There is a lot to be learned of the history of the print industry, and how it was initially propped by manufacturers such as Coca-cola. Amazing read if you can find the book.

Great UI and content doesn't correlate with money all the time. It is pretty much luck and long-term industrial partnerships and perceptions that shapes the good companies from the bad. Myspace had a horrible UI for many years; before Facebook, it was the most popular site on the net.

Craigslist UI could be confused with UNIX Pine email software; its simplicity is amazing, but the complexity is non-existent.

I think the real issue here is how to initially control the revenue structure in balance with the UI. The initial control, such as ads on the side, or paying for content, or forced control, is key for media companies to get their revenue back.

The RIAA wasn't wrong in their quest to consolidate the abundance; where they failed is controlling the whole music structure. If the RIAA started enacting copying rules that book publishers had in place for many years, but simultaneously set up content-rich hubs online, then they would've won.

Even though they lost, their imprint on the media industry in terms of abundance is great. Google's video/audio imprinting technology probably wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the lawsuits or danger of people sharing content illegally. The fall of Oink, the perils of Piratebay, and the loss of population in Soulseek, and the gain of marketers/hackers/media agents in surveying torrents shows that although slow and full of mistakes, the big wigs did gain a lot of ground in the 21st century.

Newspapers have lost because their models don't work ( as well ) with the internet. But with Google's partnerships, and their technology, the UI might come from Google in a revenue-sharing plan. If this ever happens with even 3-4 big newspaper companies, god forbid, then traditional media could bring in the reins on abundance.

Always look at today's news, with APs new guidelines on word use for their articles, to Facebook's removing links from specific sites. If all of these things come together, content will be re-controlled by the big media centers again.

From that point, who knows what will happen. One thing I do know, the free ride will come to an end in the next few years

There is a lot to be learned of the history of the print industry, and how it was initially propped by manufacturers such as Coca-cola. Amazing read if you can find the book.

Great UI and content doesn't correlate with money all the time. It is pretty much luck and long-term industrial partnerships and perceptions that shapes the good companies from the bad. Myspace had a horrible UI for many years; before Facebook, it was the most popular site on the net.

Craigslist UI could be confused with UNIX Pine email software; its simplicity is amazing, but the complexity is non-existent.

I think the real issue here is how to initially control the revenue structure in balance with the UI. The initial control, such as ads on the side, or paying for content, or forced control, is key for media companies to get their revenue back.

The RIAA wasn't wrong in their quest to consolidate the abundance; where they failed is controlling the whole music structure. If the RIAA started enacting copying rules that book publishers had in place for many years, but simultaneously set up content-rich hubs online, then they would've won.

Even though they lost, their imprint on the media industry in terms of abundance is great. Google's video/audio imprinting technology probably wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the lawsuits or danger of people sharing content illegally. The fall of Oink, the perils of Piratebay, and the loss of population in Soulseek, and the gain of marketers/hackers/media agents in surveying torrents shows that although slow and full of mistakes, the big wigs did gain a lot of ground in the 21st century.

Newspapers have lost because their models don't work ( as well ) with the internet. But with Google's partnerships, and their technology, the UI might come from Google in a revenue-sharing plan. If this ever happens with even 3-4 big newspaper companies, god forbid, then traditional media could bring in the reins on abundance.

Always look at today's news, with APs new guidelines on word use for their articles, to Facebook's removing links from specific sites. If all of these things come together, content will be re-controlled by the big media centers again.

From that point, who knows what will happen. One thing I do know, the free ride will come to an end in the next few years

The key is to experiment. We have to find the various methods that are needed to make money. The only way to do that is to play. It's not like the answer's just gonna drop into our lap :)

People need to monetize the process somehow. We can't all just work “for free” in this society.

But the old method is gone. For good.

So, the question to answer is the “how” in my “somehow”. And, right now, I don't see one person coming up with that answer.

It's going to be answered a million times by a million different people. It will still be “the invisible hand” pushing things, but it will move electronically at the speed of the net.

I have a pretty decent blog on Seattle history. I think it would be a lot better if I had more time for it. If I could make more money on it, I *would* spend more time on it.

I think we may be in trouble if we leave the production of content to those who have an insane amount of free time or simply don't need to sleep.

As for newspapers' “amazing UI”, search meant rummaging through a pile of old issues. Links didn't exist. User comments were limited to a few letters to the editor. Updates were limited to once a day. And your fingers got dirty.

Joey Baker is right. “The idea that you can delay, or should delay the transition to an internet based economy is just stupid. We’re here. Welcome to the future.” Yes, welcome.