First Michael Wolff, newser.com and Vanity Fair, wrote about why Murdoch's plan to charge for his media is his "last stand.
Then Mark Cuban wrote about how Murdoch should charge.
Then Michael Wolff wrote about how stupid Mark Cuban is.
Then, Mark Cuban responded.
Here's my take:
Ok. So both Cuban and Wolff are full of themselves. But after all, we aren’t paying for their point of views so as long as they offer them for free – who cares. And as @pricing recently pointed out – (and I paraphrase) pricing strategy reflects confidence in the value of your product relative to the competition.
I disagree with both Cuban and Wolff, as I commented on Wolff’s site (but it will probably not be posted since he hasn’t posted any of my other comments in which I disagreed with him on “free”): Aggregation is worth paying for when value is added. For example, analyzing all sides of the issue, or, posting and responding to comments from both sides of the issue. When aggregation is biased [and comments filtered - update: see comments below] to reflect only those that support one point of view, aggregators like newser.com add no value. But you get what you pay for.
