[wppick]

Yes, because they want you to pay for a monthly or yearly subscription and you just want to read one article and maybe never come back to their site. But if I can do a 1-click "pay 1/2 cent" to read the rest of the article that would be totally fair

[GekkePrutser]

That's not the only thing. It's the hassle as well.

First they want you to sign up for an account. Give a lot of personal data. Then set up a payment model, often recurring. Just to read one article? No way.

Micropayments will save some of that hassle but I don't want to have an account with every news site linked to by HN.

[PeterisP]

If the alternative to a x% chance of upselling someoone to a yearly subscription is "read one article and maybe never come back to their site" then the price that the vendor will want to charge for that article is x% of that yearly subscription. You mention 1/2 a cent in multiple comments, but that's not a realistic expectation - if the paywalled sites would offer a per-article payment, they would definitely want to charge much more than that for that single article, closer to a dollar or so. They don't offer per-article pricing because the currently paywalled sites can earn more otherwise - the micropayment challenges aren't relevant, they will not sell their goods so cheaply (as it would devalue and 'cannibalize' their main revenue) even if there was a zero-fee micropayment mechanism.

Half a cent per article is a plausible target for all the weak/cheap sources who can't possibly afford to put up a paywall right now because nobody would pay. It's not going to be used by the currently paywalled sites, their business model relies on getting a not-micro amount from each customer.