[statictype]

If what he's saying is right (and he very well could be) that's actually kind of bad for everyone. If The New York Times can't figure out how to make money then they will simply go out of business and we lose one of the more respected newspapers in the world.

I'm less concerned about Twitter but I can understand that it brings enough value to people's daily lives that not having it would be a net loss.

At least in the case of NYT, they're at least making an attempt to monetize their business in a reasonable way - you pay us money and we give you content.

[ojbyrne]

Disagree. The NYT can make money by changing their cost structure to one more conducive to distributing news via the internet. The old rule of thumb for newspapers is that the "cover price" essentially covers distribution, and advertising pays for everything else. Advertising should end up being the same or larger, but the cost of distribution should be significantly less.

They'll end up there anyway, but executives tend to fight tooth and nail against lower cost structures, because it also means lower salaries for executives (smaller company means that fewer of them are needed and there's less room for featherbedding).