Never said it was a formula for doom. I was actually responding to Steve-Uk’s comments as to whether APIs improve the commercial viability of these news orgs.

What is needed is a business model that allows everyone to prosper. If you expect to be a commercially viable enterprise, you can’t give things away for free and expect to survive, at least in a competitive free-market.

I just thought it was interesting that Jarvis–a major proponent of the Freetard movement–consulted with these news orgs and convinced them they should make their content available for free. Then, he turns around and partners with a company that repackages and distributes that content. Problem is, these companies are all failing, precisely because they made their content available for free. You’ve got to give Jarvis credit, though. He’s a brilliant businessman.

-K. Trot

You paint a bleak picture of change as doom. Though the changes are painful, I think we are seeing a process of creative destruction as the news business evolves.

Here’s a less drastic way to look at the API model: the Guardian is inviting programmer/entrepreneurs to become the carrier/delivery agents for their nonphysical product.

In an API model, publications would be smaller and more focused on their core functions as news orgs. To me, that does not sound like a formula for doom. (Unless you work in the printing plant.)

The problems and opportunities of “free” are faced by software developers, too. Many of them create free applications. Many others compete against those free ones with commercial applications. And many offer BOTH a free and paid version of the same product as a marketing technique. The API model allows these developers to apply their intellects to the problems and opportunities of “free”. Seems to me news orgs need that kind of help if they are to adapt to the network economy.

– Tom B.

I completely agree, though, that if AP opened up it could kick serious ass.

May be ur defining it differently.