Just skip this post. Its pure rubbish. I've read it and read many more like it.
It basically says micro-payments will solve all of publishings woes. Thats it (oh, and you can do it with Bitcoin).
I'll repeat, its a terrible suggestion, and it was written without any real understanding of publishing and how such a model would actually fail.
This is the part were I apologize for my choice or words and tone. I'm very sorry. I really try to leave more thoughtful constructive comments. However there are so many many "how to save journalism" posts that make happy generic and sweeping statements that I'm nothing but fed up and annoyed by them.
Users that aren't providing any revenue will get pissed off. Companies work hard to create content and are bleeding money. Why do people feel entitled to free content?
The article is contending that users paying for content will increase the quality of content available since companies will have more on the line with bad articles. Bitcoin allows for the possibility of frictionless experience and no need for accounts with specific companies, just a bitcoin wallet.
Where this utterly falls apart is that it doesn't consider that the major barrier is NOT the price. It's overcoming the friction of getting the user to pay anything, at all. If you can do that, conversion rates are similar at $0.10 and $10.00. That is why micropayments are dumb. They're leaving money on the table.
NB: I work in the industry and this is coming from direct professional experience. I'm not really at liberty to go much more in depth than I did, but I have strong real world data that says micropayments are a disaster, plain and simple.
sigh. please. As an aspiring writer this sort of fear-mongering posts make me cringe.
How exactly is the Publishing with the capital P is in danger? Is it in verge of death? The advance of technology has made it easier for the readers to access them. Therein lies the problem of publication industry as we know it. Some companies have adopted the e-book platform, and many more are following.
People will never stop reading for sake of receiving information/entertainment/discourses.
I know I am bashing down a strawman here, and to get back to the point, no, Bitcoin won't save the publishing because there won't be a need for the saving from the first placing. Microtransaction is not the key; content management and good deliveries will be the key to adoption that we see, not some magical revival.
Please. Bitcoin is new and hot. I understand, and we want to solve all of our problems with it, but it's not a magic bean. We should stop inventing problems for it to solve, if at all.
It basically says micro-payments will solve all of publishings woes. Thats it (oh, and you can do it with Bitcoin).
I'll repeat, its a terrible suggestion, and it was written without any real understanding of publishing and how such a model would actually fail.
This is the part were I apologize for my choice or words and tone. I'm very sorry. I really try to leave more thoughtful constructive comments. However there are so many many "how to save journalism" posts that make happy generic and sweeping statements that I'm nothing but fed up and annoyed by them.