111–120 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solution: don't do shitty things (e.g. block ad-blockers, write awful content, or use paywalls). Easy.
To be fair, this doesn't address publishing's revenue problem, though it does the public good element. See my earlier comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the business model. All of these behaviors 1) are hostile to high-quality accessble content and 2) are fundamentally driven by advertising (or its failure). Information is a public good. This doesn't mean it costs nothing to produce (the contrary), but high-quality public information has a high positive externality to the common wealth (that is, the commonwealth), and is essential in a democratic socie…
and this is why I like state-run media sources. 99% of the time I'm not looking for things the ministry of foreign policy doesn't want me to know and it is favorable toward high quality accessible content. everyone concerned about competition and the competition gave you shit that makes state run news a breath of fresh air
The other 1% is the news that actually matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WSJ subscribers may not be aware of this, but if you share an article via email, WSJ generates a shortened link to the same article that works for non-subscribers. Try this: http://on.wsj.com/1SNz3dT
That didn't work for me, I see the paywall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employee stock vesting day. If you get stocks granted as a bonus (most of us do), they vest in may and November. I know guys who've never sold any of their stocks. This will be literally $10k or more in their pockets, if they finally decide to sell.
Jeff just made $6.1B afterhours...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The latest trick for wsj articles is to append /amp before /article More readable, less ads, and no-paywall.
And it's even available in the page as a link: " rel="nofollow">http://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/amazon-reports-surge-in-prof... That's a call for a browser extension!
var ampLink = document.querySelector('link[rel="amphtml"]');
if (ampLink) {
var href = ampLink.getAttribute('href');
if (href) {
location.replace(href, false);
}
}
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering Amazon is able to constantly expand into new retail fields (like groceries), launch a cloud services business, launch own its internal logistics business (that is the 2nd largest provider in the UK now) says to me the Retail business is probably more profitable than the media would have us believe...
From speaking with internal Amazon employees, their total profit is negative because they invest more money into expansion than they are taking in. They make an incredible amount of money and likely would be turning a profit if not for the extensive investments. But as it stands, expenses (including expansion costs) outstrip revenue, thus profit is negative.
I'm okay with either disbursement or reinvestment/expansion/research. Those both grow communities/economies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the business model. All of these behaviors 1) are hostile to high-quality accessble content and 2) are fundamentally driven by advertising (or its failure). Information is a public good. This doesn't mean it costs nothing to produce (the contrary), but high-quality public information has a high positive externality to the common wealth (that is, the commonwealth), and is essential in a democratic socie…
Since the government doesn't currently pay for Media, how should journalists currently get paid?
One option would be similar to how performance rights organisations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_organisatio...) operate in music and broadcast based on mechanical copyrights.
Another option would be to identify who the most valuable authors, reporters, composers, performers are, and provide a stable annualised income based on this and related elements.
In the UK, broadcast taxes are paid to the BBC, which funds creatives.
The details of how specifically individuals are paid isn't so important as the fact that they are, in a manner sufficient to provide the information and media necessary for a vibrant culture and society, as well as polity.
If you look at Adam Smith's discussion of compensation for labour, he comes up with a fivefold set of factors, on top of the basic fundamental imperative that wages be sufficient to live on and raise a family.
Somewhere in there lurks at least one successful formula, I'd suspect.
(I'll see if I can't find some relevant links.)
Amazon's rationale for its lack of profits is well known... Why does this rationale not apply to its cloud business? Is the cloud business so good that it generates profits regardless of the investment it makes... or is the retail business so bad that it can't generate profits regardless of the investment AMZN makes in it?
Amazon's cloud products apparently don't have to be at the low end of the price spectrum. And yet they continue to dominate. That's much harder to achieve in retail. Another difference is that Amazon already has the dominant position in cloud computing. Amazon's share of all retail (not just e-commerce), is not dominant.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-walmart-2015072...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the business model. All of these behaviors 1) are hostile to high-quality accessble content and 2) are fundamentally driven by advertising (or its failure). Information is a public good. This doesn't mean it costs nothing to produce (the contrary), but high-quality public information has a high positive externality to the common wealth (that is, the commonwealth), and is essential in a democratic socie…
and this is why I like state-run media sources. 99% of the time I'm not looking for things the ministry of foreign policy doesn't want me to know and it is favorable toward high quality accessible content. everyone concerned about competition and the competition gave you shit that makes state run news a breath of fresh air
Privacy and metrics.
If you think about it, this is what broadcast media already accomplish nicely.
It's interesting to note that Amazon third-party seller unit share is at 48% of total units shipped, which is a record high. It has grown by 1% per quarter for the last 4 quarters in a row.
I don't really like how they sell things from third parties on there. If it's sold by someone else and fulfilled by Amazon that's ok, but otherwise the whole point of buying on Amazon is to not have to deal with weirdo possibly-shady little retailers.