Eric Schmidt Questions Murdoch's Online Pay Plan

The Independent:

Publishers of general news would find it hard to charge for their content online because too much free content is available, the chief executive of Google said yesterday....
Schmidt was responding to an announcement by News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch that he could start charging for content online.

Read the whole story: The Independent

Comments

[jimmy19]

01:42 AM on 09/21/2009

Eric looks like the perfect guy to be in a rabbit costume. I can see it now..........

[heartsick]

08:51 PM on 09/20/2009

Who would pay to be agitated by a bunch of mean drunks?

[BBCup]

05:15 PM on 09/20/2009

Fox has been able to rile up their viewers using the specter of 'they want what's yours.' And it's worked because the majority of the baggers want something for nothing and nothing for everyone else. It should be interesting to see what will happen when their Faux gods start asking for what's theirs too.

[fabricnthreads]

02:11 PM on 09/20/2009

Fox followers will do anything at the shrine of the network. If it says pay, they will pay. Initally.

It will be like the tv box shopping networks....overpriced nonsense marketed to those least likely to have the income to afford it. But coming at them with all the convenience 24 hrs a day, and credit cards accepted.

[thockman]

12:30 PM on 09/20/2009

I look forward to Fox charging users for web site content so that its audience numbers plummet. Even if Murchoch goes back to free content with ads, he will drive away many web site viewers.

[NYCPub]

06:27 PM on 09/19/2009

Really? The guy whose company relies on all those free links he provides to his users, is questioning a pay-for-content plan by saying people get their information for free now, so there's no way they would ever pay for it in the future. After all, in the late 90's millions of people were getting their music online for free, so why would they ever pay for it. Oh yeah, people are paying billions for online music today. Why? Because some company made a cool interface and a snazzy piece of hardware to listen to your music.

Google doesn't create ANYTHING. All that stuff that comes up when you google something is created by others. Guess which company/ies would go out of business in 7 days were every traditional news outlet to forbid google from including their content in searches. (I can hear the e-cheerleaders screaming "the news outlets!") For those of you who are intellectually honest, you'll realize that Google would be out of business. Can you imagine what you would get back on a google search if all paid news site content was excluded? A bunch of blogs and corporate websites. So Google would become useless. The newspapers and magazines and TV and radio would all continue to do business poorly and in the red, but they would remain in business. Google would not.

So I wonder why Eric "it will never happen because it doesn't happen now" Schmidt is so opinionated in this debate.

[shryock]

02:17 PM on 09/19/2009

o, please..............o,please, o, please, o, please....
let rupert charge his followers for viewing the anti-american stuff he now offers for free.
and let him charge his listeners for the anti-american radio shows he pays for.
and let him charge his watchers for watching faux news.
then, they would be poorer than ever, and he would laugh all the way to the bank,

and the rest of us, the blessed rational rest of us, would not have to wade through his trash on our way to legitimate news and analysis.

or maybe, his poor benighted slavering followers would NOT pay to watch or listen....... then they might have to watch only rational news????????? because that's all that would be lift!
omg. what a revolutionary concept!

[hernan1333]

11:26 AM on 09/19/2009

What people fail to comprehend is that the right wing neo conservative movement is being run by a foreign billionaire: Rupert Murdoch...who hides behind the scene while he sends his henchmen to inflict any damage they can...

[josephXY]

09:33 AM on 09/19/2009

At least the fun question could be raised wether the media ought to be sued for damage
for whatever reasons. That's missing in the debates. For instance the value of information
and expert opinion provided so lavishly in the past, how much is it worth - or how damages should
be paid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

[amdezurik]

11:08 AM on 09/19/2009

I would love to see a class-action suit against a pay "news" site that puts up an "expert" who turns out to be nothing of the sort, sue them for fraud. And if it is a pay site then there are actual damages to sue for :)

[DRaymond]

04:38 AM on 09/19/2009

I agree with him, but let's not pretend that Schmidt doesn't have a dog in this hunt. If news sources have to provide content for free then their only option for paying the bills is to have online advertizing. And who's paycheck comes entirely from online advertizing? Schmidt's and Google's.

I don't think that anybody disagrees that charging for the content will drive viewers away. But what is more profitable, a small number of visitors paying just a little or a large number of visitors paying nothing at all (except a trickle from Google-provided advertizing of course).

[spiritpony1]

03:30 PM on 10/03/2009

thank you-----the naivete on Google and Schmidt is enormous---

[mmaza]

04:15 AM on 09/19/2009

Ha,ha this is funny. It's all made up news anyway.

[sweetwhine]

03:20 PM on 09/18/2009

Is Murdoch cr azy?

[ObamAtomic]

04:53 PM on 09/18/2009

He's drinking the wrong water.

[ObamAtomic]

03:04 PM on 09/18/2009

The internet is free,Murdoch can take his profiteers ideas and dissipate.

[den1953]

02:29 PM on 09/18/2009

Why in heavens name would anyone pay for online BS Murdock serves up when the BS all the pin heads are spewing on Fox News is being made fun of on the comedy channel?

[sweetwhine]

03:18 PM on 09/18/2009

Doesn't make sense does it.

[Dolmance]

10:07 AM on 09/18/2009

I would donate my life savings to the Mafia before I'd hand one cent over to Rupert Murdoch.

[clearthinker2008]

01:45 PM on 09/18/2009

*laughing*

[sweetwhine]

03:19 PM on 09/18/2009

LOL! That was da mn funny!!!