This is a GREAT article. I am a big believer in unintended consequences. The second order effects of paying for content will be fabulous I think once the marketplace shakes out. I think what you describe is necessary for the survival of independent journalism. All of this pivots at the confluence of the two major phone platforms. Apple h…
This is a GREAT article. I am a big believer in unintended consequences. The second order effects of paying for content will be fabulous I think once the marketplace shakes out. I think what you describe is necessary for the survival of independent journalism. All of this pivots at the confluence of the two major phone platforms. Apple has consciously NEVER offered any content of consequence and merely squatted on the intellectual property of Microsoft and Google and others. If it were for them, our devices would be pretty and shiny and maybe nothing more than expensive. We wouldn't be able to find anything, get anywhere, etcetera. It has worked very well as there are a host of providers with advertising in between. I think the sheer brilliance of their approach, make something beautiful and exclusionary is driving Google and Microsoft to simply ape their behavior at some level with increasing success.
For Microsoft this has been the use of their Office suite as a durable lock that has created cloud dominance. As the unease with advertising grows, Google will NATURALLY shift to paywall its IP. I think a perfect example will be to EXCLUDE the use of an iPhone from using Google Maps, Earth and Waze unless they are will to PAY A SUBSCRIPTION DIRECTLY to Google for such services like search, maps, YouTube, books and the like. Much like an iPhone, if Apple wishes to have the privilege they would need to CHARGE EXTRA in order to skim their no-value fee. This is a good future. People stopped buying maps long ago. Cartographers have been displaced.
When the marketplace is made to PAY for CONTENT it will improve the lot of writers and creators (and device purveyors). The best part of the transition will be the device providers in order to justify their purchase will pay on consumers behalf. In this way the true innovators of content will be reimbursed. It will also improve the lot of Google because half of the rubes on iPhones will be lost all the time and have no semblance of traffic ahead. Google will START with APPLE and merely charge them for the PRIVILEGE of the most popular applications on their precious closed platforms. People like not getting lost. Some people value decent news and being informed. This will be a positive new marketplace. I have every confidence that firms like Apple, Google and Meta will adapt. I think the valuing of IP is a great thing. People like getting their questions answered. It will be a better world wherein makers of DUMB SCREENS pay for the privilege of looking at intellectual property content they have neither the inclination or talent to provide. Substack is a good instance of this. People will pay for reading they wish to see. I pay for Public Radio and a few other subscriptions for that reason. These platforms as they exist today have flourished of course in the reality that 1/2 of adult Americans don't read a single book in a year.
This is a GREAT article. I am a big believer in unintended consequences. The second order effects of paying for content will be fabulous I think once the marketplace shakes out. I think what you describe is necessary for the survival of independent journalism. All of this pivots at the confluence of the two major phone platforms. Apple has consciously NEVER offered any content of consequence and merely squatted on the intellectual property of Microsoft and Google and others. If it were for them, our devices would be pretty and shiny and maybe nothing more than expensive. We wouldn't be able to find anything, get anywhere, etcetera. It has worked very well as there are a host of providers with advertising in between. I think the sheer brilliance of their approach, make something beautiful and exclusionary is driving Google and Microsoft to simply ape their behavior at some level with increasing success.
For Microsoft this has been the use of their Office suite as a durable lock that has created cloud dominance. As the unease with advertising grows, Google will NATURALLY shift to paywall its IP. I think a perfect example will be to EXCLUDE the use of an iPhone from using Google Maps, Earth and Waze unless they are will to PAY A SUBSCRIPTION DIRECTLY to Google for such services like search, maps, YouTube, books and the like. Much like an iPhone, if Apple wishes to have the privilege they would need to CHARGE EXTRA in order to skim their no-value fee. This is a good future. People stopped buying maps long ago. Cartographers have been displaced.
When the marketplace is made to PAY for CONTENT it will improve the lot of writers and creators (and device purveyors). The best part of the transition will be the device providers in order to justify their purchase will pay on consumers behalf. In this way the true innovators of content will be reimbursed. It will also improve the lot of Google because half of the rubes on iPhones will be lost all the time and have no semblance of traffic ahead. Google will START with APPLE and merely charge them for the PRIVILEGE of the most popular applications on their precious closed platforms. People like not getting lost. Some people value decent news and being informed. This will be a positive new marketplace. I have every confidence that firms like Apple, Google and Meta will adapt. I think the valuing of IP is a great thing. People like getting their questions answered. It will be a better world wherein makers of DUMB SCREENS pay for the privilege of looking at intellectual property content they have neither the inclination or talent to provide. Substack is a good instance of this. People will pay for reading they wish to see. I pay for Public Radio and a few other subscriptions for that reason. These platforms as they exist today have flourished of course in the reality that 1/2 of adult Americans don't read a single book in a year.