5 ms·
> The man can do what he wants but the public probably shouldn't applaud this. I kinda disagree with you on this one. Not only will something like the Kindle a
by walid 13y ago
> The man can do what he wants but the public probably shouldn't applaud this.
I kinda disagree with you on this one. Not only will something like the Kindle and Kindle apps benefit, but this is a huge win since the old style of media wasn't capable of figuring out how to stay in business. The reason why the Kindle, iTunes, Google Play or any other store is succeeding while the rest are failing is because all the rest didn't have monetized digital distribution mechanisms. All media was given out for free and now you can't stay in business if you decide to pay-wall your website. They weren't smart about it. However all other walled gardens are thriving because they are monetized from the get go and an effort has been made to make them simple to use.
The public is the winner here, and the Kindle. The only loser is probably B&N.
- DamnYuppie 13y agoThe public loses when a news source losses all credibility for being unbiased. We need more news organizations that are doing real hard hitting journalism and fewer media mouth pieces...long term this is not a good thing...
- whatusername 13y agoYou have a media mouthpiece owned by Bezos. Don't complain too much. My choices for national media mouthpieces are owned by: Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rhinehart, The Australian Government.
- sien 13y agoRinehart only owns 15% of Fairfax. Also, what about all the TV and radio networks? Their ownership is wider than the three people you list.
- whatusername 13y agoThose 3 names feature pretty prominently in TV ownership. The two dedicated news services are Murdoch (sky) and govt (abc24). Rinehart also has a decent chunk of 10. So I guess there's Kerry Stokes. And whoever is looking after 9 these days.
- kelnos 13y agoHow can you characterize the Post pre-Bezos as being unbiased? Different biases, to be sure, but no news organization is free from bias.
- jessaustin 13y agoAll media was given out for free and now you can't stay in business if you decide to pay-wall your website. They weren't smart about it. I submit that there was no possible set of actions the newspapers could have taken, including worldwide oligopolistic collusion, which could have produced a market in which any but a few "luxury" brands can charge media consumers directly. The basic service of telling us what happened over the last 12 hours is one that wants to be free.
- walid 13y agoTwo successful approaches would have been freemium with a paid tier or multiple micro payments through an app just like today's in-app purchases. However no good mechanism was used and news outlets used the web as an advertising venue for themselves and as an advertising source of revenue. Both didn't have much ROI.