Consumers Willing to Pay For Online Content
Posted by Ahmad Barirani in 
It wasn’t long ago when Variety.com announced their decision to charge fees for some of their content. Recently, a survey conducted by Nielsen Wired shows that consumers are willing to pay for online content. Most interesting of all are findings about social communities and blogs where 28% and 20% of consumers have paid or would consider paying for those types of content respectively. Taking into consideration that the public doesn’t always understand the value of social media, this is an interesting finding indeed.
It all looks like people are willing to spend more than just their ISP subscription fees. In fact, 2009 has seen a rise in e-commerce spending compared to 2008 which was a better economic year. What it means is that people see their Internet connection the same way as they see gas for their car: it will get them to the store, but you still have to pay for a product. This is good news as the potential of e-commerce are great and will have beneficial effect to other sectors of the economy.
The Disruptive Nature of Chrome OS and What it Means For Windows
Chrome OS is disruptive
A disruptive product would be one that initially under-performs other products on the market even for the simplest needs. Think of all those extensions that Chrome OS will miss, making it a less attractive solution that Windows + Firefox. Gradually, the new product will be enhanced by other components or optimization of those parts that make it under-perform. At a certain point, the new product will offer better performance other products that are at the low-end of the market. For example, lets suppose someone is using Windows + Firefox + Google Toolbar for surfing the Internet and sending/receiving email though Gmail. For this person, as soon as the Google Toolbar is available for Chrome OS, it would be better to use Chrome OS instead of Windows + Firefox because the former is a faster and lighter than the latter.
What it means for Windows
Too Much Innovation Can be Fatal: the Case of Google Chrome
In an attempt to prepare the introduction of it browser-OS, Google introduced a few novelties in its Chrome browser. These novelties all fall inside one category there is no toolbar in Google Chrome. Users are complaining about the fact that Google Chrome doesn’t work with Google Toolbar to the point that Google had to write a support page about using Google Chrome. The page explains how Google Toolbar functions are part of the browser but not in the shape of a toolbar. Taking into account that those using Chrome are early adopters, this seems to be just another case of too much innovation not being well received by the market.
Good timing is the recipe for success
An important factor playing in the success of an innovation is the timing of its market introduction. If a product is too disruptive, people won’t be able to connect with products they already use. Visionaries must therefore take it easy with their creative swing and not forget the today’s consumer. In the case of Google Chrome, things went wrong because people are used to have a very tiny browser that is extended with plugins. They are not yet used to the idea that the browser is going to be the operating system.
People are used to the tiny browser
To better understand this phenomenon, we must take into account that browsers weren’t the most used application in the early days of the Internet. As more web applications answered day-to-day needs, plugins were built on top of the tiny browser to provide a better and more productive user experience. Today, the Browser is the most used application and the Internet has evolved to a point were a browser is all we need. In tomorrow’s Internet, everything is going to be on the cloud. Our desktop will not do anything else that allow us to click on buttons that are on a remote server.
Being the Internet leader, Google is taking the right bet of getting the market rid of the heavy desktop client (Windows) and replacing it with something lighter (Chrome OS). Only the push seems to be a very clumsy one and has to work harder to bring innovation in a more fluid way.
Microsoft-Yahoo Deal Good for Search Engine Market (and Bad for Google Monopoly)
According to the association of American marketers, the Microsoft-Yahoo deal is good for the search engine market. Even my deep disdain for Microsoft cannot stop me from agreeing with this statement! That is because of my deep disdain for any monopoly (which includes Microsoft’s monopoly of the desktop OS market). I believe that Google is conquering the Internet market at a dangerous speed. If no one stands on its way and does not represent a challenge to its domination, it will be bad news for the search engine market.
For all those who suffer from Microsoft’s careless attitude towards its customers, expect the same from Google if it becomes a monopoly. For all those who are angered by the slow pace of innovation in the desktop OS industry, the same thing will happen to the search engine market if Google owns 90% of the market. This is not the case because Google (or Microsoft) people are evil. It is only because it is in the nature of monopolies: they do not have any incentive to innovate and they can resort to price discrimination for better profit rates.
So when I read something like the open letter from American advertisers, I must be in favor of the arguments that it supports, because it makes a lot of sense if we think of it from a technology strategist point of view. Competition will force both players to offer better products and prices to their customers. So why be against it? Of course, we can go on and fantasize about a future where Google will own 100% of search engine market but that it would not stop it’s pace of innovation and that it would not start asking for money in exchange of search results.
Google Will Detect Malware From Your Website
Google has a commitment: provide the most relevant search results to the user. Of course, not redirecting the user to a website that has malware is a non-functional requirement to this commitment. Their new tool, Fetch, is thus in line with their commitment of providing relevant search results.
If you ever have doubts about your website, why not take a look at it from Googlebot’s eyes. This can specially be useful if your website has been cloacked. Of course, this cloacking takes part when a page is fetched by the bot. It is only then that hacker code will link another page. Otherwise, everything looks normal from the website owner’s perspective.
I'm clean...
The good thing with this new application is that it gives detail about the malware and the portion of the site that has been attacked. This is a great help when it comes to getting rid of malware from your website. So overall, this tool is not just useful for webmasters. It is goes further and increases security on the Internet and aims for better search experience for all.
Smartphones to Challenge Windows Domination
When it come to desktops, Microsoft has a dominant position in the operating system market. Two reasons are behind this situation:
- The lack of hardware support from manufacturer for other operating systems
- The lack of software applications for other operating systems
So even if open source geeks can make Linux for cheaper, nobody would go for it because of these two reasons.
But today, the PC is no longer the only platform for computation. Smartphones are having tremendous adoption on the market with the iPohne and the BlackBerry as the two main products. Since these devices come as a whole system with integrated operating system, the problem with hardware support is no longer an issue. Also, application developers take advantage of this new market opportunity and offer a wide range of products that cover pretty much every need that was fulfilled on the PC.
If PC sales drop compared to Smartphones, then it means a big loss for Microsoft. Will it be able to force its main product to this new market reality?
Marketing Myopia Helps Entrepreneurship
Marketing myopia is thought of something that causes big players to miss opportunities. In a certain way, it is friction against incumbent players’ capacity to innovate. While it is a plague for the incumbent, I believe that the incumbent’s marketing myopia is a blessing for the entrepreneur.
The main reason, I believe, is that incumbents have a strength that could be fatal to the start-up if the latter is in competition with the former. This strength is in the incumbent ease of access to resources. It is widely known that lack of resources is a major issue for start-ups. This is the case because all start-ups have an initial phase of product development. This phase is marked with low sales, low income and thus means less access to resources.
What is saving the entrepreneur is marketing myopia. It is because of the fact that a big player is not willing or does not see an opportunity that a start-up can build up a product or service with less resources that the big player. It is because of this handicap that incumbents do not eat all market shares and that others can fill the gap.