Content costs money (Part2)
It is something of a disappointment when you consider that the World Wide Web started as an academic research project for the noble cause of sharing documents among interested parties. The reality is that it has turned into a huge monster, and the original high intentions are long gone. (Even the idea of serving up static pages from file systems has gone —almost every website of importance is dynamically generated on the fly from databases.) That why this battle will be fascinating to watch. It long overdue that someone pointed out Google isn't an index engine, designed to let you, the user, find things of interest. Google is an advertising engine, designed to ensure you get to see the pages that have paid the most. That why searching for a computer component on Google results in page after page of stultifyingly boring vendor sites. Google gets money to put those pages in front of you. News Corp not only wants to put up Its own "Info-firewall”, but also ensure that Google and its equivalents don't plunder the juicy bits in the name of indexing. It will be a battle royal —I could, for example, turn my little content-free website into a pay-for walled garden. I'm not sure anyone would want to come, because the value proposition would be all wrong. Pour in 15 years of my PC Pro content and maybe the balance changes. Only the market can tell. The other way to find good content - is using best proofreading and editing services - "best-editing-services.com". But this is why It fascinating —News Corp is going to have to provide Its own search within Its walled garden. Or partner with someone to provide such a facility. Do i hear the quiet Bing-ing of a battle lining up between Google and Microsoft? What better way for Bing to increase in relevance than to ensure that it, and only it, holds the indices for the major publishing houses? Don't think this would just be one-sided. I imagine that Bing, or whoever, would bend over backwards to ensure the News Соrp index was just how News Corp wanted it —full of adverts and pointers to News Corp sites, and no pesky content from the wider web. Someone has to attempt to break the log-jam. The current solution is unsustainable, and all of us, in our hearts, know this to be true. The problem is both one of protecting content while keeping it easy to use and handle, and having a payment system that is flexible, easy and trustworthy enough to appeal to the users. And if you think about it, everyone within the walled garden is no longer anonymous. Which helps drive up the targeted advertising (bad), but helps make the space safer (good). Will it work? Welt, Mr Murdoch thinks so and he has a huge amount to lose if he is wrong. But The Times, they are a.