On the Internet - What are you willing to pay for?

[Miss Chicken]

I was reading that Facebook might start charging a small fee though this seems to be only a rumour. Many people are up in arms about this and say that if such a fee is introduced they would leave Facebook.

Now, I would probably be willing to pay a small fee to use Facebook ad-free, similar to how I pay to be a premium member of Trekbbs.

I am quite happy to pay a yearly fee to keep my photos on Flickr.

I do pay a yearly fee for one genealogical site I belong to.

I don't mind paying for games I download from BigFish Games.

However, I do not see any reason to pay for IMDBPro as I am quite happy with just plain old IMDB.

So what sites are you willing to pay for, and which are the sites you would not pay for?

Do you think that too many people unrealistically expect everything on the internet to be free?

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I've got enough bills. If it's not free, forget it. I'll go someplace that is free.

 

[Kestra]

I wouldn't pay for Facebook and I can't really think of any sites I would pay for, unless all the news sites stopped being free.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I wouldn't pay for Facebook and I can't really think of any sites I would pay for, unless all the news sites stopped being free.

I would probably be willing to pay up to 10c a day for my local paper's news site.

 

[Amaris]

I wouldn't pay for Facebook. There is always a free and reasonable alternative.

 

[Lord Garth]

Charging would be the fall of Facebook if it happens. That would be a terrible mistake. Would it still exist? Of course it would, but it would never be the same as it is right now again.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Charging would be the fall of Facebook if it happens. That would be a terrible mistake. Would it still exist? Of course it would, but it would never be the same as it is right now again.

I agree that charging everyone to use Facebook would be a very bad idea, but charging for people to choose an ad-free option would be quite reasonable in my opinion and it is an option I would take up if the fee was low enough (say $1 a month).

 

[RJDiogenes]

The only thing I pay for right now (unless you count the storage space that comes with Comcast) is the hosting of my store. But I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee for deviantArt or YouTube. I'd drop Facebook or LJ, as I barely use them anyway.

 

[jamestyler]

The Facebook rumour is a bit silly. Most people won't pay for a service they've had all these years for free. Especially when a lot of people are getting annoyed at all the little tweaks they keep throwing in and compared to other ads, the ones on Facebook aren't even noticable.

And there are plenty of alternatives who would be happy to have their business. Or new sites would pop up. If it were mor than a rumour - it'd be stupid.

I'm willing to pay for very little online. A lot of the time I spend online is there to entertain me, or distract me. If I start paying for everything I use, my wallet would get empty really quickly.

The best I'm willing to pay for is my server. I can make a bit of money back from it, I can host things there and I get a good email service aling with it. But if sites started charging... less people would use them and the paid service wouldn't be worth it.

IMDB Pro and such... I get what I need for free. Why pay for more?

 

[jamestyler]

But I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee for deviantArt or YouTube.

Why is that?

YouTube has a rare gem, but I can't search for anything without getting pages of terrible fanvids, thousands of videos of people falling over while their friends laugh and the odd baby laughing for three minutes on end.

DeviantArt has some good stuff there, but the bulk of it I've seen is hopeful/less teenagers filled with woe.

Plus, if both services charged - we'd find somewhere else to go.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I know that for a while both of my sons paid for Runescape but I think they got bored with it quite a while ago.

 

[Geckothan]

I'd pay for (and in some cases, do pay, or have paid for in the past):
- BBC iPlayer if it weren't already free, though if it were paid-for, it would be nice if they'd add more features like letting paid users watch back-catalogues of old shows like classic Who
- Games on Steam
- Web hosting
- MMORPGs, they don't run themselves, the developers need to pay their support staff and their bandwidth fees

On the Facebook issue, in it's current business model, advertisers are the customers and the users are the PRODUCTS. If they were to charge for it, things would be different, users would be customers too, and Facebook might be a little more receptive to their concerns on privacy etcetera.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

I've got enough bills. If it's not free, forget it. I'll go someplace that is free.

This...

I got on fine without the internet right up until 2001, which was when i first got access to the net, i could if need be go back to being without it if i had to cough up money for it on a monthly basis other then paying for my connection.

 

[aftermath]

Happy to pay for anything that I derive value from. Unfortunately, the Internet is full of freetards who think that just because something doesn't physically exist they shouldn't have to pay anything for it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I pay for a web server, I buy music online, and I buy games from Steam. That's pretty much it.

I would never--not in a million years--pay for a social networking site. I would imagine Facebook makes enough from ads they don't really need to worry about it, anyway.

I wouldn't pay for something like Hulu, either. They make me watch ads. If they took away the ads and just expected everyone to pay, I'd quit using them.

Were I one to play MMOs, I'd pay for those, too.

There isn't a whole lot on the Internet I'm willing to pay for, because there is almost always a free alternative.

 

[KimMH]

I wouldn't pay for Facebook and I can't really think of any sites I would pay for, unless all the news sites stopped being free.

Agreed, except I don't think I'd even pay for news.

 

[Kelthaz]

I pay for the online game Landgrab, but that's about it. The Internet is supposed to be free.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I wouldn't pay for Facebook and I can't really think of any sites I would pay for, unless all the news sites stopped being free.

Agreed, except I don't think I'd even pay for news.

I wouldn't pay for news, unless maybe it was local news and I was genuinely interested in it. But AP wire type stuff? No way. It's freely aggregated in so many places, anyone who tries to charge for it would just be shunned. It'd never work.

 

[TheSeeker]

I wouldn't pay for Facebook and I can't really think of any sites I would pay for, unless all the news sites stopped being free.

Aren't you a Premium Member here?

As for me, I gladly pay for a premium membership here and I also have a pro account with Flickr which I am also happy to pay for.

I would probably pay to stay on facebook only because I have a lot of out-of-town friends and it's a good way to keep in touch.

 

[Lor'Vela]

I guess it all depends on what you use the Internet for. Some have different needs and pashions and therefore some would be willing to pay for that service. For me personally, I'm a simple web-surfer, browsing various websites, posting on forums, and that's about it. Since my needs are simple, I've always stayed clear of websites, forums etc. which require membership fees, as I don't see it as a justified expense for my needs.