Micropayments May Come to Google News
Google is working on a "painless" payment system for news.
Google is working on a new micropayment platform for online news content derived from newspaper publishers. The idea isn't anything new: many news-oriented websites are currently offering paid subscriptions, including those that can be found in print. Google's new program, set to launch within a year, would generate revenue for local and national publishers and simplify the way they would charge for online content.
According to this 8-page document (PDF), Google has submitted the proposed payment platform to the Newspaper Association of America; the submittal is a response to the NAA's request to technology companies for some kind of revenue plan. Ultimately, the plan could be a sign that Google wants to mend its troubled relationship with the newspaper industry. In the past, Google has come under attack by newspapers for linking to their articles without payment. Google countered the complaints saying that Google News drives traffic to their websites.
But hopefully that's now all in the past. "Google believes that an open web benefits all users and publishers," the document reads. "However, 'open' need not mean free. We believe that content on the Internet can thrive supported by multiple business models--including content available only via subscription. While we believe that advertising will likely remain the main source of revenue for most news content, a paid model can serve as an important source of additional revenue. In addition, a successful paid content model can enhance advertising opportunities, rather than replace them."
Google's idea is based on a checkout system, and the company said that its Google Checkout platform can handle subscription payments for news sites although, in its current state, Google said that the process for merchants is "fairly rudimentary." The Nieman Journalism Lab, which published Google's proposal online, provides an in-depth examination of the proposal--and how it will benefit publishers--right here.
- Panasonic Reveals LED-Based Light Bulbs
- JVC Reveals Blu-ray / HDD Recorder Combo
- Microsoft: Master Chief is Our Sugar Daddy
- $175,000 Projector Displays 4K Resolution
- Jobs: We Made the iTouch as Cheap as Possible
- U.S. Copyright Office Opposes Google Book Deal
- iPhone OS 3.1.1 Out; Now $4.95 for iPod touch
- Palm Launches Second WebOS Device, the Pixi
- Mass. Gov: It's Video Game Innovation Day
- Facebook Cuts the Crap for Facebook Lite
- Toys 'R' Us Taking Used Games, Even Old Ones
- Moto's First Android Phone Loves Social Networks
- Porn Industry Wants in on Video Game Consoles
- Microsoft, Bungie Get Sued Over Halo 3, Again
- NASA Scientists Make Mice Float Using Magnets
- Price Cut Helps PS3 Sales Jump in August
- Microsoft: We Didn't Buy "Pornography" Term
- T-Mobile 3G Will Do 21 Mbps in 2010
- $135,000 Blu-ray Player Over the Top
I will never pay for news again. The beauty of the internet is free information. If this program is initiated, I'll just avoid it altogether.
That is a little naive. It is that kind of attitude that propagates mis-information as well. I would happily pay for news knowing that facts were checked and research was done, in essence good reporting. I would also pay for Tom's to get ad-free access to the site and I believe very much in supporting services and publications that I trust and enjoy. I pay for a Wired magazine subscription also but normally bypass it and read it online.
I will just go to free websites, check Information Clearing House for that matter... I get enough Big Brother on my TV if I want it ( and I have to pay for it, too), for real news I go online. Besides, if I really like the news site I can always donate money to them, is my way of supporting what I believe is good news and pretty much all the sites have a donation link. And yes, for the online/computer community, open pretty much means free, and the blokes at Google of course they know that...
I believe someone at Google might need a 10th Ferrari.../joke
Yeah...no.
The only time I would pay for anything related to news is paying to see the nightly news (and current affairs programs) go off the air.
I don't watch the news 'cos I would rather be uninformed than mis-informed.
Google = George Bush
Google news does drive traffic to their websites, so they should quit complaining.
Perhapse they will ask for money even when you go to they're homepage or when you do your search.
Yeah, it had nothing to do with propaganda and outright lies, no sir, the mean old internet killed the American press. They trumpeted every lie the Bush administration ever told, and ridiculed the bloggers who were right all along. Let them all go out of business, Faux Newz first...
There is only one news you ever need to know: the good news about Jesus! Hallelujah!
i'm all for payments if it could somehow make fox news shut up for a day
I never used google news.
Hmmmm....I already pay a monthly fee for Internet access and cable TV access.
tsebbens: I think you forgot the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_xV9w_yKa-f [...] ianity.jpg
Why don't the newspapers charge Google instead of charging the consumer? In fact, charge all the aggregators that pull their content into their news feeds. That way the papers get paid and Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc get web traffic visiting their sites and we, the consumer, still get the news the way we expect to see it, free.
i'm all for payments if it could somehow make fox news shut up for a day
Oh please. Fox News may be right of center, but it's still decent news. The big 3 tend to range from medium to far left of center and don't even bother to fact-check stories if they're coming from the left. And don't even get me started on CNN and MS-NBC... those channels aren't just left of center, they're left of Karl Marx! Probably explains why their ratings are in the tank.
Is it not possible to have a news outfit where the reporting is divorced of obvious political bias? Or do people actually like having a "flavor" to their news?
Oh please. Fox News may be right of center, but ... CNN and MS-NBC... those channels aren't just left of center, they're left of Karl Marx!
Wow, if Sean Hannity is just slightly right of center then Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are life-long Democrats.
The point shouldn't be which network is MORE biased, they all have commentary that spins the news one way or the other. I stopped watching TV news a decade ago because of this, but I have found BBC and Reuters provide a decent example of objective reporting. PBS is pretty fair, but they don't have the budget to cover breaking news. It's sad when you need to go to Europe for unbiased reporting on US politics, but Fox and MSNBC continue to shout their way to higher ratings by pandering to the wingnuts on both sides.
Wow, if Sean Hannity is just slightly right of center then Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are life-long Democrats.The point shouldn't be which network is MORE biased, they all have commentary that spins the news one way or the other. I stopped watching TV news a decade ago because of this, but I have found BBC and Reuters provide a decent example of objective reporting. PBS is pretty fair, but they don't have the budget to cover breaking news. It's sad when you need to go to Europe for unbiased reporting on US politics, but Fox and MSNBC continue to shout their way to higher ratings by pandering to the wingnuts on both sides.
I don't consider Sean Hannity slight right of center... nor do I consider him NEWS. I wasn't talking about the pundits and the ideologs, I'm just talking about straight news. I agree with you that TV news pretty much sucks. I'll watch the local news every few days just for the local stories, but I rarely watch national news. I also agree that Reuters is pretty good (I don't know about BBC news, though I do love British comedy shows).