell print media is far from dead...hey I still buy computer magazines whether ZDNet's or others.

On the other hand Diller is out of touch with content. He has more of a worm's eye view rather than anything else because take for example health care research publications. They are almost all fee for service based. NY Times has an online *paid* service which they introduced a few years ago. And yes they charge for premium content...and those who want it pay for it. This is true pretty much across the board.

So what Diller says is already happening. All he needs to do is get with it. Thirdly, if businesses want to attract customers or appeal to potential customers on-line they will need to appeal to them. How else can you appeal to them other than with offering meaningful content without monetary payment. The fact that ZDNet has my email address is my payment. And here I am creating content (I hope that is what it is because one never knows how many Barry Diller's read this talkback) and no one is paying me for it. If Diller's line of prediction were pushed further users of so-called free services would tend to evaporate gradually.

And whom do users of so-called free services have to go to....hey look at Wiki websites. Pretty much everytime I need content on a VAST variety of subjects I go to Wikipedia or Wikianswer and what have you. Yes, their content is editable so what!! I have found the quality of their content quite sound actually.

To be honest I really don't know how much internet Diller surfs. He is a businessman who made his name in the entertainment industry. And in my opinion he is applying the entertainment industry paradigm to the internet. I think he is wrong....but I can't blame him for floating this canard so vehemently that he has got all of us so worked up...he must be loving it if some assistant of his has called attention to this article and "Talkback". But at least he will know that he is not dealing with a bunch of idiots (for the most part anyway wink He has also created a new generation of money makers like Michael Eisner or others who have come to be known as "Diller's Killer's". So he gets a rise out of making provocative statements and predictions, that is fine by me. But I also think he floats such predictions because he wants to float revenue generation ideas which may tempt "the suits" who count to make for a self-fulfilling prophecy. WELL HE IS DEAD WRONG if he thinks we are foolish enough to pony up for non-essential content, esp. considering what we pay for broadband. Forgive the metaphor but you can only screw us so many ways, certainly not every which way.
0 Votes
+ -
When was it EVER free?
drew.mcbee@... 11th Jun 2009
Even from the days of dial up and bulletin board systems ( CompuServe ? ), you had to have a number to connect to, for which you needed an account, which you PAID for.

0 Votes
+ -
Netzero?
Dariansweb.com 11th Jun 2009
Anyway.. the article isn't talking about your internet connection, but the content on the internet.
0 Votes
+ -
If Grampy refers to content, then indeed we will see MORE of that, but it will not become pay only. There will always be decent quality free sites that rely on advertising to keep them going.
0 Votes
+ -
Bulletin board systems?
EDS-HP_Tech 11th Jun 2009
Excuse me! Granted it was not Compuserv and only had one line but back in the day I use to run a BBS as many did. We had News Groups, Messaging, games to play, software to download, chatting, all available to download for free. I personally did it all for the fun of it. Would do it all again if every single thing became "pay per view". If I had to pay for each and everything I use on the internet individually, I would simply quit using them and I would probably go back to the days of no internet. It is simnply not worth it. Paying for cable access to internet and email is costly enough.

just my 2 cents
Doc

0 Votes
+ -
Have to agree.
deowll 12th Jun 2009
By the time you pay for access, cell phones, and a host of other things paying for most internet content is not going to happen unless you are making big bucks.

As for the WSJ. If it had broken stories on major scams or could be demonstrated to be giving superior advice I'd be more impressed but other than basic data the reader could get elsewhere and had better be able to understand in person...
0 Votes
+ -
Heck we could make and end run!!
JCitizen Updated - 13th Jun 2009
Simply start using all that unused CB and TV spectrum for digital wireless transmission. Any electronic geek could modify a CB radio or an old HAM set to transmit in UHF and VHF digitally, and we'd have our own free internet!

The FCC would be running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to stop it all like they failed to do in the '70s! HA! devil

Ahhh! Strap on you combat boots and shoot the skip! Yippee!
0 Votes
+ -
I promptly dropped my bundle with them, phone and cable.

In this economy we have to put our foot down! I can go back to biking and reading magazines, I could care less!

If it weren't that I make a living on the internet, I would have dropped the DSL too! If they hike that again, I'll go back to 10 dollar dialup, or simply start doing email off my cell service! I know I can get a good deal off that!!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix