Comments on: Murdoch’s Google Bluff/Threat/Stroke of Genius http://albertsun.info/2009/12/murdochs-stroke-of-genius/ Journalist <em>slash</em> web geek Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:01:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dan Conover http://albertsun.info/2009/12/murdochs-stroke-of-genius/comment-page-1/#comment-7759 Dan Conover Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:20:43 +0000 http://albertsun.info/?p=604#comment-7759 OK. I guess I'm not so sure my experience is degraded (or in most cases, even altered) by this, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something. Just ask my wife. OK. I guess I’m not so sure my experience is degraded (or in most cases, even altered) by this, but it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong about something. Just ask my wife.

]]> By: Albert Sun http://albertsun.info/2009/12/murdochs-stroke-of-genius/comment-page-1/#comment-7749 Albert Sun Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:21:58 +0000 http://albertsun.info/?p=604#comment-7749 This is significant because (1) it represents Google willingly to degrade the Google user experience to accomodate, somewhat, publishers, and (2) it puts action behind the signals that their willing to work with content producers. This is significant because (1) it represents Google willingly to degrade the Google user experience to accomodate, somewhat, publishers, and (2) it puts action behind the signals that their willing to work with content producers.

]]> By: Dan Conover http://albertsun.info/2009/12/murdochs-stroke-of-genius/comment-page-1/#comment-7745 Dan Conover Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:28:24 +0000 http://albertsun.info/?p=604#comment-7745 I just don't see how Google action represents much of a concession, or how Murdoch's bluster approaches anything resembling genius. Schmidt has signaled repeatedly The Googleplex's willingness to work with content producers on these payment models, probably because Google leaders understand the precise formula is insignificant. The fundamental question remains: What content will you pay to read? And other than WSJ (which is a special case because of its reimbursable status), what content does Murdoch own that doesn't have an analog on a TV-news based website? Because mark these words: All this talk about getting the newspapers to work together on paid content means absolutely nothing to TV, which has never pretended to charge people for content. I just don’t see how Google action represents much of a concession, or how Murdoch’s bluster approaches anything resembling genius. Schmidt has signaled repeatedly The Googleplex’s willingness to work with content producers on these payment models, probably because Google leaders understand the precise formula is insignificant.

The fundamental question remains: What content will you pay to read? And other than WSJ (which is a special case because of its reimbursable status), what content does Murdoch own that doesn’t have an analog on a TV-news based website? Because mark these words: All this talk about getting the newspapers to work together on paid content means absolutely nothing to TV, which has never pretended to charge people for content.

]]>