The demise of a popular but unsustainable business model now seems inevitable
IN RECENT years, consumers have become used to feasting on online freebies of all sorts: news, share quotes, music, e-mail and even speedy internet access. These days, however, dotcoms are not making news with yet more free offerings, but with lay-offsand with announcements that they are to start charging for their services. These words appeared in The Economist in April 2001, but theyre just as applicable today. During the dotcom boom, the idea got about that there could be such a thing as a free lunch, or at least free internet services. Firms sprang upto offer content and services online, in the hope that they would eventually be able to monetise the resulting millions of eyeballs by selling advertising. Things did not work out that way, though, and the result was the dotcom crash. Companies tried other business models, such as charging customers for access, but very few succeeded in getting people to pay up.
Then it happened all over again, starting in 2004 with the listing of Google on the stockmarket, which inflated a new Web 2.0 bubble. Googles ability to place small, targeted text advertisements next to internet-search results, and on other websites, meant that many of the business models thought to have been killed by the dotcom bust now rose from the grave. It seemed there was indeed money to be made from internet advertising, provided you could target it accuratelya problem that could be conveniently outsourced to Google. The only reason it had not worked the first time around, it was generally agreed, was a shortage of broadband connections. The pursuit of eyeballs began again, and a series of new internet stars emerged: MySpace, YouTube, Facebook and now Twitter. Each provided a free service in order to attract a large audience that would thenat some unspecified point in the futureattract large amounts of advertising revenue. It had worked for Google, after all. The free lunch was back.
Now reality is reasserting itself once more, with familiar results. The number of companies that can be sustained by revenues from internet advertising turns out to be much smaller than many people thought, and Silicon Valley seems to be entering another nuclear winter .
Internet companies are again laying people off, scaling back, shutting down, trying to sell themselves to deep-pocketed industry giants, or talking of charging for their content or services. Some Web 2.0 darlings managed to find buyers before the bubble burst, thus passing the problem of finding a profitable business model to someone else . But quite how Facebook or Twitter will be able to make enough money to keep the lights on for their millions of users remains unclear. Facebook has had several stabs at a solution, most recently with a scheme called Facebook Connect. Twitters founders had planned to forget about revenues until 2010, but the site now seems to be preparing for the inclusion of advertising.
The bill, sir
The idea that you can give things away online, and hope that advertising revenue will somehow materialise later on, undoubtedly appeals to users, who enjoy free services as a result. There is business logic to it, too. The nature of the internet means that the barrier to entry for new companies is very lowindeed, thanks to technological improvements, it is even lower in the Web 2.0 era than it was in the dotcom era. The internet also allows companies to exploit network effects to attract and retain users very quickly and cheaply. So it is not surprising that rival search engines, social networks or video-sharing sites give their services away in order to attract users, and put the difficult question of how to make money to one side. If you worry too much about a revenue model early on, you risk being left behind.
Ultimately, though, every business needs revenuesand advertising, it transpires, is not going to provide enough. Free content and services were a beguiling idea. But the lesson of two internet bubbles is that somebody somewhere is going to have to pick up the tab for lunch.
补摹写类~
1、not yet.....but...
Its strange that our boss not yet punished them but made a rise in their salary
2、连着用动名词的那句~
The students are again ,after the examination, complaining about lack of time, regreting their inattention or checking answers with others in fear and trembling.
雅思阅读高分技巧:培养正确的习惯
通过泛读提高雅思阅读实际水平
牢记23条高分经验 助你决胜雅思听力
快速阅读雅思文章技巧
雅思口试经验:和考官寒暄有禁忌
客服雅思听力考试紧张的四大技巧
《雅思官方指南》:2014雅思考试备考策略
这个8月,我们该如何规划雅思复习时间?
如何提高雅思阅读速度
雅思考试备考:考前一周备考时间表
雅思阅读猜测词义可寻的三条线索
闭门三个月 听力8.5分经验分享
雅思阅读判断题解题思路指导
雅思成绩复议7.5的心路历程
雅思阅读技巧:把握主题
雅思阅读新攻略
剖析08年雅思学术类阅读重点题型(上)
“烤鸭”必读:雅思阅读究竟是在考什么
雅思口语写作通吃:搭配用法扫盲贴
那些年虐过我们的雅思书
雅思阅读策略:攻克单词和句子阅读
雅思阅读分步走-兔子原理
雅思考生告诉你:听得要勤,读得要广
解决雅思考试阅读易出现的四个障碍
雅思听力9分牛人的听力备考经验
突破雅思学术类阅读核心词汇(二)
雅思阅读考试段落信息配对题解题方法和思路
“烤鸭”必读:雅思如何避免“官腔”作文
雅思听力八分经验:抓住考官固定思路
“烤鸭”必读:20句俚语让你的口语更正宗
| 不限 |
| 英语教案 |
| 英语课件 |
| 英语试题 |
| 不限 |
| 不限 |
| 上册 |
| 下册 |
| 不限 |