The End of 'Free' on the Internet?

[DH]Hawk · Aug 10, 2002, 05:46 PM

In the land of the free and home of the brave, we long ago discarded the quaint notion that folks are somehow entitled to a free lunch. Maybe they believe that guff in Lower Slabovia, but not here in the U.S.A. It just didn't stand up to the test of common sense.
But then the Internet burst onto the popular scene, and everything got stood on its head.

A mind-set took hold in which the traditional verities seemingly didn't apply anymore because--hey, this was cyberspace and information just wanted to be free. That was a fetching argument, especially for schnorrers eager to get their hands on proprietary content without ever paying a red cent.

Save the flame mail for another day. I don't like this any more than the next guy. In fact, when it comes to freeloading, I qualify for the all-star team.

Of course, it was all rubbish. The Internet may have been a promising, if not revolutionary, vehicle for commerce and communications--but it hardly repealed fundamental laws of economics. In the real world, there are bills to pay. If banner advertising isn't enough to make payroll, the only other option is to charge money, just like in the physical world.

"Pay for content? Are you out of your ever-loving mind?" was the standard freeloader's refrain when anyone bold (or silly) raised that politically incorrect suggestion.

I'm happy to report that the once-prevailing lunacy is thoroughly discredited and people are returning to their senses. Sure, the era of free stuff on the Internet was grand fun while it lasted; it also was a four-alarm disaster--something that many entrepreneurs, silly enough to have gone along for that ride, can testify to.

No more. Salon and TheStreet.com offer some free information on their sites, but if you want to read the good stuff, then you pay. CNN now charges for viewing its video news clips on the Web as does ABC, among others. The Wall Street Journal has always charged for its Internet edition, and it's just a matter of time before other big name news organizations follow the example.

It can't happen soon enough to suit me.

We now understand that Bernie Ebbers wasn't a financial genius, Pets.com wasn't a brilliant business model and that Napster never had a prayer.
Save the flame mail for another day. I don't like this any more than the next guy. In fact, when it comes to freeloading, I qualify for the all-star team. Each morning, I globetrot from the The Washington Post to Israel's Ha'aretz to France's Le Monde to The Times of India. Then I circle back to see what the Brits are scribbling about, taking in a few more domestic and international cyber-rags before the day is done.

Very nice for me, but there's no way this free content smorgasbord can last. Servers cost money, and people work for salaries. Nobody's in it for the philanthropic rush it offers.

It is said that a free republic demands a free and vigilant fourth estate, but you get what you pay for. I can get all the opinion and reports about other reports from the gazillions of Web logs that spring up every day on the Internet. They are valuable, but only up to a point. Will they be the ones to break the next Watergate or Iran-Contra scandal? I very much doubt it. They don't have the reporting chops, the desire or the financial wherewithal to conduct the sort of long-running investigations that can topple governments.

To be sure, there's always the elegant exception. The late, great I.F. Stone was one. Stone was a veritable world-beater who made the mandarins quake in their boots--and he ran a solo operation. But the Izzy Stones of the world are few and far between. What's more, even Stone charged people who wanted to read his muckraking newsletter.

There's a new governing reality principle in our sobered up, post dot-com era. We finally understand that Bernie Ebbers wasn't a financial genius, Pets.com wasn't a brilliant business model and that Napster never had a prayer.

Oh, and one more: Content was neither born free, nor was it meant to be that way.

//.\\//.\\ · Aug 10, 2002, 05:51 PM

undernet is still there.

edit: man i didn't read through all your post sorry for this ridiculous comment.

/regards 0010101010101

[DH]Hawk · Aug 10, 2002, 06:38 PM

Hehe, no worries.

rushbone · Aug 10, 2002, 06:40 PM

yeah fellow Hawk...

so you think if you got some addicts here, some geeks who really think you are gods, you can make them pay for your content? there are so many other sites, with the same content, maybe the whole SP1s are there just not on the same day as here, but on the next day. You can't really control copyrights so a bunch other free sites will just leech and stole from you, and post it, cause money they'll pay for the membership will be covered just by banners they got. I dont have any problems with banners as long as a site is free. I know it all costs money. But dont think you can really keep this resourse alive if you'll make it paid.

just my 5 cents

[DH]Hawk · Aug 10, 2002, 07:04 PM

Excuse me? First off, when did I say that DriverHeaven was going to turn paid? That was just an informative news article. It may never happen; it probably won't. It's there for people to read. Final word, DriverHeaven will never be commercial.

***Zardon*** · Aug 10, 2002, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rushbone
yeah fellow Hawk...

so you think if you got some addicts here, some geeks who really think you are gods, you can make them pay for your content? there are so many other sites, with the same content, maybe the whole SP1s are there just not on the same day as here, but on the next day. You can't really control copyrights so a bunch other free sites will just leech and stole from you, and post it, cause money they'll pay for the membership will be covered just by banners they got. I dont have any problems with banners as long as a site is free. I know it all costs money. But dont think you can really keep this resourse alive if you'll make it paid.

just my 5 cents

I am not sure what is with your attitude, Hawk is a newsposter and I would certainly not take this news post as the financial stance of the management of DH, the running of the site, certainly the financial end is down to myself, and the hosting and costs are generally paid by myself with the members helping through donations.
Regarding advertisements, they may be necessary in the future but currently I am trying to avoid them as I hate them as much as everyone else. If people dont donate, I will have to add them at some stage.

Driverheaven is not going to charge anyone for anything. Its a site run by hardware and computer fanatics FOR the people, not by a faceless corporation of moneygrabbing suits out to make money, in fact if you had seen the money ive PUT into this site, you might lose as much hair as I have.

Onde Pik · Aug 10, 2002, 07:17 PM

I am quite sure that 'free' on the internet will never end. We might not get free movie clips and other stuff that takes alot of bandwidth. But lots of contents will still be 'free'. Almost every aspect of running a web site is getting cheaper and cheaper. As technology evolves, bandwidth and storrage space is getting cheaper by the moment. Algorithms get faster and better, processing power gets faster and cheaper and so on. In a few years we might even see free video clips back, because of theese very things.

***Zardon*** · Aug 10, 2002, 07:29 PM

yes, there will always be "free" on the internet, that is why so many people love it, myself included

, with regards to your second point - yes shared server hosting is now quite inexpensive in the current climate but hosting a site like DH with frequently over 500,000 hits a day and bandwidth over 200-300 gig a month on a dedicated server is still expensive.

[DH]Hawk · Aug 10, 2002, 07:37 PM

OK, I guess this was a bit of a duff post. Please disregard it.

AshG · Aug 10, 2002, 11:53 PM

Normally, I tend to stick to posting hardware news; this rant/observance/thought struck me as something worthy of breaking that tendancy. I've linked to this thread from the news section of Envy (the post is here ).

I found this piece ot be well written, well thought out, and very timely. Keep up the good work, [DH]Hawk. It's not fluff at all, it's well worth the read.

Matth · Aug 10, 2002, 11:56 PM

There IS a crisis looming.

The fact is, that there is both less altruism in the running of truly free to the user sites (as universities etc. see the size of their bandwith bills) and less money to be made from ads - after they pushed too damn hard and people pushed back with ad-blockers etc.

The same is looming on ad-funded TV, with many people saying there seem to be more ads than there used to be - paradoxically - if the availabilty of ad slots was cut, and the price indreased, the message would not be diluted so much.

I think pay-content will come - but a site would not survive on pay-content alone unless they're happy with a small and exclusive audience, and to shell out themselves on advertising.

The best advert there is, is some relatively benign sponsorship, and some freebies.

And lets say, for instance, that DH wanted to help cover costs....
How about charging for non-essentials, like avatars, or for some image storage space to upload your images to

Motoki · Aug 11, 2002, 02:23 AM

The problem I have with this is we are already paying about $20 for dial up and at least twice that for broadband (not to mention many people who have dial up have to get a second line if they ever want to recieve phone calls and that is around another $20). Also I know for a fact that people outside of US in areas such as Europe and Japan also pay for their dial up by the minute to the phone company as well as to the ISP. So now we have to pay for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Salon, etc etc etc. If everything on the internet becomes pay the internet would be dead, period. I don't care who you are I doubt anyone has the budget to pay for every site they access. So these sites charging are going to have to offer some pretty damned convincing content to get people to pay, especially since we can turn on the TV and get the same content better quality than the crappy real video we are getting for free. And what about the shows where people can email in as well as write in their opinions. Think I am going to pay for that when I can call some 1-800 #? I mean it costs CNN money to pay the anchors and newspeople and get the news and pay the lighting bills etc etc but we don't pay them to watch their channel, we just pay one flat rate to the cable company. Why should the internet be any different? Oh right it's on demand so I get some herky jerky real video file and that's worth $10 a month? Even with broadband the technology is not quite there yet to deliver television quality (let alone HDTV quality) full screen video in real time on demand, so I should pay for a substandard product because it's on demand when I can wait around for a half hour and get the real thing much better quality?

I do think at some point television and the personal computer will merge, for some of us we already have our All in Wonder Cards or whatever, and WebTV and Intercast, though not widely used, have blurred the lines a bit. But we still have to reach that point where the two ends have completely merged in the mainstream household and then see who's going to deliver the content (cable companies? telephone companies? both?) and see what the business model is, but this, just as the ad based model, I believe will ultimately fail. I don't think they'll attract the user base out there to make any signifigant money when a) every other Tom Dick and Harry is trying to get our dollar for every single service they offer ad b) people are used to getting it free (not to mention in many cases such as news they can still get it free if they are willing to wait a bit).

Also, who said news has to be expensive? AP and Reuters have been operating for years on wire services and now on the internet and yes their sites are barebones black text on white background with only the once in a blue moon still image, but their news is quick to update and fast to load even for those on dial up. And it's free.

-MO

nForcer · Aug 11, 2002, 11:44 AM

Free internet! woot Where do i sign up?

What I mean is...where do i sign my name for lower than 56k connections that are about as stable as the stock market and who's customer service is just as reliable, or non existant?'

now if this were free dsl or cable... THEN i'd read the article... and prolly make the same comment!

Wise man once said, "You get what you pay for"

Onde Pik · Aug 13, 2002, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zardon
yes, there will always be "free" on the internet, that is why so many people love it, myself included , with regards to your second point - yes shared server hosting is now quite inexpensive in the current climate but hosting a site like DH with frequently over 500,000 hits a day and bandwidth over 200-300 gig a month on a dedicated server is still expensive.

Yes, it sure is, but 2 years ago it was unpayable

And 5 years ago many mid sized companies couldnt afford it.

Smoothdrive · Aug 13, 2002, 06:12 PM

Well i think for instance your newspapers.. if you have to pay (almost) no one will read them on the internet..this has an influence on their sales of the traditional version of the newspaper..so stop giving free newspapers on the net will cost them in sales at the store.
Perhaps they just have to be more creative in generating money..they can include video or audio fragmenst that will only be availbale to the paying members..

Same goes for all other areas that are freely available on the ineternet now..turning them into paysites means suicide for most of them..i think the future will bring more limted free contents and premium contents for the paying visitors.