the iPad is just like the original Macintosh in concept, closed and simple, to get the early adopters and create a market – i’m one of the original early adopters and still have mine in the loft…. This was opened up with the MACII and I guess that Apple will continue to follow the pattern that has worked for them from the begining re functionality and price in setting the market standard..

I think everybody will have this problem. The money is not so much in the creation of internet content, as it is in the distribution. The merger between Comcast and NBC is a great example of one media company who “gets it.” NBC gives away Hulu nearly for free, and knows that others will soon follow suit. After the merger is complete, Hulu/NBC content will be free, while News Corp struggles to make ends meet with paywalls.

Ads can generate some revenue, but if you really want to make money, you need to lay down some fiber optic cables… like what Google is just getting into.

Do you think that it is just magazines/newspapers that won’t be able to charge for content? Or will book/film publishers have the same issue?

Adam Smith called this the “diamond water paradox.” What is more valuable to human survival, diamonds or water? Obviously water has greater value… it has greater “quality.” However, diamonds are hugely expensive, and water is cheap if not free. Why?

Price has nothing to do with “value” or even “quality”… it is only dependent on supply and demand. And when something is “free,” it creates an irrationally large demand… it’s called “loss aversion.” Offer somebody the choice between a free gumdrop, or a Lindt truffle for a penny. You’ll be shocked by how many people choose the gumdrop.

Now… there is a HUGE supply of free content with fairly high quality. There is a small supply of high-quality content that people are willing to pay for… by my count, that’s restricted to Netflix on demand. And Netflix keeps getting cheaper… not a good sign for people who want to charge for their content.

As long as some web site out there is offering nearly the same content for free, paywalls don’t have a chance.

Talking of payments but otherwise off-topic; I’d really like to see Apple convert their store into a general purpose payments platform/bank and blow Paypal out of their scum infested water. The iBank – I’d buy that. But maybe that’s just me.

eBooks aside, it is only a matter of time before the way the populous publish content on the Internet changes to allow for a free market economy (in the financial sense rather than Google ranking) to push up the value of high quality content irrespective of where and how its authored.

Currently there is little to regulate the quality of content on the Internet despite Googles efforts … and for the masses at the moment it is even harder to monetize.

But consider this … what is a publisher or publication more than an editorialized aggregation of “high quality” content aggregated from a limited set of authors. When exclusivity is maintained then there is real value in the editorializing service.

Once good authors have a real route to monetize their content, the purpose of publications becomes re-invigorated.

Me thinks that Reuters and Getty should consider casting their net wider afield and create an environment for the masses to monetize and syndicate content.

Of course, for those with an ego, or who just like to trumpet on the Internet, the “aged” versions would become free to post on their blogs and such as a way of marketing themselves. But wouldn’t you make your content content exclusive for a short period if it meant you could actually make some money from your insight …

Of course, many years ago when the dot com boom was taking shape and companies like IPC and Emap had the opportunity to invest their millions in real organizational change, they blew it all on a few publication web site white elephants … what a waste.

Anyway, I am off to write a business plan …

People are “predictably irrational” when it comes to free stuff. Why pay for the New York Times when I can get most of that for free on blogs, or Reuters? Even if it is ten times cooler, the perception of “free” is just too enticing.

It’s basic supply and demand. A billion people are trying to get you to come to their blog, for free. New York Times wants to charge a penny. Viewers don’t know how much the information is worth. Guess who will win?

Case in point: three months after NewsDay put up their paywall, and spent $4 million on a new site, guess how many subscribers? Just thirty five.

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/after-three-months-only-35-subscriptions-newsdays-web-site