There is nothing that you can't find for free on the Internet if you are just willing to search a bit for it. Of course this rule so far seems to apply mainly for porn, but I think the principle is probably sound.
On the Internet - What are you willing to pay for?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
I paid for a so-called "premium" account here several years ago (and ended up being offered a modding gig a few months later, so as it turned out it was a bit of a waste of $$$) and a paid LiveJournal account (mostly for the extra icons). I also pay for access to a genealogical site. Other than that, I haven't run across any site which I'd pay to access. I agree with what Kestra said - if a site requires payment to access it, I wouldn't bother with it at all, but if a paid account for an otherwise free site brings extras I consider useful, I'll get one.
Since 99% of web users use the same password (or very close derivatives) across multiple sites, the EZ Pass idea I'm speaking about would actually enhance security given that such a thing is likely to have some kind of hardware signature involved or even biometrics. Maybe both. I can see ISPs tying your account to a combination MAC and IP address scheme to verify identity, and when you're away from your standard network or device, place your thumb on the iPad screen to log in.
As for what happens if you actually do get hacked -- the same thing as happens today. You call your peeps and get your account locked down, your credit card canceled, etc. Not rocket science.
I think, like porn, there's a value issue. Yes, you can see some eye-popping stuff just by surfing around on Google Images, but paying a few bucks for professional content will net you some HD sexy goodness.
Same thing with software. OpenOffice is great, and free, but compared to Microsoft Office or iWork, it's pretty unrefined, and not very compatible with complicated documents. But it gets the job done -- barely. You can pay for Windows 7 or OSX, or get Linux for free, but who the hell really wants to use Linux full time? It's great for some things, but most distros have crappy fonts, terrible UIs, software made by geeks for geeks. Inkscape and Gimp or Illustrator and Photoshop...
Sure, there are exceptions like Firefox, but the long and short of that project -- as well as Safari and Chrome -- is that somebody else is footing the majority of that bill for you. So it's not exactly free.
As for the rest, well, you could steal stuff on torrents or gnutella networks, but I don't think that really counts.
Journalism is in a tough spot with their ad-driven models that are barely covering expenses. I don't imagine we'll be seeing free professional content online for much longer (unless we count blog posts and tweets as news).
Eventually providers will figure out how to monetize this beast. The days of free stuff online are coming to an end.
Besides paying here and my rent. Probably not much else. I do laugh at those rumours about paying on facebook, when ever I see them come up.
First we're inundated with ads, which when non-intrusive are not that bad, and that is still not good enough. For sites like Trekbbs and Facebook, I wouldn't pay for that because I'm not sure if it's really worth it.
Ah, but porn is everywhere for free. I can even get it on twitter if I add the right people.
Maybe a good point. With galleries though, I'd just put them on my own server. I figure, I'm paying for space, so why would I use someone elses?
Video's are along the same lines, but I prefer having them in a public place where people can search for them. Or stumble upon them by accident.
Thinking about it - I wouldn't mind paying for the same service as the BBC has on YouTube, but I wouldn't pay for it myself. I'd put it in the company expenses
Exactly. I have plenty of art and photos hosted on my server so I can Post them on Forums, but on deviantArt they are seen by many more people who look at the new stuff, or search for keywords, or subscribe to your page, or whatever.
The sad part is... that while I'd be willing to pay for that (well, let my company pay for an extra special YouTube account) I'd be concerned that turning it into a paid system would mean less users, and less usage.
I could be wrong - but that would be a concern.
I could be wrong - but that would be a concern.
Trust me, having no ads on TrekBBs is well worth the 25 bucks a year.
^^ See? There's the problem. $25 / year.
First, it doesn't acknowledge that $25 is hardly a psychologically appealing number. $2 per month, might be better in that regard. Or, even better, 6¢ per day. That's a number people can think of as entirely disposable. $25 is a bill. 6¢ is pocket lint.
Second, it doesn't acknowledge that the ad-free-for-a-fee BBS has competition that robs it of any revenue whatsoever -- ad blockers. When you're competing against things like that, you have to set your price accordingly so that the abusers are presented with something commensurate to their opinion of its value.
As an aside, I wonder why the BBS doesn't present notices to folks using ad-blockers reminding them that the BBS is a product that's not free, and asking them to view the ads or pony up some cash. There are ways to go about doing this.
First, it doesn't acknowledge that $25 is hardly a psychologically appealing number. $2 per month, might be better in that regard. Or, even better, 6¢ per day. That's a number people can think of as entirely disposable. $25 is a bill. 6¢ is pocket lint.
Second, it doesn't acknowledge that the ad-free-for-a-fee BBS has competition that robs it of any revenue whatsoever -- ad blockers. When you're competing against things like that, you have to set your price accordingly so that the abusers are presented with something commensurate to their opinion of its value.
As an aside, I wonder why the BBS doesn't present notices to folks using ad-blockers reminding them that the BBS is a product that's not free, and asking them to view the ads or pony up some cash. There are ways to go about doing this.
I think a notice like that only highlights the existence and appeal of ad-blockers... and no website is really in a position to demand anyone download content from domains they do not wish to.
I think you might have misunderstood. I didn't mean that the BBS should put up a blanket notice for all to see. I meant that a detection mechanism could be used to identify those already using ad-blocking technology and then present a message to them alone.
As for websites not being in a position to demand, I think you have it backwards. There are costs involved in the creation of content or the maintenance of a community. Some of those costs are eliminated by volunteers, but others (like bandwidth) must be paid for. The folks who run the BBS would be perfectly justified in telling people to pay up, allow ads, or get out. And, of course, as a user of the BBS, it would be up to you to decide whether your usage of this place is worth the price (ads or money). It's the consumer who is in no position to demand that services be provided without compensation.
And how is it possible to detect if an ad-blocker is in use? If any such method is found, there'd always be ways around it, I would guess.
Yeah, there are ways to do it. Google is Great. Of course, nothing is foolproof, but that doesn't mean you can't try to minimize the exposure.
The only things I pay for is LIVE Gold and STO. I would pay for LiveJournal, since I frequently post there, but I haven't gotten around to it.
Nothing, really. I do have a premium account on deviantArt, but the first three months were given by a friend, the other three were prize from a contest I won and the next three were bought with devDollars which were also a prize from said contest. In other words: I never really paid for it.
On the internet the only thing I pay for is stuff from Amazon, but I don't think it counts here...
On the internet the only thing I pay for is stuff from Amazon, but I don't think it counts here...
We have to pay a TON for internet already, as we are out in a new suburb and have only ONE provider here. In other words, we're screwed, so I don't see myself paying for any other regular service, especially now that I'm getting my work hours cut.
I wouldn't look at professionally shot porn for free. Amateur all the way!
Facebook is never going to charge a fee. They have more money than they know what to do with. This rumor pops up once a week and people freak out.
Similar threads
