The advent of free news is hit the newspaper industry dead. Now the call for free wifi and other services a terrible impact on the technology sector. I wish my landlord thought that housing would be free. And why does that great restaurant with me to the corner dishes of French cuisine is not free? Why I actually pay for the bus? Of course, it sounds stupid, but it is much crazier than a prominent blogger who begs for free wifi in airports?
The site PCWorld.com writes the normally cautious David Coursey: “Paying for internet access at airports and other public places is simply crazy.” Sorry, but that is a very, well, stupid opinion. It does not matter what I think Coursey, but I’m busier on the future of technology – and I do not see them the same costly mistake that the publishing industry has cost nearly head.
Newspapers and magazines have made huge mistakes – arrogance, greed and inability to think ahead, to name just three to mention – who have nothing to do with digital technology. But the worst mistake was to give consumers the idea that news should be free and content. As a result hundreds of millions of people now read the news for free, without them the idea that it costs money to produce it. I am no specialist in the field of free market capitalism, but I believe strongly that companies should make a profit. Without profit there is little room for innovation.
News and wifi services are goods, like cars, houses and food goods. Labor and materials, but also the capital to pay them, are the main ingredients of the products or services we consume. No money means no product. That is a fundamental principle of the economy which does not alter the digital revolution.
Google, which feeds off billions of dollars, can afford to make a generous gesture and free wifi at some airports to offer during the holidays. But I bet this a few ads in the service are needed. The give away is also good for the image of the company. It is always difficult to measure, but it is a tough economic advantage. Few companies are in the same position as Google. It is they would just have to ask money.
I am speechless when beaten Coursey writes: “Airports and airlines should offer free internet customers happy, productive and engaging when they wait for their planes. We already pay enough for all the other airports? ”
Sorry? You mean you are not a few hours without you YouTube? You should have a book deal or a (chuckle) newspaper or magazine to read. You can still work offline? Your e-mail or Internet use, but you pay a few kinks, why not you?
What bothers me is his feeling to be right. Coursey is angry because it cost so much food on one airport. That is true. When I go flying, I take my own lunch along. If I forget, that’s my problem. If you’re hungry, you only spent a few bucks on a sandwich. What’s wrong with that?
There are many legitimate reasons to invent a complaint about flying. Transfers and full planes, was impaired delays, and so on. We, the people traveling, have the right to complain because we are paying customers. And we have the right to require a service which we pay is. Mind you, pay. The same rules apply or should apply to technology where it goes.
I’ve spent many pixels to the poor service from AT & T and their arrogant attitude. I kick against Apple as it should (which fortunately do my colleagues). Regardless of whether there is freedom of expression and whether I own court to play, I feel that I have moral right to attack these companies, because if I as a customer paying for their products or services.
When I spent 20 euros on internet for my iPhone, then I deserve to get it. But I do not expect my ISP that I get free. If I am a paying business, I have a right to expect that Apple does weird things to me pulls off the field of security. Yes, I am a consumer representative, but I think customers responsibility. One is realism.
Let us talk about AT & T and still unfulfilled promise of the “tether” of the iPhone to PC’s. Of course I would like to make use of that technology. But if AT & T by tethering the increase in traffic can not handle, then the supplier can not provide until the network can handle. Would they do not, then their 3G service is worse than it is today – and that is to say something. Meanwhile, paying AT & T customers have the right to complain about the network of the company. That would simply be trimmed.
I do not write for free, my colleagues do not and I also bet that your network and free product not be used. I know some of you try open source as an explanation.
Apologies, but that proves my point. The impact and quality of open source has grown in recent years and the business models have matured. Not long ago, every manufacturer, who dared paid or sponsored a version of its software to make buried under mountains criticism. But that is not now. The recession has made many technical professionals are unemployed, but there could be fewer of them to work as open source companies were afraid to know it. It is they invest in new development projects and better infrastructure. Just ask the open source MySQL millionaires, or they think development should be free.
I am reminded of the self-help aphorism: “Let the perfect not in the way of the good”. In this case I would say: “Do not free in the way of the possible.”