Comment by ironmagma
4 years ago
That’s sort of ex-post-facto reasoning though. By that logic, there’s nothing that could save the newspapers, because they had decades to do it and they didn’t.
4 years ago
That’s sort of ex-post-facto reasoning though. By that logic, there’s nothing that could save the newspapers, because they had decades to do it and they didn’t.
That is not the reasoning.
The reasoning is for decades, newspapers sold many papers and made a decent amount of money, compared to today.
Therefore, the incentive to create better machines that allow them to sell more and prevent theft was higher then than today, and yet they did not.
Either the technology did not exist back then, or more likely, it simply was not worth the cost of better machines for the additional revenue.
Therefore, if it was not worth it back when newspapers were in high demand, why would it be worth developing today at a fraction of the demand?
The money makers for newspapers were always ads and classifieds. Paying for the paper was just to hopefully cover printing and distribution.