> If Google is 'helping' these publishers then the counterpoint is these publishers are also 'helping' Google by making the content at their cost in the first place. Without their content what will Google search? Wikipedia, one person blogs?
The whole rest of the internet, which among other things contains a sizable number of media outlets that are not subject to these protections?
Frankly, Google is better-equipped to walk away from news providers than the news providers are to walk away from google. Google has done this before, even.
You are, of course, absolutely right that there is room for another business model here. In fact, one might posit that there has been room for decades! Surely it's possible that there could be a business model whereby consumers get access to the news they value for a reasonable price, producers of news get paid fairly, and profit-extracting aggregators are kept to the slimmest of financial margins. Surely it would be better for consumers (who doesn't like supporting journalism, so critical to a free society?) and journalistic outlets (who obviously would love to be free of Google's iron yoke)!
It's curious that no good replacement has arisen when the opportunity and incentives are so clear! Perhaps in Spain, where Google News does not operate on domestic newspapers and has not for years? But I'm sure that's merely my failure to understand how Google sucked all the oxygen out of the room and prevented those incentivized to do so from creating something better. Can you help me understand what I've missed?
The whole rest of the internet, which among other things contains a sizable number of media outlets that are not subject to these protections?
Frankly, Google is better-equipped to walk away from news providers than the news providers are to walk away from google. Google has done this before, even.
You are, of course, absolutely right that there is room for another business model here. In fact, one might posit that there has been room for decades! Surely it's possible that there could be a business model whereby consumers get access to the news they value for a reasonable price, producers of news get paid fairly, and profit-extracting aggregators are kept to the slimmest of financial margins. Surely it would be better for consumers (who doesn't like supporting journalism, so critical to a free society?) and journalistic outlets (who obviously would love to be free of Google's iron yoke)!
It's curious that no good replacement has arisen when the opportunity and incentives are so clear! Perhaps in Spain, where Google News does not operate on domestic newspapers and has not for years? But I'm sure that's merely my failure to understand how Google sucked all the oxygen out of the room and prevented those incentivized to do so from creating something better. Can you help me understand what I've missed?