4 ms·
Google obviously. Pandora.com - ($15/mo ... i already pay this to Napster for unltd dls (but I would have to be able to press a back button to play the previou
by cellis 19y ago
Google obviously.
Pandora.com - ($15/mo ... i already pay this to Napster for unltd dls (but I would have to be able to press a back button to play the previous song,etc),
Hacker News ($20/mo ... keep the trolls off)
Wikipedia? Well if it came down to it, i'd donate to it; if it started charging, i would use other alternatives. the beauty of wikipedia being free is that it is free from the undue influence of paying subscribers- which is pretty essential to a site that wants to supply unbiased information.)
Facebook.
I don't really know of anything else that truly provides a unique value proposition for me that other sites can't duplicate rather easily.
- mattmaroon 19y agoI think Pandora is the only one that could reasonably charge there. The rest would see massive switchovers to free, similar competitors.
- pchristensen 19y agoI'm not recommending they do or that quality would remain if they became paid. I just wanted to feel out which sites people really valued.
- wanorris 19y agoAnother vote for Pandora. I'd be willing to pay for Hacker News, but deeply suspicious that it would start dying as a paid site. Yahoo Mail charges me for POP access, and I'd probably pay gmail similarly. I happily subscribe to Emusic.com. That's about it for me. I like Twitter, Friendfeed, and Blogger, but I wouldn't pay to use any of them.
- baddox 19y agoI might pay for Facebook, but if they started making EVERYONE pay, it would cease being the site which I began this sentence by saying I would for it pay.