The New York Times has joined the dark side of subscription internet sites. ESPN has most of its stories listed as “Insider” features. Even our own Dope requires a subscription membership. That’s fine by me, if a site wants to charge, and is able to do so, more power to them. How far is this going to go? Perhaps I’m mistaken, but the whole idea of banner ads and pop-up advertising that drove some of the speculation behind the dot.gone bubble looks like it won’t be as lucrative as once thought.
Now it doesn’t look like advertising will bring in quite so much money on its own, websites are trying to get revenue from subscriptions. Is this going to be the future of the internet? Will we eventually look back and recall the days when the internet with content more or less free to anyone with web access?
As I understand it, SOME content will be paid-subsciption only. (You already had to subscribe to read most of their stuff, it just didn’t cost anything.) I think most of it will remain free.
Maybe people will finally realize how many of these resources their local public library (or state library, even) already pays for that they can use for free, huh?
Many libraries have databases you can use at home, and nobody seems to know about them (although I certainly do my part in telling them about them.) Here, at least, the State Library buys a database package which any state resident can get a password for and use anywhere. The public library adds to that with its own purchases. Some of our databases are inside-the-library-only, but most of them have home access. You should see if your local library does likewise. I bet it offers services you had never imagined.
If subscriptions become widely used, I think we will see bundling packages that will contract with popular sites to provide subscriptions to a comprehensive list of pay sites, sort of like cable TV. Sign up, pay one yearly fee, and get access to the most popular sites.
Or if I could take my newspaper to work and read it there.