Hooked on free Web services? Prepare to pay

[kiva]

In the latest example of fees being introduced for a service that once came with no strings attached, Eastman Kodak Co. says it'll begin charging $4.99 to $19.99 annually for its previously free online photo-storage service, Kodak Gallery.

If you don't pay by May 16, the company warns, all your photos could be deleted.

***snip***

When ATMs were introduced, there were no fees associated with using them. The banking industry wanted people to be comfortable with the idea of dealing with a machine rather than a costlier human being.

Beginning in 1988, however, banks started tacking on surcharges for ATM users with cards from other networks. Other fees followed -- for telephone transactions, check cashing, even just for speaking with a teller or receiving canceled checks in the mail.

Why should the Internet be any different?

Craigslist once allowed users to post all listings for free. Now it charges fees for job openings in various cities, New York apartment rentals and erotic services.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus5-2009apr05,0,5733962,full.column

I'm ambivalent about this...I don't like the idea of paying the fees for some of these services (who does?), but there are some services I'd rather pay for than lose. Other opinions?

[I Have A Dream]

1. I'd pay for Photobucket. I've always wondered how they did it...

even with ad revenue.

It's a service that I value, so I'd be willing to pay for it. (I know that they currently have a level where you pay, but I don't need that level personally.)

I'd also be willing to pay a small fee for the use of YouTube. Not a lot though...

[AndyTiedye]

6. I Pay for .mac and Host My Stuff There

[michreject]

19. I do pay for Photobucket

and have for years. I have the premium service which allows more storage space.

[Mika]

2. If everything were free then we'd all have no jobs BUT plenty o' time to enjoy free stuff.

:crazy:

[AndyTiedye]

7. It is Possible to Make a Good Living on Free Stuff. Ask Richard M. Stallman

http://www.fsf.org/

[DatManFromNawlins]

14. REALLY bad point

In Stallman's mind, the two ways a developer should look to make a living are to provide a service and to sell software along with source code.

In the first case, the developer works for someone else and maintains the rights to the source. In the second case, the developer works for himself and simply provides the source with a binary.

In the case of internet services like Photobucket and Youtube, the software IS the service. The developer doesn't get paid for developing the software, he gets paid from the revenue that the software generates when it is used by others through either an ad or a subscription.

Makes no sense to give that away, since competition is simply a click away. There's no way to logically entertain "freedom" as he defines it when talking about the internet service business model.

[rrneck]

3. I guess that's the marketplace.

It depends on what you want to do. If they start charging to store photos, it might become cheaper to host your own photos on your own blog or website. They're already pretty easy to set up.

Banks are just screwing people as far as I'm concerned.

The last I heard Craigslist was trying to hold the line not charge too much, but that may change too. Bandwidth ain't free.

Digitized information storage and transfer is evolving so fast and becoming cheaper all the time that I guess I'd rather try to hang on to my important stuff locally. But then again, I use Gmail...

[Blue Diadem]

4. Our mortgage company, HSBC charged us $10 per payment to pay online.

We prefered paying that way due to mail problems. ie: We recently changed to getting our bill in the mail and we don't even get it until 2-3 days before it's due. When we called them they said it had been mailed out mid month. Checking the post date they were telling the truth. We ended up paying twice now via automated telephone system and guess what? No charge to pay that way.

I can understand places that store photos and I could possibly understand a small fee, but I think $10 was ridiculous.

[NashVegas]

5. I Think We'll See a Lot More Of This.

Online storage and retrieval costs money, to someone, and online advertising rates aren't cutting the mustard for many.

[shraby]

8. Check out what is charged for bandwidth/website

here. It's the server I use..it's not that expensive.
<http://www.hostmonster.com>

They're charging far more in fees than what it costs per month for unlimited.

[Maine-ah]

9. from Kodak (all of my stuff is there)

You can upload an unlimited number of photos to the KODAK Gallery website (Kodakgallery.com). Beginning March 13, 2009, our new Storage Policy states, however, that in order to continue storing photos on the Gallery website, you must make a purchase from the Gallery at least once every 12 months. The amount of the required purchase is based on the amount of storage space your photos occupy on the Gallery website. If the amount of storage you use is equal to 2 gigabytes (GB) or less, you must make purchases totaling at least $4.99 once every 12 months. If your storage amounts to over 2 GB, you must make purchases totaling at least $19.99 once every 12 months. If you do not meet the applicable minimum purchase requirement, your photos may be deleted.

Please refer to your Storage Status within the My Account page of the Gallery website to see the time frame within which you are required to make your next qualifying purchase to meet our Storage Policy requirements.

To view our Storage Policy*, please go to: Kodakgallery.com/TermsOfService.jsp. (See section 18.)


* Your continued use of the Gallery is deemed acceptance of the Terms of Service.

[Occam Bandage]

10. So use Flickr instead. Or Picasa.

[JCMach1]

12. Flickr has limited uploads unless you pay...

I pay... :(

[democracy1st]

16. Flickr has a 200 photo limit then its costs 25 bucks a yr to go over that amount

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I don't like paying, but I see no reason to assume I have a right...

to free stuff.

Free news, free movies, free music, free online storage, free software, free email...

Someone, somewhere has to pay for all this, and if it ends up being the user, so be it.

[SoCalDem]

13. I pay for Smugmug..never used the Kodak site n/t

[DatManFromNawlins]

15. The problem is that...

... if you are running a service based website, unless you have a sales force, you are going to get royally SCREWED by internet ad companies. Google makes far more money per impression off their ads than the companies that display them do.

I run a network of sites which provide different services. I first tried Google ads and was making about $2500 a month. I then started contacting the marketing arms of different companies who have services in the same spectrum as the sites I run, and was able to secure 40 advertisers whose ad packages range from $300-$1000 a month, depending on ad size and placement on the sites. From those initial 40, only 2 have decided not to re-up due to market conditions. The rest are more than happy with their impressions and click-thrus.

Most people don't consider the time or effort it takes to develop a responsive, bug-free web application which has to be constantly upgraded to suit the needs of the consumer.

[Political Heretic]

17. It will cause people to narrow down what they really want on the web. Example:

I would not pay for photobucket, or Kodaks thing and I think it will be very very hard for these companies to make money on their projects, simply because there are thousands of free online storage sites, and they're not all managed by some major corporation.

I WOULD however pay a yearly fee for evernote if it was under 50$. Ever used it?

www.evernote.com

It is the most useful think I've ever found on the internet.

And I would pay a yearly fee under 50$ for Skydrive, which is a one stop online mass storage shop for everything - part of Windows Live's suite of online stuff.

[rucky]

20. Thanks for the link!

I was about to re-up with SnagIt after my trial version expired, but this seems way more useful!

[1]

18. aside from porn, no one has built an internet model that collects fees...

this story is the same bullshit i was reading back in 1996.

it didn't happen back then, it ain't going to happen now...

[mwooldri]

21. That's not the only thing going up. Have RoadRunner? It's going to cost more...

Time Warner Cable in all their wisdom have decided to expand their "consumption based billing" method. They tried it out in Beaumont TX and it was such a hit they're trialling it out in more places. San Antonio, TX, Rochester NY, Greensboro NC and one other place I forget are the lucky recipients of this greatest opportunity to double your cable bill.

Most people in Greensboro are on a $39.99/mo plan that offers 7Mbit/sec down, 384kbit/sec up. Time Warner Cable aka RoadRunner are going to slap on a 20GB/month limit. One can easily get through 1GB a day; I can get through that easily just by downloading and trialling out a new Linux distribution or watching some Netflix content on the Roku box, or a Youtube session. I'd estimate that we'd need to "upgrade" to business class Internet (and pay more), switch to AT&T (get snooped on, have slower service) or just pay much more.

(more available at www.stopthecap.com )

[amyrose2712]

22. I wouldn't mind paying fair prices for things, but

only if I could have most of the control of the costs. As opposed to, say cable companies that rape the hell out of your pocket and force you to take 100 channels even if you only want 1.