General Discussion

"What's difference does it make what device I am using to access your site?"

  
  Paid-subscriptions to unlock a mobile portion of sites to help entice users to pay up.

Hulu Plus 

 
Clearly Hulu wasn't satisfied with the amount of money they were making with their ad-only model, so they made the switch to a subscription based model, without changing the free-model. But I would love to watch Hulu on my Xbox or iPhone, but the idea that I have to pay for the ability to access content on the device I want to seems absurd. I could hook my computer up to my HDTV, but that is just a lot of work. 
 
Mobile devices are becoming more prominent, and more people are browsing the internet on their smartphones than ever before, and doesn't reflect well on Hulu when they put up a pay-gate to use the site on mobile devices, when it seems like they should be trying to expand and get more market-share. 
 
Hulu realized that opening up a huge back-log of TV episodes wasn't enough to warrant a $10 a month subscription, so they had to limit mobile and console versions to people who subscribed to Hulu Plus.  
 
With Netflix, while there are tiers for having more DVDs out at a time, all of the streaming is totally universal. (besides $4.99 plan, but really...) I don't feel pressured to pay an addition $5 a month to stream on my PS3, or my iPad, so it just feels fair. 
 
Now, it seems ridiculous to see Giantbomb, and the other Whiskey Media sites, follow the same route of Hulu. Instead of embracing mobile devices, they are cutting off that feature to help justify their new, upcoming subscription model, when it is clear that they do not have enough other features warrant a paid subscription. 
 
Let me know what you think. 
 
~Jayross    

Yeah, I'm not too big on artificial limitations. I can absolutely understand charging more for services that require more resources, like higher-definition videos. A mobile site shouldn't consume anything above and beyond a normal pageview, though. Unless I hear a more convincing argument, I won't feel too compelled to plunk down for any sort of subscription.

@Jayross:  @lane:
Well it costs development time. You will still be able to view the full site on your mobile device, it's just it wont be the mobile optimised site. Continuing the whiskey premium idea, they aren't taking anything away, they are just adding and enhancing.

@ebritt said:

" @Jayross:  @lane: Well it costs development time. You will still be able to view the full site on your mobile device, it's just it wont be the mobile optimised site. Continuing the whiskey premium idea, they aren't taking anything away, they are just adding and enhancing. "

Yeah, this is what I think. It's not about you viewing the site on a phone, it's about you using a version of the site that was custom developed for you to have the best experience. I think they went out of their way to find something that would really benefit some people but wouldn't take away from the site whatsoever, and HD video streaming is just an excellent addition (except for those of us who don't have the bandwidth for it).

You know, I understand that sites have to make money, but having a mobile version of a site just seems like something standard to have. You do want that your users (old and new) have the most solid experience even when browsing your site on a mobile device. Of course companies always price enhanced version of X products, but with something basic like a mobile version of a site, it's just odd.

 The whiskey media sites are launching mobile websites that are free to all users. But thats just because they are pretty awesome.

@Fripplebubby said:

" @ebritt said:

" @Jayross:  @lane: Well it costs development time. You will still be able to view the full site on your mobile device, it's just it wont be the mobile optimised site. Continuing the whiskey premium idea, they aren't taking anything away, they are just adding and enhancing. "

Yeah, this is what I think. It's not about you viewing the site on a phone, it's about you using a version of the site that was custom developed for you to have the best experience. I think they went out of their way to find something that would really benefit some people but wouldn't take away from the site whatsoever, and HD video streaming is just an excellent addition (except for those of us who don't have the bandwidth for it). "

What they said. I for one cannot wait to start throwing money at the Whiskey Media crew. Hell if they ran a donation drive similar to Jordan,Jesse GO! I'd probably send them a large chunk of change.
 
Remember kids, with money comes ownership and a sense of entitlement. They will beholden to us the paying customers and will do what we say less we take away our all mighty dollar. Provided they'll take my almost-at-par Canadian Loonie.

@simian said:

What they said. I for one cannot wait to start throwing money at the Whiskey Media crew. Hell if they ran a donation drive similar to Jordan,Jesse GO! I'd probably send them a large chunk of change.

I would pay for quality sites to be able to view them at there best on my phone.  I can say any whiskey site would be worth paying for a few others on my list to get best quality and viewing.  
 
That's just me and the other thing is obviously  to get best site presentation you will want to have some kind of smart phone. 

@ebritt: 
 
The thing is, development is a fixed cost that can be recouped any number of ways. Dynamic costs like bandwidth with real value adds and not artificial limitations are the only reasons to use a subscription model, and as it stands, the value doesn't seem to be there for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'll subscribe for a little while at least, but in my mind it'll be a donation, not a fee for any sort of perceived benefit I'm receiving from forking over my money.

@lane: Except that the cost isn't fixed for the application. Yes the actual cost to develop and test the application is fixed for the first time, but you also have to factor in the costs of supporting the application and continual development on the application to improve it and add features.Plus its not like you can't view the website on a mobile device without a subscription, its just by paying for a subscription your getting a better mobile experience, with more support, that assumedly will continue to be supported and improved upon by whiskey media. 
 
EDIT: Consider an MMORPG, the money that you spend on a subscription isn't only going to bandwidth costs (which aren't that high), its going to a development and support team that fixes bugs, adds new stuff to the game, and handles complaints/suggestions from players.

@LtSquigs: 
 
What I mean by fixed cost is that it doesn't scale according to resource use. It's not a question of infrastructure - the team will be squashing bugs and adding features regardless of how many users there are.

I disapprove of making this - access to the site - a premium feature. Currently I use my iPhone a lot to view Giant Bomb and Tested - and they've yet to fix the ability to comment or post in the forum...  If they want to put ads on the mobile site - that's OK - but access, which is superior, should be available to everyone... 

Ignoring the cross-post incendiary nature of this topic. 
 
First, we're not Hulu. We don't distribute others content, we create it ourselves and there's a cost to that. We also have an engineering team that just recently enjoyed getting a one-to-one equality with the number of sites we run. That you actually compare us to a company with the resources of Hulu makes me feel pretty good about myself! 
 
Now, why charge for mobile? Why not make it free. It's pretty simple for us. Running a mobile site means we are no longer supporting 5 websites, but now 10. Lane, there is no artificial limitation in this project. The limitation for us is the time we have to devote to it and support. As you'd imagine supporting our sites better on mobile is usually one of the first things that came up in the request queue. The other was single sign-on. SIngle sign-on though is a one time cost for us. We hustle for 2 months and get it done and then hopefully it just works (which is why it's going to be free). Mobile though is quite a different story. Now when we launch new features on the site we also have to reskin that feature for mobile. So not only are we now worried about a maintenance cost, we're now also signing up for doubling our front-end (design and production) work for every new thing we do. That's a lot of time. It's also why only HUGE companies do mobile well.
 
We absolutely would not have started a mobile site of this scale (actually, we might have done some cheap-o text link version) if we weren't doing paid memberships. It's not like something we had on the roadmap and said, oh we might as well put that behind the wall, it was more... ok, our users want a better experience, how can we justify spending the time on it vs. concentrating on our main product (mobile, while growing is a very small fraction of our audience)?  Remember too, that the site you see right now will exist for free accounts on your mobile devices. We're just offering a premium, supported version if you pay.
 
In the end my transparency on this subject is really just to fulfill any curiosities. We as a company believe in being open and honest with our business, which funnily enough is how our writers feel about their editorial. In the end I think people will choose to support us because they like and understand that mission, not because they'll get a T-Shirt (though we're going give you one of those too!). 
 
And hey, this is all optional. If it's not a good deal to you, fair enough. A lot of us spend our days trying to inform people about making value decisions, we get it.

@snide said:

" Ignoring the cross-post incendiary nature of this topic.  First, we're not Hulu. We don't distribute others content, we create it ourselves and there's a cost to that. We also have an engineering team that just recently enjoyed getting a one-to-one equality with the number of sites we run. That you actually compare us to a company with the resources of Hulu makes me feel pretty good about myself!  Now, why charge for mobile? Why not make it free. It's pretty simple for us. Running a mobile site means we are no longer supporting 5 websites, but now 10. Lane, there is no artificial limitation in this project. The limitation for us is the time we have to devote to it and support. As you'd imagine supporting our sites better on mobile is usually one of the first things that came up in the request queue. The other was single sign-on. SIngle sign-on though is a one time cost for us. We hustle for 2 months and get it done and then hopefully it just works (which is why it's going to be free). Mobile though is quite a different story. Now when we launch new features on the site we also have to reskin that feature for mobile. So not only are we now worried about a maintenance cost, we're now also signing up for doubling our front-end (design and production) work for every new thing we do. That's a lot of time. It's also why only HUGE companies do mobile well. We absolutely would not have started a mobile site of this scale (actually, we might have done some cheap-o text link version) if we weren't doing paid memberships. It's not like something we had on the roadmap and said, oh we might as well put that behind the wall, it was more... ok, our users want a better experience, how can we justify spending the time on it vs. concentrating on our main product (mobile, while growing is a very small fraction of our audience)?  Remember too, that the site you see right now will exist for free accounts on your mobile devices. We're just offering a premium, supported version if you pay. In the end my transparency on this subject is really just to fulfill any curiosities. We as a company believe in being open and honest with our business, which funnily enough is how our writers feel about their editorial. In the end I think people will choose to support us because they like and understand that mission, not because they'll get a T-Shirt (though we're going give you one of those too!).  And hey, this is all optional. If it's not a good deal to you, fair enough. A lot of us spend our days trying to inform people about making value decisions, we get it. "

Never has simply writing "this" been such an appropriate response to a post. 
  
Thanks for all the hard work put in. I for one can't wait for the big live live show live for further announcements and a day of whiskey greatness.

@snide: 
 
Before I respond, I want it to be very clear that I don't think what you're doing is wrong or an affront to people who consume your content. You're already a lot more generous with your content than many sites, and I have all the respect in the world for you and whatever way you decide to handle things. That being said, my objection really boils down to this: assuming you move ahead with mobile regardless your subscription numbers (which I assume is the plan, since you're not limiting it to year-long subscribers the way you are ad-free sites), there does exist an artificially imposed limitation. A mobile site doesn't need to be scaled according to use, and while development and deployment costs are certainly a concern, they can be offset in other ways that don't dictate the experience of mobile users based on their ability or willingness to pay. Simply put, I don't think a donation model should be the basis for driving development in the mobile space - I believe it should be a non-negotiable just like the wiki or any of the other areas where feet have been firmly planted.
 
Again, you'll be getting money from me the day the premium membership system goes online, but only because I love the content here and I want to make a contribution as a thank you for all the work you guys do. That's just, like, my opinion, man, and I still got all the love in the world for Whiskey. Kill it.

@lane: Oh don't worry. I never take stuff that way. I'm glad people ask these questions to be honest. Most of the time everyone is pretty rational. Collectively, conversations with our members leave an imprint and its how we make decisions.

@lane: Don't worry lane, I took it personally. I've added you to my enemies list a second time.

@snide: Thanks for the post, Snide. 
 
Will the subscription include an ipad version of the site? I don't own one, so I'm not sure how the site operates, but I remember the posting and wiki-editing not working on the ipad because of java or something. It would be awesome to see some small ipad improvements so that I could blog from my ipad.