[ChrisNorstrom]

Yeah the early internet really spoiled us. We're so used to "Free" being the default that anything else is instantly a disappointment. I'm kind of glad we're moving away from that though, from content to music to services, everything's being turned into a paid/stick-around model rather than a free-for-3-years/go-bankrupt one. Look at how much money it's made for app creators alone.

[obstacle1]

Yeah, we're not really moving away from that. And even if we were, it's hard to see why you'd be glad, unless you hate freedom.

Almost none of the money that online distributors pull in (music, video, content vendors) makes it back to the actual content producers. So I can't say I'm sad to see this particular iteration of the industry crashing and burning.

[ChrisNorstrom]

Thank you for opening my eyes. I just realized I hated freedom all this time. At first I though maybe I liked people getting paid for the things they made. I guess the millions of people selling their music/art/movies/games/scripts on codecanyon/steam/kickstarter/amazonmp3/bandcamp/gumroad are not getting paid at all. They're all being tricked. What suckers... Everyone should just live like you, a collage student without a job or bills yet who values the "free" in freedom and the ability to share and consume whatever you want without those evil corporate snobby rich people getting tons of free money.

[krichman]

I'd like more gumroad services where the author sees more of the profit. That's what I hope the future of the internet is like, just totally cutting out egregious middlemen and leaving services that take some small percentage.

[obstacle1]

>Everyone should just live like you, a collage student without a job or bills

You're awfully presumptuous for someone who can't spell "college" correctly.

The problem is there is still a giant gap between what makers and sellers earn. It is no longer the case that distribution costs are prohibitive, makers no longer need massive upfront investment to sell things. So why is it acceptable to you for such exploitation to continue?

[ChrisNorstrom]

Dude it's 2013, Gumroad & Kickstarter only take 5%, Steam and others take 30%, Amazon and ebay take 11% to 25%. Online distributers are not record labels.

Your argument that "Almost none of the money that online distributors pull in (music, video, content vendors) makes it back to the actual content producers." is complete nonsense. It's no excuse to want everything for free or hate paid content. You really are a young entitled college student that wants everything for free. We all were. I was. Money was tight and went towards noodles and living expenses and we pirated everything because we couldn't afford it. Life changed, we grew up, graduated, got jobs, appreciate an income and now pay for things. One day when you bust your ass making something you'll appreciate someone paying you for it.

[obstacle1]

You have no idea who I am, what I do, or my economic situation.

And further, even if I were a broke college kid that wouldn't itself invalidate my actual argument. It's a fallacy to discredit a point because of the social status of the point-maker.

Reading through your blog, I understand why you're so invested in the irrational position you hold.

Good luck with turning things around.

[ChrisNorstrom]

After seeing that I've hit a soft spot with you, that you refuse to listen to common sense, that you assume distribution platforms operate like record companies in the 90s. I'm going to take the high road and apologize. I'm sorry if I made fun of your economic situation and I hope you find peace in whatever you are going through. The truth is, I am on the side of the reptilian shapeshifters and I really do hate freedom. We've been trying to destroy it for several decades. We've tried everything from wars to assassinations but in the end, the answer was right underneath our scaly noses. The paywalls.

[hayksaakian]

Which make most of their $ from in app purchases.

Call me when WSJ decides to adopt a new business model.

Subscriptions on the internet is not a new business model.

[declan]

The WSJ is doing quite well with a leaky paywall and online and print paid subscriptions. Last I checked, WSJ print and digital circulation were up every year for the last half-decade and ad revenue is increasing by double-digit rates y/y.

Their "new business model" is quite successful and the envy of the industry.

[hayksaakian]

I'll concede the point then.

However, it seems like the paywall only works because it's so leaky in the first place.

I'd imagine before the internet, you may have sneaked a peak at a friend's issue of the WSJ or read one at a coffee shop. I suppose the leaky paywall is the modern equivalent.