posted
Live Journal went from all free to some paid. Napster went from free to paid. The Wall Street Journal charges for access to online content. It can work.
If it means better selection, it will work GREAT.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Live Journal went from all free to some paid. Napster went from free to paid. The Wall Street Journal charges for access to online content. It can work.
If it means better selection, it will work GREAT.
That's how I feel about it too. If they want to start charging they have to offer something that television does not. Choosing when to watch your shows is nice, but I don't think it's enough. Exclusive quality programming would be a possibility, or if by paying I can watch things commercial free.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They'll eventually degenerate into being commercial-funded. Remember, cable TV originally boasted commercial-free TV.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wall Street Journal existed in a non-digital pay-for-content form long before it went online, and said content had a significant non-digital audience. Napster was illegal; turning into a legitimate service cost it an enormous portion of its user base. ITunes has the advantage of a professionally designed user interface, brand name, hardware tie-in, and being one of the first into the legitimate digital music market. Most services that have gone from free-to-paid-subscription continue to offer a "free", usually commercial-driven model. I'm just saying that Hulu cannot afford to offer the same service, only to charge a fee for it. There are too many alternatives, too many ways to get the content they offer without jumping through hoops. Cost and convenience brought them their audience; I really don't think they'll continue to thrive without them on brand name alone.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
