Comments on: Murdoch considers completely blocking Google to encourage readers to pay up

By: reader1

reader1 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:40:43 +0000

Here , I even get some newspapers for free handed out to me in the Subway.

No one pays for newspapers anymore, they are ad supported , I will definitely not going to pay for a newspaper or a news website.

And I agree with # 35, who cares.

This guy is really out of touch with current trends.

By: lofa

lofa — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:19:43 +0000

Good. Let him block his propaganda garbage from Google. Who cares about Murd(er)och. He’s just another greedy money monster.

As the old saying goes, a fool and his money soon part.

By: Luc

Luc — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:35:46 +0000

I love these comedians who say “your product/service/business is only relevant to me if you let me have it for free.” Ha! If you adamantly refuse to pay, then YOU are the irrelevant one. I am self-employed and have to deal with a lot of dipshits who think that I should render my services for a pitance or for free. Those people might as well die today for all I care. Why would I EVER cater to people who have determined they are not going to pay? What’s in it for me?

And DU just won’t get over the moral issue: criticizes the company that wants to charge for the content it generates (at a cost), but will pass the hat around asking for donations. Oh, sure! That’s the noble thing to do in 2009! Don’t charge for your services. Instead, be a bum and beg for money from the passers by who sympathize with you and drop a quarter into your hat, and idolize Google for undermining thousands of businesses. Who needs businesses and jobs anyway? Just let Google rule and have them all. Then blame Maddoch for being too smart or whichever Dem or Repub is in charge for not “creating” enough jobs.

Unfuckingbelievable.

By: Two to the Head

Two to the Head — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:11:24 +0000

Good Riddance! See Ya.

By: Athon

Athon — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:56:21 +0000

I only read one paper religiously, but Google (and other search engines) allow me to pick the most relevant stories to whatever shiny object has my interest.

Google exposes your business to me, something that I would never see if your subscription only…and frankly irrelevant to my point of view.

You have me in your publication’s website reading an article, possibly clicking through a relevant ad…and you owe that to the search engine.

It’s not their fault your business model is broken and you are having problems monetizing what no longer works.

Watch your Murdoch’s Internet traffic shrivel and die…just think of the money he could save on servers and bandwidth!

By: TooManyPuppies

TooManyPuppies — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:08:14 +0000

It’ll be a great momentous day for the human race if all of Rupert Fucktard’s sites were blocked. I already do it locally, so by all means, please do it.

To the stillborn retard that wrote this drivel at The Guardian, the phrase is “It’s IN the cards” you jackass!

By: Floyd

Floyd — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:13:25 +0000

If Murdoch blocks Google or other Web access to WSJ and his other newspapers, he would simply be in the same state as all those other newspapers that have disappeared: bankrupt or just unimportant.

However: if he blocks his newspapers, can he block Fox News while he’s at it? Worthless channel…

By: Rick Cain

Rick Cain — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:15:53 +0000

Murdoch assumes I care about any news portal he owns.

By: LBalsam

LBalsam — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:32:23 +0000

Block Google = Disappear

By: smartalix

smartalix — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:30:13 +0000

The bottom line is that the business model is all about access to information. The WSJ and a few other specialty-content pubs can get away with this, as their clientele is willing to pay for the targeted news. This will almost certainly also be threatened as more people go to independent analysts online.

I have maintained for years that nobody pays for content, and that filtering and analysis is the only real value-add. The problem is the signal-to-noise ratio.

By: qb

qb — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:27:27 +0000

Somebody will step compete with a web/mobile only competitor to the WSJ. Takers?

By: Improbus

Improbus — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:22:45 +0000

@MikeN

The Wall Street Journal is not just any other paper. It’s content is actually worth something to people. Can you say the same thing about a paper like the New York Times or Washington Post? If you are “niche” paper you maybe able to get away with putting your content behind a pay wall. Time will tell.

By: MPL

MPL — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:51:35 +0000

Just do it now! don’t wait!

By: MikeN

MikeN — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:22:07 +0000

New York Times put up articles for free, and it’s stock is way down, along with all the other newspapers. WSJ charged for its content online over ten years ago, and is now #1 in paid circulation.

Rupert Murdoch said he would make WSJ free, but instead is making everything else like WSJ.

How is Google putting up subscription articles form the WSJ for free? Isn’t that a copyright violation?

By: smartalix

smartalix — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:39:48 +0000

21,

Sadly, for a business, a couple of million isn’t very much. Consider a small magazine employing 10 people (an art person/graphic artist, 2 staff editors, a managing/production editor, a publisher, an EiC, and 4 sales people for the world) That’s over a half of a million there for salaries alone (and that’s with nobody getting more than 100,000 a year). What about benefits (add your favorite health-care rant here)? What about rent and physical plant maintenance? What about Travel & Expenses? Web hosting? Other infrastructure? IT? Light and heat? That is only for a web-based publication, not even considering the effort for print.