RD, bite me. You don't even take the time to understand my posts, you are just drooling for a chance to go off on me.
f-ing idiot.
You don't realize I was saying that things will have to play in theaters to make money, and will likely have to be sold on DVD and rights managed and distributed to PPV to make money? as I said:
"there is no chance that there will be much in the way of "free to the internet" or "pay what you like", as they will need to make the money to keep the game going."
That means actually having to retail it, either in theaters or via DVD or paid digital download.
God damn, you are one of the biggest morons on here (you are actually worse than the trolling ACs).
Please learn to read before you go OFF ON A HUGE MORONIC CAPITAL LETTER RANT. It just makes you look stupid.
One of the reasons there was not much live streaming last time out was because the olympics were 12 hours out of sync. So the 2 pm track and field events were 2 am east coast time in the US. Those Olympics were pretty much the "highlight" Olympics, because that was pretty much all that ran in prime time.
The winter games are on west coast time, so east coast prime time will be packed with events, hockey games and the like.
Keeping people watching the broadcasts is likely NBC's best income bet, moving them online is expensive and doesn't offer the same sort of returns. As it is, NBC is likely to take a major financial hit on this Olympics, I don't think it is particularly reasonable to expect them to spend millions more for streaming just to make you feel good. It isn't like anyone here would pay a subscription fee to get it.
However, I will say this. Even a song that is user for Charity is subject to copyright, performance, rights, etc. The rights are administered by Warner/Chappel Music, one of the largest of it's kind. This is not the first time that We Are The World has been in the copyright spotlight.
For me, it sounds like Viacom didn't want to pay a license for musical performance, so they nixed it. Otherwise, they would have been paying an extra license on a TV show that probably isn't all that profitable to start with.
It's just one of those things. There is no much leeway on "fair use" which it comes to public performance and TV distribution.
If a writer spends a year of their life writing a great story, 6 more months doing re-writes and edits, and then spends a certain amount of time on actually marketing the book in interviews, appearances, book signings (nice scarcity there!) etc, they have a reasonable expectation to make at least enough to pay for the time they spent, such that they can afford to do it all again.
he ONLY reason they should be afraid of losing sales, is if they know their work is terrible and want to con people out of their money before they realize it too
Bad work is bad work, and it means that even if they make the sale today, they won't make the next sale tomorrow. Most writers / movie makers / businessmen want the next sale too, in part because the next sale is cheaper (you are already sold). The second Matrix movie was an easy sell because the first one was popular.
All business moves are a question of risk and return. What the author does by first selling the books over a period of time, and then working to give access to new markets later is to extend his reach and make the next sale, on the next book. But there is no reason to give up the first sales to do it.
Why do you think you don't see many supermarket samples of things that are popular, only of things that are new? Something that is popular doesn't need to be pushed, at least until it's popularity declines, then it becomes "new and improved". For the writer, having the book sell well to existing fans for a period of time, and then moving to use "FREE!" to gain new fans for his next work is a great move. Little risk, expand you fan base, and profit the next time around as well.
Oh yeah, remember, profit also means "gain fans", It isn't about the money, money at a certain point is only a measuring stick, not a goal in and of itself. Most writer interviews I have read shows that once they reach a level of income that they are not so concerned about making a living, they can take the time to create much more complex books, or take a slight risk on subject matter that might not be quite as mainstream. Money isn't money in the "I'm a rich fat bastard" sort of way, just that they no longer have to worry about keeping the lights and heat on. It frees the mind... and the rest will follow. :)
Kevin Smith has always been about dealing directly with his fans, since long before the internet really mattered. He started out financing his own movies, so none of this will really come as surprise. He friend financed Clerks for release in 1994.
Even you can see where he stands in 2002's "An Evening with Kevin Smith" (with the memorable quote "When we called up the student activities board, we said we were gonna be shooting at Kent State - they were like, "Bull shit!" They were like, "We went through that shit once before; never again!" "). You can see already that he has long since cultivated a cult following for his movies, which is a good thing because his movies are often a little too far off of normal to attract a mainstream audience.
He is an excellent speaker and a very good spokesman for his ideas and ideals, and appears to have found a solid niche just to the side of Hollywood, getting their support as needed but never really ending up squashed in the machine.
He does have some interesting points in here, most importantly that it takes money to make a movie, and that movie needs to make enough money to pay for the next one, or you have to re-prime the pump. So there is no chance that there will be much in the way of "free to the internet" or "pay what you like", as they will need to make the money to keep the game going.
It's just sort of like a normal studio, except using stranger's money instead of a few richer people's bucks.
if distribution was the only part of it, every website on earth would be as popular as every other.
Labels do much more than just "release" stuff, they promote. In fact, it was just that sort of promotion Facepalm turned down because she wasn't willing to allow them to edit out her paunch.
What the label provides (and fronts the money for) is the sort of things most small bands would die for: exposure in multiple markets, radio (and last.fm style) airplay, interviews, magazines, newspapers, etc. Labels often pair up their bigger and smaller acts on tours, giving the smaller acts higher level exposure, or work with other labels and promoters to get their acts on better tours.
It's all the stuff that is done to get a band known, to get them in front of the public, to get the old hype machine going, to get people exposed and interested in the band, to get to know them a little bit as people (not just musical droids), etc.
Just having a product isn't enough, as most will tell you. If nobody is looking for it, it doesn't matter.
I can't help but think this story would be different if the Itampon had been released with the image on it and no credit given. That it is only a pre-release situation sort of changes everything.
I personally wouldn't trust Apple very far, they are relentless and very tough negotiators. I can't help but think this guy won't like the end deal (unless he expects little, then he will be happy anyway).
onsidering his books are normally bestsellters I'd say that he goes against your "downside risk is very small, because they have little to lose" comment.
Not at all. The books he put out for free, by your own words, had already been out for a few years, and the fans had already bought them. Anything he got after that was gravy. He had little downside risk (the fan base was already satisfied), so why not? The only risk he has is cutting off a bit of the long tail on his book.
Now, if he had a new release coming, and instead put it out there for free in all the different ebook formats, he would be taking a very big risk against potential sales. That would be a whole different game.
Actually, I can't help but think that this ruling would be bad for the ISPs in that country.
If there is no manner to know who is on an individual IP (even after a court case), the copyright holders would have no alternative but to go after the owner of record of the IP block. That would be the only valid (and publically revealed) owner they could contact. If the ISPs are barred from giving out user information, they could end up on the hook.
I would say that neither party in this would like the ruling.
Nope, that is the point. Facebook isn't intentionally driving traffic to anyone. Facebook doesn't have a seperate "Facebook news" thing, they just have users doing what people do, saying "heck, check out this stupidity" and linking people to things.
If nobody linked to the news, facebook wouldn't send any traffic to news sites.
Some even luckier but fewer bands sell music over a long period of time. However, they still don't make any money from those sales. Roger McGuinn once said, "I never received a dime from the Byrds." And of course despite selling 11 gold records in a row, the band Grand Funk never saw a dime from those sales.
Here is some logic for you: A record deal is a "FREE!" between a band and the label.
Scratching your head? Well, think about it. Roger McGuinn isn't exactly couch surfing or checking trash cans for bottles to recycle, nor did the guys from GFRR exactly live like hermits. To this day, if either of these acts decides to give concerts, they could very likely attract a decent crowd, exactly as a result of the deal with the labels that made them famous to start with.
Many bands make plenty of coin off of their record sales, not always directly from the selling of the records but from residuals (airplay), performance rights, etc. How much do you think a band like The Transpants made off of licensing their music to a series of shampoo commercials? Do you think that would have happened without the song being out there getting played on the radio, on a label deal?
The vast majority of bands who are signed to major labels never have any hits so they end up in debt trying to pay back their advance.
in the end, that is the market saying "your product isn't good enough". All the marketing and all the experience in the world can't make a bad song good.
Oh yeah, let me add this: Even the bands that don't make back their advances often sell plenty of records, and get plenty of fans. As a distribution system, they get a much wider exposure than they can any other way. Would you really know who Facepalm Palmer was if the Dresden Dolls didn't have record releases and worldwide distribution?
I still think that the top of the online heap is just short of the first rung of the label ladder. Sort of "big fish, small pond" stuff.
Paul, if you operate website(s), you would understand the power of those links.
If each one of those links represented 0.5% of all clicks on the page, and you have 20 of them, you suck 10% of the traffic off the page. It is important that Google is very much into spreading their brand, and so they do push things like RSS, gadgets, desktops, google start pages (as you mention with your "modified UK layout") etc. They get you to spend more time on their site, and when it comes time for you to do something that would make someone money, google can get in the middle of it.
If you need someone to point the bricks on your house, you might search in google, because google gave you such nice news, and allowed you to use their stuff for your start page.
Try not to look at things so literally, look at them in overall "experience". Look at your own activities, as realize that Google has pretty much sucked you in with other people's content. They offer you a service, but that service is never truly free, just without apparent cost to you.
If you want to have some real fun, check how many google ads you see in a day. It is shocking.
False. Watching a good movie is an experience. Watching a movie (good or bad) is not a product.
Ben, the problem with your line here is that you missed what underlies the whole thing: If the movie isn't good, even if the experience (nice chairs, 3D, THX sound, 9 foot tall screen, best popcorn ever, whatever) is amazing, it won't save Ishtar or Waterworld, and it won't make the Spice Girls movie into anything other than a promo vehicle.
You can have a good experience watching a movie, but the movie watching experience cannot make up for a crappy root product.
Have you ever watched the test patterns on an HD big screen TV. It's pretty amazing for the first 20 seconds or so, and then it's gone. No matter how nice the screen or how crisp the image, the test pattern itself is dull.
If your experience is crappy (the music sounds bad, the movie is boring)
This is where you are wrong - you are confusing the experience with the product. Experience is all that goes into showing you the product, the theater, the popcorn, the seats, the sound, the screen, the "presentation" as it were. It's on the same plane as an empty night club with no music. It's a beautiful place, amazing lights, great drinks, but without people and music, it's just another pretty room. A movie theater is just an empty dark room without the content, the product, what it is people line up for.
The Ferrari is a prefect example, because the pure marginal costs of producing 1 more car are lower the the selling costs, but that is only part of what it costs to make the car. Design, development, the factory, the equipment, the testing, the safety crashes (always painful to see), and all sort of other "non-marginal" costs stack up eat up much of the window sticker price. Yes, people are buying the Ferrari experience (beauty, grace, style, people look, whatever) but in the end, if the car didn't run, most people wouldn't buy them. Ferrari almost went out of business because their cars didn't run. All the experience in the world didn't make up for a car that needed excessive repairs all the time. The experience was nothing without the product.
With a good product, you can build a good experience around it. If Avatar truly sucked as a movie, all the 3D in the world would be meaningless, because nobody would sit through the movie. If it was just the 3D and all that which made it special, then it would be easier just to run a 3D demo reel and charge people to see that. It doesn't work, because people want to see the underlying product, the movie.
The experience alone wouldn't sell. What is truly scarce is good movies, good music, etc. Only focusing on the marginal reproduction costs is more than a marginal mistake.
It is like anything. An author (or band, or movie maker) who doesn't have a big following can benefit from giving stuff away for free. In part, it is because their downside risk is very small, because they have little to lose.
Helmet, I don't think you can get well enough known on this alone, I am sure you can get some exposure. My thought: how many people know about Nina Paley? Outside of a certain group, she would be an unknown. It might get you to a certain point, but I am not sure it goes all the way (nor am I sure you would want to go all the way on everyone getting your work for free).
In the end, it appears that "FREE!" is one step on the ladder, see:
Links off to web search, photo search, to add gadgets to your desktop (selling the Google brand) etc. There are about 20 links off the page that are not news.
Google gets in the way, trying to give you a "google" experience, and thus get you to also use their other (income earning) properties.
It's a good business model, but in the end, Google doesn't give the news for free, just at no apparent cost to you.
A good song is a good song, no "experience" is required to make that song good. All the experience in the world cannot make a bad song good.
A good movie is a good movie, no experience required. A great movie seen in the comfort of your home for the first time is still a great movie. Heck, a great movie seen in the discomfort of economy class in an airplane is still a good movie. A bad movie is always bad, all the experience in the world can't make an Ishtar or a Waterworld be anything other than horrible movies.
My point is that discounting the product as a disposable, intangible, infinite good with no market price is to miss the entire point. A Ferrari is not a fast car because of the badges or the zoomie sounding exhaust note, it is a fast car because of the product itself. You can slap the badges and a noisy exhaust on a yugo, but it won't be a Ferrari.
Failure to remember "it's the product, stupid" dooms you to never getting out the gate.
On the post: Kevin Smith May Try Crowdfunding Horror Film, Red State, After Fans Offer To Do So
Re: Re: more drivel from the f-ing idiot TAM
f-ing idiot.
You don't realize I was saying that things will have to play in theaters to make money, and will likely have to be sold on DVD and rights managed and distributed to PPV to make money? as I said:
"there is no chance that there will be much in the way of "free to the internet" or "pay what you like", as they will need to make the money to keep the game going."
That means actually having to retail it, either in theaters or via DVD or paid digital download.
God damn, you are one of the biggest morons on here (you are actually worse than the trolling ACs).
Please learn to read before you go OFF ON A HUGE MORONIC CAPITAL LETTER RANT. It just makes you look stupid.
On the post: NBC Continues To Do The Exact Wrong Thing When It Comes To The Olympics Online
The winter games are on west coast time, so east coast prime time will be packed with events, hockey games and the like.
Keeping people watching the broadcasts is likely NBC's best income bet, moving them online is expensive and doesn't offer the same sort of returns. As it is, NBC is likely to take a major financial hit on this Olympics, I don't think it is particularly reasonable to expect them to spend millions more for streaming just to make you feel good. It isn't like anyone here would pay a subscription fee to get it.
On the post: Comedian Has To Retell Joke 2nd Time, Because Viacom Couldn't Have Him Sing Four Words: 'We Are The World'
Re: Re: only 1 song in the world?
However, I will say this. Even a song that is user for Charity is subject to copyright, performance, rights, etc. The rights are administered by Warner/Chappel Music, one of the largest of it's kind. This is not the first time that We Are The World has been in the copyright spotlight.
For me, it sounds like Viacom didn't want to pay a license for musical performance, so they nixed it. Otherwise, they would have been paying an extra license on a TV show that probably isn't all that profitable to start with.
It's just one of those things. There is no much leeway on "fair use" which it comes to public performance and TV distribution.
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a writer spends a year of their life writing a great story, 6 more months doing re-writes and edits, and then spends a certain amount of time on actually marketing the book in interviews, appearances, book signings (nice scarcity there!) etc, they have a reasonable expectation to make at least enough to pay for the time they spent, such that they can afford to do it all again.
he ONLY reason they should be afraid of losing sales, is if they know their work is terrible and want to con people out of their money before they realize it too
Bad work is bad work, and it means that even if they make the sale today, they won't make the next sale tomorrow. Most writers / movie makers / businessmen want the next sale too, in part because the next sale is cheaper (you are already sold). The second Matrix movie was an easy sell because the first one was popular.
All business moves are a question of risk and return. What the author does by first selling the books over a period of time, and then working to give access to new markets later is to extend his reach and make the next sale, on the next book. But there is no reason to give up the first sales to do it.
Why do you think you don't see many supermarket samples of things that are popular, only of things that are new? Something that is popular doesn't need to be pushed, at least until it's popularity declines, then it becomes "new and improved". For the writer, having the book sell well to existing fans for a period of time, and then moving to use "FREE!" to gain new fans for his next work is a great move. Little risk, expand you fan base, and profit the next time around as well.
Oh yeah, remember, profit also means "gain fans", It isn't about the money, money at a certain point is only a measuring stick, not a goal in and of itself. Most writer interviews I have read shows that once they reach a level of income that they are not so concerned about making a living, they can take the time to create much more complex books, or take a slight risk on subject matter that might not be quite as mainstream. Money isn't money in the "I'm a rich fat bastard" sort of way, just that they no longer have to worry about keeping the lights and heat on. It frees the mind... and the rest will follow. :)
On the post: Kevin Smith May Try Crowdfunding Horror Film, Red State, After Fans Offer To Do So
Even you can see where he stands in 2002's "An Evening with Kevin Smith" (with the memorable quote "When we called up the student activities board, we said we were gonna be shooting at Kent State - they were like, "Bull shit!" They were like, "We went through that shit once before; never again!" "). You can see already that he has long since cultivated a cult following for his movies, which is a good thing because his movies are often a little too far off of normal to attract a mainstream audience.
He is an excellent speaker and a very good spokesman for his ideas and ideals, and appears to have found a solid niche just to the side of Hollywood, getting their support as needed but never really ending up squashed in the machine.
He does have some interesting points in here, most importantly that it takes money to make a movie, and that movie needs to make enough money to pay for the next one, or you have to re-prime the pump. So there is no chance that there will be much in the way of "free to the internet" or "pay what you like", as they will need to make the money to keep the game going.
It's just sort of like a normal studio, except using stranger's money instead of a few richer people's bucks.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re: Re: Re:
Labels do much more than just "release" stuff, they promote. In fact, it was just that sort of promotion Facepalm turned down because she wasn't willing to allow them to edit out her paunch.
What the label provides (and fronts the money for) is the sort of things most small bands would die for: exposure in multiple markets, radio (and last.fm style) airplay, interviews, magazines, newspapers, etc. Labels often pair up their bigger and smaller acts on tours, giving the smaller acts higher level exposure, or work with other labels and promoters to get their acts on better tours.
It's all the stuff that is done to get a band known, to get them in front of the public, to get the old hype machine going, to get people exposed and interested in the band, to get to know them a little bit as people (not just musical droids), etc.
Just having a product isn't enough, as most will tell you. If nobody is looking for it, it doesn't matter.
On the post: Photographer Thrilled That Apple Using His Photo As Default iPad Background, Despite No Official Agreement
I personally wouldn't trust Apple very far, they are relentless and very tough negotiators. I can't help but think this guy won't like the end deal (unless he expects little, then he will be happy anyway).
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Re: Re: Re:
Either you have enough money to afford not to care, or you have so little that it doesn't matter.
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Re: Re:
Not at all. The books he put out for free, by your own words, had already been out for a few years, and the fans had already bought them. Anything he got after that was gravy. He had little downside risk (the fan base was already satisfied), so why not? The only risk he has is cutting off a bit of the long tail on his book.
Now, if he had a new release coming, and instead put it out there for free in all the different ebook formats, he would be taking a very big risk against potential sales. That would be a whole different game.
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Re: Re:
They have the same issue, in the end: little downside risk.
On the post: Norwegian Supreme Court Explores Whether Private Companies Should Get Access To IP Info
If there is no manner to know who is on an individual IP (even after a court case), the copyright holders would have no alternative but to go after the owner of record of the IP block. That would be the only valid (and publically revealed) owner they could contact. If the ISPs are barred from giving out user information, they could end up on the hook.
I would say that neither party in this would like the ruling.
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re: Re: Re: ..
So it's "tells a person" not "tells people". Please get it right.
On the post: Facebook Sends Lots Of Traffic To News Sites... Will They Start Demanding To Be Paid?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If nobody linked to the news, facebook wouldn't send any traffic to news sites.
Intent is key.
On the post: The New Middleclass Musicians: I Fight Dragons
Re:
Here is some logic for you: A record deal is a "FREE!" between a band and the label.
Scratching your head? Well, think about it. Roger McGuinn isn't exactly couch surfing or checking trash cans for bottles to recycle, nor did the guys from GFRR exactly live like hermits. To this day, if either of these acts decides to give concerts, they could very likely attract a decent crowd, exactly as a result of the deal with the labels that made them famous to start with.
Many bands make plenty of coin off of their record sales, not always directly from the selling of the records but from residuals (airplay), performance rights, etc. How much do you think a band like The Transpants made off of licensing their music to a series of shampoo commercials? Do you think that would have happened without the song being out there getting played on the radio, on a label deal?
The vast majority of bands who are signed to major labels never have any hits so they end up in debt trying to pay back their advance.
in the end, that is the market saying "your product isn't good enough". All the marketing and all the experience in the world can't make a bad song good.
Oh yeah, let me add this: Even the bands that don't make back their advances often sell plenty of records, and get plenty of fans. As a distribution system, they get a much wider exposure than they can any other way. Would you really know who Facepalm Palmer was if the Dresden Dolls didn't have record releases and worldwide distribution?
I still think that the top of the online heap is just short of the first rung of the label ladder. Sort of "big fish, small pond" stuff.
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re: ..
posted under a different name, you would consider them to be thoughtful opposition. You see my name at the top, and you blank out.
Debate ideas, not people.
On the post: Facebook Sends Lots Of Traffic To News Sites... Will They Start Demanding To Be Paid?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If each one of those links represented 0.5% of all clicks on the page, and you have 20 of them, you suck 10% of the traffic off the page. It is important that Google is very much into spreading their brand, and so they do push things like RSS, gadgets, desktops, google start pages (as you mention with your "modified UK layout") etc. They get you to spend more time on their site, and when it comes time for you to do something that would make someone money, google can get in the middle of it.
If you need someone to point the bricks on your house, you might search in google, because google gave you such nice news, and allowed you to use their stuff for your start page.
Try not to look at things so literally, look at them in overall "experience". Look at your own activities, as realize that Google has pretty much sucked you in with other people's content. They offer you a service, but that service is never truly free, just without apparent cost to you.
If you want to have some real fun, check how many google ads you see in a day. It is shocking.
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ben, the problem with your line here is that you missed what underlies the whole thing: If the movie isn't good, even if the experience (nice chairs, 3D, THX sound, 9 foot tall screen, best popcorn ever, whatever) is amazing, it won't save Ishtar or Waterworld, and it won't make the Spice Girls movie into anything other than a promo vehicle.
You can have a good experience watching a movie, but the movie watching experience cannot make up for a crappy root product.
Have you ever watched the test patterns on an HD big screen TV. It's pretty amazing for the first 20 seconds or so, and then it's gone. No matter how nice the screen or how crisp the image, the test pattern itself is dull.
If your experience is crappy (the music sounds bad, the movie is boring)
This is where you are wrong - you are confusing the experience with the product. Experience is all that goes into showing you the product, the theater, the popcorn, the seats, the sound, the screen, the "presentation" as it were. It's on the same plane as an empty night club with no music. It's a beautiful place, amazing lights, great drinks, but without people and music, it's just another pretty room. A movie theater is just an empty dark room without the content, the product, what it is people line up for.
The Ferrari is a prefect example, because the pure marginal costs of producing 1 more car are lower the the selling costs, but that is only part of what it costs to make the car. Design, development, the factory, the equipment, the testing, the safety crashes (always painful to see), and all sort of other "non-marginal" costs stack up eat up much of the window sticker price. Yes, people are buying the Ferrari experience (beauty, grace, style, people look, whatever) but in the end, if the car didn't run, most people wouldn't buy them. Ferrari almost went out of business because their cars didn't run. All the experience in the world didn't make up for a car that needed excessive repairs all the time. The experience was nothing without the product.
With a good product, you can build a good experience around it. If Avatar truly sucked as a movie, all the 3D in the world would be meaningless, because nobody would sit through the movie. If it was just the 3D and all that which made it special, then it would be easier just to run a 3D demo reel and charge people to see that. It doesn't work, because people want to see the underlying product, the movie.
The experience alone wouldn't sell. What is truly scarce is good movies, good music, etc. Only focusing on the marginal reproduction costs is more than a marginal mistake.
On the post: Research Shows Unauthorized Digital Books Leads To 'Significant Jump In Sales'
Helmet, I don't think you can get well enough known on this alone, I am sure you can get some exposure. My thought: how many people know about Nina Paley? Outside of a certain group, she would be an unknown. It might get you to a certain point, but I am not sure it goes all the way (nor am I sure you would want to go all the way on everyone getting your work for free).
In the end, it appears that "FREE!" is one step on the ladder, see:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100128/2014177968.shtml
On the post: Facebook Sends Lots Of Traffic To News Sites... Will They Start Demanding To Be Paid?
Re: Re:
http://news.google.ca/news?q=copyright&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL _en___CA350&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
Links off to web search, photo search, to add gadgets to your desktop (selling the Google brand) etc. There are about 20 links off the page that are not news.
Google gets in the way, trying to give you a "google" experience, and thus get you to also use their other (income earning) properties.
It's a good business model, but in the end, Google doesn't give the news for free, just at no apparent cost to you.
On the post: Understanding What's Scarce And What's Not...
Re: Re:
A good song is a good song, no "experience" is required to make that song good. All the experience in the world cannot make a bad song good.
A good movie is a good movie, no experience required. A great movie seen in the comfort of your home for the first time is still a great movie. Heck, a great movie seen in the discomfort of economy class in an airplane is still a good movie. A bad movie is always bad, all the experience in the world can't make an Ishtar or a Waterworld be anything other than horrible movies.
My point is that discounting the product as a disposable, intangible, infinite good with no market price is to miss the entire point. A Ferrari is not a fast car because of the badges or the zoomie sounding exhaust note, it is a fast car because of the product itself. You can slap the badges and a noisy exhaust on a yugo, but it won't be a Ferrari.
Failure to remember "it's the product, stupid" dooms you to never getting out the gate.
Next >>