Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

People will pay for web content, says Google

blogs.guardian.co.uk — President Google for Europe, Middle East and Africa and vice president Google UK, believes that the web economy will evolve just like the print economy - and that means people will pay for content online, writes Stephen Brook. The business model on the web is going to be no different to the business model today," Arora tells the audience

Bury

JenniferSlayton 132 days ago, made popular 132 days ago

612 diggs
digg it

193 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

FameMoney, on 06/02/2008, -16/+53http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality
- scarwars, on 06/03/2008, -4/+14i'll only visit that link if the madonna with the big boobies shows us some more..
- JuniorKane, on 06/03/2008, -10/+5This link is a hoax from an attention whore who offered to give out 40,000 BJs and she happily advertises it on the same site that you are directing us to here. You would take your information from a source like that? I thought this fact was established the day the video was released.
  - mythril, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4See: Ad Hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - neko6, on 06/03/2008, -2/+2When a single person claims something without proof, their credibility as a person IS an issue.
      If it was Google's CEO who'd say the same, we'd treat it differently.
  - JuniorKane, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0No worries, go ahead and trust a baseless theory put on the web by a woman who pimps herself out to the world. Good luck with that.... so did you sign up for her free sex for nerds who prove they save the internet campaign?
- duckyinc, on 06/03/2008, -5/+8net neutrality != paying for content oh and ipower is a attention whore
  - DalamarArgent, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Not unless she is doing all 4 of them, but she does have nice cleavage.
    - duckyinc, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I'd guess she is doing it with 2 of them at once with 2 sessions XD
- Elranzer, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4This coming from the company that gives away all its services for free in exchange for ad revenue?
- jzuska, on 06/03/2008, -3/+6Digging this up, The thought of having to pay to access a differing tier of websites really upsets me.
  
  Google - Included in the standard package 19.95/mo
  Wikipedia - 29.95/mo - Extended package
  Youtube - Super premium package 49.49/mo
  
  This pisses me off.
  - dfeifer, on 06/03/2008, -2/+1What this means to me if it comes to fruition is, more and more of the net that i will no longer be able to access. Currently I live paycheck to paycheck and can just barely afford the bills i have now. Sometimes I wonder if this wasn't thought out from the beginning to reduce access in the first place.
- Asim0, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1how much will it cost to suscribe to
  http://ipower.ning.com/netneutrality
- OwdenBowden, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Survey says... WRONG!
  
  Google are idiots! There is not one person that will pay for web content. And I would wager to say that those that start charging for said content are going to go out of business. If people still want FREE Music and Movies and Games - then they want FREE EVERYTHING.
eastcoast, on 06/02/2008, -2/+70that's b.s.
- over900000, on 06/03/2008, -9/+3because there are no web sites that you need to subscribe to view the content at the moment, amirite?
  - Y2JCrisis, on 06/03/2008, -1/+13None worth subscribing to.
  - oxymoron69, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5dugg down for being gay and using 'amirite' when you can obviously speak and write english.
    'Am i right' would have only cost you like 3 more keystrokes and make you not look like a ***** goddamn retard!
    
    Besides, anyone asking 'amirite' looking for people to respond is a total and absolute fail!
  - outsid3rNo17, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5There are some museums and other places where you have to pay to see them. But usually seeing around you is free. Imagine having to pay for every second you keep your eyes open.
- outsid3rNo17, on 06/03/2008, -4/+1Of course its total *****. If that ever comes close to happening some ISP will create a new local network. By the end of the year they'll have enough money to cover the Earth with optical fibers. I cant believe people on digg are still banging on this stupid fear.
- Waterrat, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3 It's been tried before,not sure how well it works...Some sites do charge to view content. I don't use um.
  I'm already paying for Internet and ain't no way am i going to pay to read content as well. It just won't happen.
biss13, on 06/03/2008, -3/+26I'll believe it when I see it...
- jzuska, on 06/03/2008, -2/+4When you see it you wont be able to do anything about it. You should be worried.
- Asim0, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2you'll ***** bricks
webaddict, on 06/03/2008, -0/+128I think this guy needs to lay off the crack pipe. Exactly what he says will happen is exactly the opposite of what IS happening. Many newspapers are opening their sites to free access to try and get more viewers. This theory is ridiculous.
- sergiodlopes, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9Yes it is. Why?
  
  Here in Portugal the new printed and free daily newspapers (supported only by ads) as grown significantly.
  
  So his theory goes down the toilet.
  - dignews, on 06/03/2008, -0/+12Yeh same as in england, on public transport there is a free paper called the metro and it is popular around the whole of the country, and that is paid for solely by ads too.
  - zeex, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1about portugal, I'm quite afraid that this "pay for web content" policy might get here faster than we expect. We have some bad ass ISP's here. I don't find it hard to imagine PT Comunicaçoes(Sapo) or the Zon Group(netcabo) trying to use this new way to make business. We already have this TiVo-like service (PT's "Meo"), so, it's just a matter of merging these two services (Sapo+Meo=paying-for-internet-content) together, and voilá(!) we're f*ck*d.
    
    This reminds me so much about the IPower warning two days ago: "2012: The Year The Internet Ends". Yesterday I saw some comments here on digg about this IPower thing, saying stuff like "oh, google would never be a part oh this, they are all open-source and free-information/tools friendly" ...oh really?
    
    This is not about newspapers, it was just an example, just a bad analogy to show "how fair" this is. I can't agree with this way of thinking "If you pay for a good newspaper...you should pay for a good website" because the internet was born free and it should remain that way! (oh by the way...We have the Metro here in portugal too heheh =D ...and a few more papers as sergio was saying, with online PDF versions available for download like "Destak")
    
    PS for Sergio Lopes: Anacom won't help us much...they're loosing their "authority" day-by-day. Deco might do something about it...But the big problem is us, the Portuguese people! Only a few of us will be aware of this, most of internet consumers aren't educated to use internet, most of us knows just how to use torrent clients, Msn messenger and Hi5. And even if somebody has the idea of creating an independent ISP, it will be swallowed by the major companies in a matter of mons! There is no market for small ISPs in Portugal.
- ICSU, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3You pay for newspapers and magazines because they are printed, have to be physically distributed and other involve other costs.
  Ads should pay for the rest on the web and content could be free.
- DestroyFascism, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3Where did all the pay sites go?......
  History!
spuncoke, on 06/03/2008, -1/+99We'll all just torrent it
- spacewhale1, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7***** yes
  - dfeifer, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1Wonder how big of a drive you would need for THAT.. heh
  - CedEx, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1The internet... ***** YEAH!
  - JusticeFriend, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2TPB FTW!
ee52ck, on 06/03/2008, -1/+38Does anyone see the irony of having this article on a free to view news site ... kinda shooting himself in the foot as if was charging to see it then no one would have read this article!
- FC777, on 06/03/2008, -1/+4indeed, i though the same thing lol
- Karmavs, on 06/03/2008, -3/+2future tense.
Azerael, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't find himself working for Google for much longer, considering they have so much invested in online advertising.
TwiceHephaestus, on 06/03/2008, -1/+26Must have been nice to work for Google. Wonder what he'll do now?
*goes back to reading Wikinomics*
treelovinhippie, on 06/03/2008, -7/+12People will not pay for web content... not until we are able to realise that a physical book is simply information in analog form.

See I tend to think most of us see an e-book as pure information, while we see a book as a physical possession. Which is why we're happy to pay for the physical book, but not the e-book when in reality they are both just information and their value should be based on the quality of that information.
- DraxusD, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8What? It doesn't cost anything (or very very close to nothing) to duplicate information that has no physical form. By your logic a paperback should cost the same and a hardcover.
  - smotpoker1, on 06/03/2008, -2/+1Thats not what he is saying.The way I see what he's saying is the quality of possession is more important to value of the info if it is physically printed. That we view electronic info as incomplete until it is printed in a more permanent paper form.It seems since electronic memory is never permanent it doesn't cut the mustard so to speak much as owning and reading a book.
    
    Look at it this way if you had the entire library of congress in electronic form I would know you have never read it all so am not impressed,but if you had a paperback library and it looked used I would think of You as a smart person and would respect you more.Then again when you open your mouth I might change my opinion of you.
    - roodammy44, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2So you would get a libarary of books to look smart?
      There's so much wrong with that....
      
      I still buy books because they're nice to read. Unlike computer screens.
      By your argument of sentimentality of objects, people wouldn't be moving from cds to mp3s.
      Intellectual property is losing its clout.
DickyT83, on 06/03/2008, -11/+10Don't these people realize that piracy will never end? Keep on chargin and we'll keep on pirating.
Oea420, on 06/03/2008, -1/+19Yeah, he is definitely right. With that model, we won't have to deal with those pesky adver.... wait a second
peaceninja, on 06/03/2008, -1/+14idiot
darthjure, on 06/03/2008, -1/+40Don't mess with President Google.
- CatsAreGods, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1With 2 O's in his name, reminds me of President Scroob.
- outsid3rNo17, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Digg's descriptions have become increasingly inane lately.
- DestroyFascism, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1My big toe huts!
oddturtle, on 06/03/2008, -0/+11I would doubt it.
The one distinguishing factor about the internet as a news and information distribution medium is the significant cost advantage in making anyone a content producer. The supply market for people willing to give away free content is just too big, there is just too much competition that I can't see any significant portion of content producers, news outlets (grassroots, mainstream, partisan, independent, etc) being able displace the hordes of free ad based alternative sources any time soon, no matter how good they are.
- oxymoron69, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Maybe with all of this net neutrality ***** going on they have a bigger plan...
  Displace the folks who would generate the free content, or make connecting to their server a slow and painful experience.
  
  Here in Canada, our main phone company uses deep packet inspection to figure out where you're headed n what you're looking at, and can make sure that if you're looking at a page that ma bell doesn't want you to, you'll get 404's or get redirected to the page they want you to see. Amongst other horrible things that DPI is capable of delivering to big media.
  
  God damn, why did they let 2 of the biggest phone companies become the hugest media conglomerates in our country, now we all suffer from it.
- hrvat420, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Ya
  Rogers blocked thepiratebay on my internet connection
  Canadian internet sucks right now
yayintertubes, on 06/03/2008, -0/+11"**He didn't say it, but does this imply** that there could be a great content cleanout in the future, with unprofitable news providers going to the wall? ...Arora talks about the current abundance of blogs, and **you get the feeling that this, too, will not last.**"

This guy is an idiot and a blatant shill. The Guardian are always pushing a self-serving agenda, and this article is no different. The article is cherry-picked and filled with conjecture because it supports their own view of how the internet should work, and anyone who says blogs will not last is completely ignorant. Not everyone blogs solely for ad revenue, and most of the ones that do are already failing anyway.

Weak.
chmoder, on 06/03/2008, -1/+7He IS wrong.
clesch, on 06/03/2008, -1/+4coming up: the benevolent dictator, not-so-benevolent.
oddturtle, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9"Nikesh Arora, president Google for Europe, Middle East and Africa and vice president Google UK, believes that the web economy will evolve just like the print economy - and that means people will pay for content online"

Is this guy serious? The print economy hasn't evolved toward a unit price model. Since the early stages of the print economy, media proprietors almost always charged for each magazine, newspaper, book and quarterly publications. If anything, it has probably moved greater toward a low cost consumer price price model with most revenue derived from ads, so that the charge for content is only a nominal amount
over900000, on 06/03/2008, -5/+3Of course people will pay for web content. What do you think those subscription only sites like economist.com are all about?
- oddturtle, on 06/03/2008, -0/+61) you can get a lot of free content from the economist site, they even have a free podcast to discuss topics in their magazine.
  2) subscription content represents a tiny fraction of the internet news market.
  - over900000, on 06/03/2008, -2/+2none of which refute my point. you still need to subscribe to access the full content of the magazine. having had a subscription in the past, I have noticed how much of the content requires you to log in.
    - oddturtle, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5if that was your point, it wasn't much of one and has little to do with the article (which I assume you didn't actually read), which is saying that the dominance of free ad based sites will transform into user pays, not that you can find subscription content on the web.
      
      Let me make an analogy to your comment and something equally stupid - eg Digging an article on a scientific breakthrough on evolutionary theory, and you commenting "monkeys eat bananas"
      
      Not an incorrect statement, yet not quite as profound as you probably think it is, either.
rolf, on 06/03/2008, -1/+6I'll pay for some content. I already do. But not most (read 99.999%) of ***** sites.

Including MainStreamMedia sites like Disney crap.
spence798, on 06/03/2008, -4/+1scary stuff
nxtwrld, on 06/03/2008, -2/+5The question is - will people be paying to the real authors generating the content, or just to their own and the authors ISPs? :(
- Waiting2awake, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3Shhhh, you aren't supposed to think about that.
Mushroonaut, on 07/11/2008, -1/+39I will never pay for web content.
- orientis, on 06/03/2008, -3/+1iawtc
  - DraxusD, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1iduya
    - iJessicaRabbit, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1wtf does that mean?
    - DraxusD, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3I Don't Understand Your Acronym
      
      I do now, however
JuniorKane, on 06/03/2008, -2/+3Interesting theory, pity it makes no sense at all.
wirah, on 06/03/2008, -3/+10Anonymous will not stand for this.
Expect *****
insanebrain, on 06/03/2008, -2/+11We the nerds have the power. If we don't like, we will simply destroy it.
megablue, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5Don't be evil?
Now Google wants their shares.
coffee200am, on 06/03/2008, -6/+4Europeans maybe. They pay tax for almost everything.
racco, on 06/03/2008, -1/+5wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

am I right or what!?
blackmesa, on 06/03/2008, -2/+25I'm already paying for the internet! I'd love to pay twice for everything! ...while they're at it, why not charge me 3 or 4 times? I don't mind! You already have my creditcard + identity, I'm sure.
- scamper22, on 06/03/2008, -1/+0yeah, I already pay for my car and gas!
  Everywhere I shop should also be free!
  
  //ps... No I don't think people will pay for webcontent... ads are a plenty. Though they will pay for premium content. Think...we have free tv over the air. But many of us still pay cable for specialty shows/channels things that the general ad supported market will not provide.
craznar, on 06/03/2008, -6/+1I have no problem allowing paid content on the web, as long as never never never do I have to pay for free content.

That simple.
- Waiting2awake, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1and the difference is? I mean other than the stroke of a pen in some back office?
  - craznar, on 06/03/2008, -1/+0the difference is - that as long as I can access sites like digg.com and slashdot.org for nothing, I wont have any need to access sites like cnn.com and abc.com for $x/year.
    
    That's the difference.
    - oxymoron69, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1But.... doesn't digg link to all of these external sites?
      What if a site notices that they've been dugg, they begin to charge for content.... someone throws up a mirror and out of fear of lost revenue, start dropping DMCA notices on the mirror providers.
      
      Then what?
      A digg full of discussion and no content? OR
      Maybe digg could move and generate it's own content rather than just be a aggregator.
- bosssmiley, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2"...as long as never never never do I have to pay for free content."
  
  I think they can pretty much guarantee you that distinction. ;-)
mtappenden, on 06/03/2008, -5/+3I for one, already pay for Britanica, and for the e-paper of my preferred newspaper. And I think they're brilliant resources for information, considerably more so than what I can get for free off, say, Digg and Wikipedia xD
devzor, on 06/03/2008, -1/+9something tells me Google is getting too evil too quickly!
- bosssmiley, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3"Don't be evil". The unwritten rider was "...until we have a dominant market position and huge name recognition"
  - oxymoron69, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2I think that the googles definition of evil is a moving target.
    
    For them initially, it was to be the cool company on the block, no ads and to be all about the user.
    
    Now, it's about monitizing that experience for the maximum return.
    Since after all, that's what drives the google now, to eat your information and all of your money.
    
    I have nightmares of the Google spider becoming a real thing that roves the streets evicerating young children and puppies as it goes.... lol
pentak, on 06/03/2008, -0/+20If MySpace charged even .01 cent, they would fold.
- Karmavs, on 06/03/2008, -1/+6I then, for one, hope this new paid web takes hold.
  
  (it rhymes, so it must be true!)
- spacewhale1, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4god itd be nice if myspace folded
acusticthoughts, on 06/03/2008, -9/+2I look forward to the day someone finally figures out a good micropayment system. People have more than proven that they will pay for content - look at iTunes, look at Radiohead letting people set the price on a CD and making millions, look at NIN doing something similar, look at how many people pay for higher quality product in the forms of CDs and DVDs and magazine subscriptions. The key is to find a conveinent manner of paying ($.02 per article? Maybe a monthly subscription of $5 to a hundred web sites?). Of course some will pirate, there always will be that group and of course advertisers will alwys supplement the cost to get their product out there and all of the free news sites will create great competition and those wonderful blogs will keep working for page views. That's the beauty of it all. You provide me with an ultra high quality product that makes my life more conveinent and effficient and I'll pay.

And so will millions of others - just ask the people who sell cars when there are free sidewalks and public transportation and bycycles. A certain benefit must be created first.
- spacewhale1, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1u idiot
  thats called net neutrality
  its stupider than a second E.T. game
Kayakityak, on 06/03/2008, -2/+0I think it would be like TV, where there would always be some sites that are free, But they would always pester and bug you for donations. (Think PBS)

I would like to believe that this would never happen, but really, it's just a matter of time.

Who wants to start the next media innovation to keep thought free? Somebody get on that.
trumpcard, on 06/03/2008, -1/+6I'm not ready to pay yet.
- orientis, on 06/03/2008, -2/+1Me either. When sites start paying me to look at the ads on their site, for which they are being paid, then I might consider it.
  
  Really, think about it. I'd say 30% of an average user's (AVERAGE USER FIREFOX EVANGELICALS) downloads would be advertising. Sucks to be on a pay-per-byte scheme.
  
  Money is going down.
hemantjha, on 06/03/2008, -1/+1lets hope for more...
synyster, on 06/03/2008, -0/+8i thought the whole internet is free
duckyinc, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2People are paying for porn!! It's content too.. websites can charge you anything..
moontime, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3I won't. When their greedy asses bring in "Internet 2" that is the day I go offline. Not only will you have to pay for everything but it will be highly censored too.
- spacewhale1, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1o no, no more CP
Meekus, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4The appeal of the internet, likewise the original intention, was sharing of data and information for free. THIS is the spirit of the internet. I understand that many want to charge for content... however how many would really pay for the content we see every day? I sure as hell won't be spending $25/month per sub to see a web comic, ps3 news, or the random cute kitten picture.
shauncorleone, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3While I seriously doubt this and believe that all content and services on the web are moving in a trend towards $0, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. That being said, the only way people will pay out of pocket for the major stops they make online is if the highway is free. i.e. if there was eventually free wi-fi and wired Internet access worldwide combined with easy and SAFE ways to purchase content online universally (a la paypal, but even easier), more people would pay for content than the tech community might think. Just stop and think about all the people that are paying or have paid for porn, dating sites and premium news services like the old NYT.
Like I said, though, charging for the content is likely not going to be the way to make money online. Using free content and services to build a solid brand on which to capitalize is.
- dfeifer, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0yea.. sigh.. paying 56$ a month for 3meg cable here, we don't even have local dialup here anymore.
evolutionium, on 06/03/2008, -7/+3why not, people pay for internet-delivered digital content already!!

How many iTunes purchase have been made already??
- spacewhale1, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2i have NEVER ever payed for a song
  - grubwort, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3You might want to consider paying for a dictionary, though.
  - Canadian0207, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1same here, never have.
    
    special thanks to the following:
    allmp3.com/audiofind.com (when it had real music)
    napster
    FTP leech sites
    gnutella network
    bittorrent
    
    you're buying music from itunes?? pity....
luckyguy2000, on 06/03/2008, -1/+2besides that they're already paying for porn and some other stuff, its BS. i would never pay for a news site or something. i can turn my tv on and get it for free if the impossible would happen (that there is no free newssite anymore).
- KayIslandDrunk, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Of course, if you're like most people, you're paying for that TV channel via your cable/satellite bill. What should really piss you off is the fact that you'd be able to consume the same content (CNN, ABC, FOX, etc) for free if you just used some rabbit ears.... in clearer HD too (at least clearer than cable).
MattS, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3Either he is wrong, or we are misunderstanding the article. For me it comes down to this... I get all the media (news, TV, music, etc.) from the Internet legitimately and free today (Yes, I also get things illegit as well - the point is I get enough for free). Why will I need to pay for it in the future? It is very hard to raise the price of an item without adding a feature or benefit. There is no room to add features or benefits to most of what is given away today.
AgentVladimir, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4Comparing the Internet to TV is wrong. There were always going to be only a few TV channels because the technology is so expensive and the bandwidth was limited. Better comparison is with the invention of the printing press: suddenly not only monks are copying books, everyone can get hold of them. You have to get access to a press but once one was invented, everyone was at it and governments really struggled to enforce any sort of control.
- oxymoron69, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4If big media had it their way, the internet WOULD look like TV.
  
  You see what they want you to see and only what they want.
  Wanna see some pr0n on xtube,skintube etc; an extra $24.95/month on top of your already inflated broadband bill.
  
  This is the beginning of the end, especially now that Google has now begun to look at it's own users as a seething mass of consumer cows... waiting to have their cash milked out of them, one microtransaction at a time, that way it won't seem like you're spending much, and you'll like it.
  - AgentVladimir, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I have to admit that I'm a bit outside of my knowledge here but my assumption was that hooking up to the internet was pretty easy. I don't doubt some companies might want the net to behave like TV but I thought that the competition in the ISP market would make that almost impossible. Certainly, in the UK everyone and their aunty offers ISP deals.
    
    How far has centralisation gone, is my question, I suppose.
celebshub, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7why do people digg BS?
- AppleGeorge, on 06/03/2008, -3/+1Why do people not have proper grammar skills?
  - TrevorBelmont, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Seeing as you are such a fan of language I have a little word puzzle for you.
    Q: What word best describes a person who constantly corrects other people's grammar and spelling?
    
    ǝ1oɥssɐ :ɐ
- outsid3rNo17, on 06/03/2008, -2/+2Because Americans love to be frightened. All the ***** on TV on how you're gonna die by some bomb or some teenager with a gun or some cancer has made people long for something more to fear.
StephenCIreland, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4then we will invent some kind of outernet in which a site named internetpirate.outernet allows people to download web pages and youtube videos over a pirate p2p network...
prleet, on 06/03/2008, -2/+11screw google....
- outsid3rNo17, on 06/03/2008, -0/+4Don't be soft on him. This time he deserves it: ***** Google!
- smek2, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Nobody believed me, but i always said, watch out for Google, that will be the very next corporation to hate, since Microsoft.
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

People will pay for web content, says Google

Login or register to add a comment