Slashdot Mirror


Free Web Content a "Myth," Claims Barry Diller

BotScout writes "Following in the footsteps of other traditional media executives who just don't get it, Barry Diller, chairman and chief executive officer of IAC/InterActiveCorp, said web users will have to pay for what they watch and use, and that's that. The media and technology executive said it's 'mythology' to view the Internet as a system of free communications. 'It is not free, and is not going to be,' Diller said yesterday at the Fortune Brainstorm conference in Pasadena, California. Companies from Disney to New York Times Co. are seeking ways to extract revenue from the Internet. The latter recently said that it's considering a $5 monthly fee for access to its namesake newspaper's web site."

8 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Re:You'll never get my money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    No kidding. People barely tolerate having to register at the NYT website and that's free. If they actually expect that people are going to be willing to pay money to read it, they're going to be in for quite a shock.

  2. thats IAC the spyware company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    fuck him and his company, (we) have spent thousands of hours removing his companies shit from our network
    they target kids especially

    http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/ask-toolbars/
    http://www.google.com/search?q=iac+spyware

  3. I would gladly pay $5 for the NYT online by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used to have a delivery subscription for ~$5/wk but I canceled it a while ago because it was nothing but extra clutter. When I canceled, I told the rep that I still greatly value the paper's content and would not mind continuing to pay some small amount to keep it going but, alas, they were incapable of taking my money without sending paper to my doorstep.

    $5/month seems eminently reasonable, I hope they do something like that.

    1. Re:I would gladly pay $5 for the NYT online by Minimalist360 · · Score: 2, Informative

      WSJ has online-only. They seem to be doing okay with it.

  4. What he was really saying by Skapare · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... was that you're not going to see content that is paid for through your ISP subscription. You pay the ISP for bandwidth. You pay a content provider to decide which bits are ones and zeros. He didn't rule out advertising as a means to pay for content. He didn't even rule out good-will as a means to pay (he just didn't figure in things like free open source because it's just not in his sphere of thinking).

    Which of you readers of Slashdot is going to put up a popular web site and run it totally free to access and entirely devoid of content? And I don't mean some puny little personal blog page. I mean a major popular site with a million visits an hour. Unless you are already filthy rich and want to blow it on this, it ain't gonna happen. And if you do fit that category, the site still isn't free because whoever you ripped off to get rich is paying for it.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  5. Barry Diller track record by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let's look at the record of Barry Diller companies.

    • Home Shopping Network. Infomercial channel. Did OK.
    • Ticketmaster Bought up competitors. Achieved near-monopoly. Raised prices. Did very well.
    • Expedia Travel agency. Leader in field.
    • Lending Tree Mortgage loans. Sold off after losses.
    • Interval International Time-share condos. Sold off from IAC in 2008.
    • Ask.com Search engine. Market share near zero.
    • Rushmoredrive.com Niche search engine for black people. Ceased operations a few weeks ago.

    So you can see where Diller is coming from. His ad-based businesses have been disasters, while his transaction-charge businesses have done well. (Lending Tree had some bad years because they speculated in mortgages, instead of just brokering them.)

  6. Re:Why? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 3, Informative

    "There is simply no model right now that supports the free distribution of movies that cost $140 million to make and would additional require huge amounts of bandwidth to distribute."

    True, but a lot of people are now watching five minute shorts made by their peers for youtube instead. So, times change. And some people are even making much longer things for youtube or other venues.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  7. Re:Why? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.