tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post935954700030001765..comments2023-08-25T17:30:36.937+05:30Comments on Business Musings: Rupert Murdoch vs GoogleRameshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11782192840421019943noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-38495869814351615542009-12-01T04:36:27.667+05:302009-12-01T04:36:27.667+05:30@Dada - Thanks for the insight about Andrei's ...@Dada - Thanks for the insight about Andrei's paper. Very interesting. I completely agree - free content cannot replace professionalism entirely, although a look at the front pages of British newspapers may make you feel, if this is professionalism, I would rather do with free content !<br /><br />@Mahesh - The parallels with Wiki is interesting. Not sure if the same model can work with news, but lets see.Rameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11782192840421019943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-73422142691708305562009-11-30T09:13:14.257+05:302009-11-30T09:13:14.257+05:30I think this is going the same way the encyclopedi...I think this is going the same way the encyclopedia v/s Wikipedia debate. Wiki wins due to the "free aspect". I am sure in the print media today a lot of money is still made on the advertising revenue that they generate. If RM can create a brand that will get users to put his website on a favourite list he can garner a lot of money via advertising and can help run his organisation.<br /><br />Google may be a medium to get users for the first few times but once readers get good quality they will come back. Point is to capitalise on your viewer database.<br /><br />Trying to exclude Google will get him no where as Bing will have to try really hard to topple Google...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14878492503680554454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-59380453675748114282009-11-27T18:20:04.712+05:302009-11-27T18:20:04.712+05:30Ramesh, I would suggest that you and anyone else i...Ramesh, I would suggest that you and anyone else interested in this debate should read a paper written by a former colleague at Bell Labs. His name is Andrei Odlyszko (I may have mangled the name), and he wrote a paper called "Content is Not King". He examined the number of content businesses starting with movies. He came to the conclusion that the real "king" in this content business is not the "content" i.e. the movie but the distribution. And this is a finding consistent across other media industries that he examined. His view - very unpopular with the new economy propeller-heads - was that in the digital age, building content and expecting people to pay for it without ensuring exclusivity of access is a big mistake. Very prescient observation. <br /><br />Now if Murdoch wins the battle with Google, I would be very happy. Information is free, but if you want any more than that, one needs to honour the labour performed by someone who bends his mind to the task. The decline of print journalism in the US is quite alarming. Will its place be taken by free content on the web? I dont think it is the same thing.Ravi Rajagopalanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17321251570712041230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-54966162355534722592009-11-27T17:26:01.657+05:302009-11-27T17:26:01.657+05:30@J - Yes, the problem is bigger than the Google fi...@J - Yes, the problem is bigger than the Google fight. But very few people have been able to charge for news online - the consumer just doesn't seem to be prepared to pay. You are in a rare minorityRameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11782192840421019943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-40308466508828833162009-11-27T12:21:40.339+05:302009-11-27T12:21:40.339+05:30I think the problem with the newspapers is bigger ...I think the problem with the newspapers is bigger than Google linking to the newspaper websites. The newspapers are themselves making it available for free on their websites. I would be willing to pay for online access to say New York Times. I think they just need to take the bold step and charge readers something nominal. Another model that seems to work in the US is that of public radio and public television where you can enjoy the programming for free if you choose to or make a contribution of any amount if you so care. It seems to be working. I wonder if that model can be adapted to this context. I dont see what is so sacred about online stuff that it has to be free - it should definitely cost much less than the paper version.Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-53114126694890817992009-11-27T04:39:16.117+05:302009-11-27T04:39:16.117+05:30@AJCL - Oh, does twitter do that ? Yes, why nor Mu...@AJCL - Oh, does twitter do that ? Yes, why nor Murdoch indeed.<br /><br />@Sandhya - Google's advantage is still powerful. A completely superior technology has to come to dislodge Goopgle, I think.<br /><br />@VA - The same issue exists in videos and movies and a much more intese conflict in music. Its got to do with consumer behaviour - how many of us think abotu intellectual property when watching something posted in Youtube.<br /><br />@thoughtful train - Now that's a very novel reason !!]<br /><br />@Adesh - Somehow I don't think he'll win. The king is always the consumer and in this case, the consumer doesn't want to pay for anything on line.<br /><br />@Savitha - He has a point, but Google is saying, I am not stealing anything - IO am just linking to you !!!Rameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11782192840421019943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-67047643949744561832009-11-27T00:20:04.983+05:302009-11-27T00:20:04.983+05:30//So Murdoch says, his news is intellectual proper...//So Murdoch says, his news is intellectual property and cannot be stolen by content aggregators.//<br /><br />Completely stand by him, and second you!savithanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-65936853897191137572009-11-26T22:31:11.089+05:302009-11-26T22:31:11.089+05:30Murdoch is shrewd and there is a possibility that ...Murdoch is shrewd and there is a possibility that he is starting a kind of revolution here by doing this. Google drives nearly 25% of traffic to Murdoch's news sites but that does not translate to any substantial money. Inventory for news websites is hardly sold more that 50% and people arriving via Google are 'one and done' types whom news sites do not want to target.<br />Let us see how this drama unfolds.Adesh Sidhuhttp://www.adeshsidhu.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-26949147152002048612009-11-26T21:09:55.041+05:302009-11-26T21:09:55.041+05:30My excuse for online news is to keep the cockroach...My excuse for online news is to keep the cockroaches at bay!! :D :D :D Seriously ... all those piles of paper and the number of trees cut ... Sigh!! Ok ok a typical homemaker's rant. <br /><br />But yes, I do agree with Mr Mudroch's point and lets hope the shrewd old man comes up with a brainwave! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-30434798078009709992009-11-26T20:29:00.671+05:302009-11-26T20:29:00.671+05:30Very geniune thoughts!
Murdoch definitely has a p...Very geniune thoughts!<br /><br />Murdoch definitely has a point here. Protection of intellectual property is not a subject matter of technological advancements or evolving business models. <br /><br />On a different note, as I write this comment, I wonder how the movies/ footage of TV vidoes etc. are accessible to general public at no cost, though I am not sure whether owners of copyrights of even the newest movies are being paid by youtube or other online video portals. On the flip side, free information may have contributed largely towards success of this "new world".VAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-10038390115334278062009-11-26T19:53:42.006+05:302009-11-26T19:53:42.006+05:30Nice treat after the starvation :-)
Blogspot i un...Nice treat after the starvation :-)<br /><br />Blogspot i understand pays some amount to the blogger depending on the number of viewership to the blog for the ads hosted on the blog. this is very similar. <br /><br />Google and Co.... first mover advantage always ends at some point in time!!Sandhya Sriramhttp://sandhyasriram.sulekha.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4740849900073154554.post-60298332793644955282009-11-26T19:31:09.599+05:302009-11-26T19:31:09.599+05:30he has a point! read Twitter charges Bing and Goog...he has a point! read Twitter charges Bing and Google for indexing rights.. so why not RM?Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13798163433243923628noreply@blogger.com