Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new licensing program to support the news industry

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#31

Post by mobilefriendly »

SyneRyder wrote: post #30
alkonaut wrote: post #21

If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions or group subscriptions which is ONLY there to improve the internet and doesn't benefit google (Get more traffic, get more user data, ...) then this is a good thing. It would be like the google/apple teaming up on the BT proximity tracking apis in android and iOS. If google gets any cut in such a system, or even gets a slight…

> If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions... They had something close to this with Google Contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor You add a few dollars to your online account, nominate which participating sites you want it to work with, and you would get an ad-free / paywall-free experience on those sites. The sites would determine the price…

The Contributor program lets people decide what "news" to support. Now Google is going to pick which favored news outlets it is going to financially support.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#32

Post by andrepd »

SyneRyder wrote: post #30
alkonaut wrote: post #21

If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions or group subscriptions which is ONLY there to improve the internet and doesn't benefit google (Get more traffic, get more user data, ...) then this is a good thing. It would be like the google/apple teaming up on the BT proximity tracking apis in android and iOS. If google gets any cut in such a system, or even gets a slight…

> If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions... They had something close to this with Google Contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor You add a few dollars to your online account, nominate which participating sites you want it to work with, and you would get an ad-free / paywall-free experience on those sites. The sites would determine the price…

Isn't that the idea of Flattr?

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#33

Post by dividedbyzero »

alkonaut wrote: post #21

If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions or group subscriptions which is ONLY there to improve the internet and doesn't benefit google (Get more traffic, get more user data, ...) then this is a good thing. It would be like the google/apple teaming up on the BT proximity tracking apis in android and iOS. If google gets any cut in such a system, or even gets a slight…

That might be a hard sell to their shareholders, spending a lot while gaining nothing, maybe even harming existing products.

Besides, if they foot the bill for finding out how such a micropayment system that actually works would look like, I guess it might still be a net win for everyone, because that would drastically lower the bar of entrance for competitors. Figuring that out would probably require very expensive iterations.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#34

Post by tumetab1 »

alkonaut wrote: post #21

If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions or group subscriptions which is ONLY there to improve the internet and doesn't benefit google (Get more traffic, get more user data, ...) then this is a good thing. It would be like the google/apple teaming up on the BT proximity tracking apis in android and iOS. If google gets any cut in such a system, or even gets a slight…

Google is corporation, of course it's for their benefit.

Google is paying news organizations to stop chastising them for hurting their revenues. While they're at it, also coup some good PR.

Does a reader want free* paywalled news? You have to use google. Does a news org want a pie of the Google free* news budget? You have to partner with Google.

Solidifies even more Google position as an immovable object. One less reason not to use Google Search/News. One less reason for not relying on Google for revenues.

One less reason for everyone to question Google market position and do anything about it.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#35

Post by tumetab1 »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #29
syshum wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care about NEWS, factual reporting on current event We no longer have a news industry, we have a propaganda industry filled with political commenters and activists not journalists (that is both left and right)

facts don't matter, stories sell

I would phrase it like but I agree with the conclusion.

> Facts matter but stories sell.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#36

Post by alkonaut »

tumetab1 wrote: post #34
alkonaut wrote: post #21

If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions or group subscriptions which is ONLY there to improve the internet and doesn't benefit google (Get more traffic, get more user data, ...) then this is a good thing. It would be like the google/apple teaming up on the BT proximity tracking apis in android and iOS. If google gets any cut in such a system, or even gets a slight…

Google is corporation, of course it's for their benefit. Google is paying news organizations to stop chastising them for hurting their revenues. While they're at it, also coup some good PR. Does a reader want free* paywalled news? You have to use google. Does a news org want a pie of the Google free* news budget? You have to partner with Google. Solidifies even more Google position as an immovable object. One less re…

> Google is corporation, of course it's for their benefit.

I'm thinking a diverse web that isn't controlled by another big actor might be enough of a long term benefit to google.

Some times I get the feeling that these huge actors don't necessarily silo everything because they necessarily think it's a good idea, but because if they don't someone else will and that's a bad thing.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#37

Post by SyneRyder »

andrepd wrote: post #32
SyneRyder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If google actually creates a good system for paying news media through e.g. microtransactions... They had something close to this with Google Contributor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor You add a few dollars to your online account, nominate which participating sites you want it to work with, and you would get an ad-free / paywall-free experience on those sites. The sites would determine the price…

Isn't that the idea of Flattr?

Pretty much, except I don't think Flattr allowed content creators to set their own price & put stuff behind a paywall. Flattr is more of a donation / Patreon model. Contributor instead set an upfront price on accessing each article.

(I could be wrong, it's years since I last used Flattr. I'm surprised but glad to see they're still around.)

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#38

Post by ketzu »

ngold wrote: post #17

No one forced all news organizations to dump their in house advertising for easily ad blocked versions. They all had perfectly good reasons to not have to deal with the headache of losing money. But that would require keeping the ad sales team they had on board and making a similiar product online. But everyone got scared and lazy and saw a one quarter jump by dumping a bunch of staff.

Did the prices for ads not dramatically drop over time?

To me, it feels like it was just market forces driving those decisions. They could have kept the ad sales team and fewer ads, but that doesn't mean that would have worked out.

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#39

Post by [deleted] »

ketzu wrote: post #38
ngold wrote: post #17

No one forced all news organizations to dump their in house advertising for easily ad blocked versions. They all had perfectly good reasons to not have to deal with the headache of losing money. But that would require keeping the ad sales team they had on board and making a similiar product online. But everyone got scared and lazy and saw a one quarter jump by dumping a bunch of staff.

Did the prices for ads not dramatically drop over time? To me, it feels like it was just market forces driving those decisions. They could have kept the ad sales team and fewer ads, but that doesn't mean that would have worked out.

[deleted]

Re: A new licensing program to support the news industry

#40

Post by CaptArmchair »

doublesCs wrote: post #11

Just to get a sense for the crowd: am I the only one who doesn't care much about the news industry? Keeping with what's new in society is important insofar as having an informed population is vital for the correct functioning of a democracy. But the "news industry" is 95% gargabe and contributes zero to getting people informed. I firmly believe that if the news industry disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't be much worse…

When it comes to making the news, the undeniable truth is that someone is paying to get it made. If consumers don't pay for the news, others will.

Even the news on public broadcasting channels is paid for: through public funding and - ultimately - taxpayer money.

It used to be that you would pay to get a newspaper, or you would have a yearly subscription to the newspaper. Add in advertising and newspapers were able to break even. Reach in the analogue world was limited to a local city, region or country. Scaling simply didn't make much sense. Local news was a matter of ensuring that the paper would still be around next year to report on local affairs. And local communities had a stake in ensuring that their paper stayed operational.

Then there was the Web. Originally conceived as a way of exchanging research information, the foundational idea was to remove all bars and give open access to whatever is published. The early Web pretty much thrived on this idea up until the dotcom boom when e-commerce started to explode.

News outlets enthusiastically joined the fray, publishing articles and content for free.

But as internet connectivity became mainstream and penetrated all strata of society, an ever increasing influx of visitors also meant rampant costs and expenses to cater to those ballooning audiences. This happened rapidly.

By the time newspapers - or any publisher - started to add paywalls to their content, it was already too late. Others seized the moment, and bigger fish had successfully consolidated the market around their offering, buying and leveraging news outlets and advertising as links in larger chains that drive consumers towards the convenience of online consumerism.

You are right, saving the current players that constitute the news industry isn't a justification for breaking up conglomerates that influence the current trend of news making. But creating a more level playing field for new players to entering sustainable and durable news reporting with modern business models, is. While at the same time promoting why consumers should pay for the news they read on line, and making it clear why that's important.

Post reply on HN