51–60 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several reasons why I use it: - I can post papers or other documents that other people might value but not otherwise be available, such as court docs, academic papers, etc. - I can embed the documents easily in my blogs (and before at the publication I worked at) - I don't have to worry about hosting. I could easily upload the PDFs to the Web server my school grants me, but after I graduate, it's gone, and…
Post "papers of other documents": You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)? Unless you don't have the right to distribute the documents, they will remain there. Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you. Hosting: See the first paragraph. OK, anybody knows some better reason?
To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.
People still don't understand all of the things they are agreeing to on sites like this: Scribd Creator Terms Of Service http://ipadtest.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/scribd-creator-term...
A whole pile of data on scribd was never uploaded by the original owners though, but by people posting links to pdfs to sites like HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you start a free service, and then try to establish a pay system afterward, your users will feel tricked and trapped and they will rebel loudly. If you lock behind a paywall things previously available for free, sure. And they'll be right too. An other option is to add features which are only behind a new paywall. Issue then is providing additional services of value and a way for users to discover them.
Just as a case study, Reddit did exactly that, and their users flipped out . Reddit ended up doing OK with it -- they've made at least enough from it to be able to afford some infrastructure upgrades and at least one new hire -- but there was a pretty vocal not-small group of users that were unhappy about it.
Edit: Was mistaken. Assumed the parent was responding to the entire comment, rather than just a part.
Sometimes, when reading pieces like this, I think it is time that we as internet users reach a certain point in our understanding of entitlement. There are so many services we readily use, most free of charge, while some of them provide a huge service to us. Some even make us money. But if the service providers themselves try to validate their business by making money out of it in some way, we start bitching... I do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as a case study, Reddit did exactly that, and their users flipped out . Reddit ended up doing OK with it -- they've made at least enough from it to be able to afford some infrastructure upgrades and at least one new hire -- but there was a pretty vocal not-small group of users that were unhappy about it.
Reddit Gold? Yeah, not the same thing as what Scribd is doing here. Edit: Was mistaken. Assumed the parent was responding to the entire comment, rather than just a part.
People still don't understand all of the things they are agreeing to on sites like this: Scribd Creator Terms Of Service http://ipadtest.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/scribd-creator-term...
I can't actually believe that they would go the paywall route. It honestly seemed a few months ago when they added HTML5 support that they were going in a really great direction and now I will avoid them like the plague.
I think the whole HTML5 thing was a big PR exercise to improve the way they are seen. Possibly also a big play to get acquired - "We're doing cool stuff with fonts! Buy us!". Fundamentally though, they're about locking away documents behind a pay wall. And personally, I don't see their value proposition at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Post "papers of other documents": You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)? Unless you don't have the right to distribute the documents, they will remain there. Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you. Hosting: See the first paragraph. OK, anybody knows some better reason?
> You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)? To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.
Note however that he does "self publishing" experiment. Enough readers here would be able to make him one click upload script in less than 10 minutes. Ditto for parsing the logs. I don't feel sorry for him for choosing scribd and feeling how he feels now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would flip that around on you: I think it is time that companies reach a point in their understanding of users' reaction to the bait & switch. The value of your service to a user isn't going to increase simply due to the passage of time or growth of your site. If they wouldn't pay for it on day 1, the odds are they won't pay for it after 2 years of using the service. If, in the process of trying to monetize your se…
I want to give Scribd the benefit of the doubt. I don't really see this as malicious as much as a business decisions that was misinterpreted. It was probably something like this: People upload a lot of stuff to their service. Once content goes "stale" no one is viewing it anymore, but they are still storing it. They decided they could either remove the material to make room for new stuff or monetize the old material…