Internet

More than a few feathers were ruffled by Kodak’s announcement that the multiple millions of users of the company’s Kodak Gallery online photo-storage service may have their photos subject to deletion if they don’t begin paying an annual service charge ranging from $5 to $20.

Is this the beginning of a trend? Some web observers seem to think so. David Lazarus, in his recent Los Angeles Times business column, draws a parallel to automated teller machines that were introduced by the banking industry back in the late 1970s. At first, there were no service charges assessed when using ATMs. The banks wanted their customers to start using ATMs, thus helping to reduce the demand for more labor-intensive (read: expensive) teller stations.

Then, after a number of years of free service the banks began charging ATM service fees for out-of-network transactions and even some in-network ones. The idea was now that consumers had become comfortable with the technology and the “24/7/365” convenience of the machines, they would accept the fees without resistance.

“Why should the Internet be any different,” Mr. Lazarus asks?

I think the comparason isn’t totally apt. It’s true that there is a cost for Kodak or others to maintain the infrastructure (hardware and software) to provide archiving and other web-based services. But the fact is, those costs are not nearly as high as the “brick-and-mortar” expense of building an ATM system.

What’s more, the banks were in a stronger position to move en masse toward charging fees. After all, they operate under a government-issued charters. The barriers to entry – both regulatory and financial – are far more onerous than anything in cyberspace.

Anyone ever heard of Flickr?

And that’s the real challenge today. Who is going to be the first to jump into the fee-based waters? And will anyone else follow? Put it another way: will others follow the leader … only to find themselves drowning in a sea of new, free alternatives that spring up in response?

Just ask the newspaper industry how simple it is to successfully implement fee-based services on the web. There’s your answer as to how easy “pay to play” will be to implement.

For those of us in the communications field or otherwise on the bleeding edge of communications, it may come as something of a surprise to learn that the rest of the world isn’t all that engaged with (or even interested in) many of the communications techniques and gadgets that so absorb us.

To underscore this point, a study published recently by the Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that only about one-third of the adult U.S. population finds mobile Internet communications to be particularly interesting or attractive to them. And, horror of horrors, the remaining two-thirds aren’t being pulled by mobility further into the digital world.

The Pew study categorizes information and communication technology users into different sub-groups that have been given catchy descriptive names. Five of them, labeled “digital collaborators,” “media movers,” “roving nodes,” “ambivalent networkers” and “mobile newbies” collectively make up just over one third of the population. The study combines these groups together as people who are “motivated by mobility.”

On the other hand, a clear majority of people fall into a second segment dubbed the “stationary media majority.” Sub-groups within this segment include “desktop veterans,” “drifting surfers,” the “information encumbered,” the “tech indifferent,” and those who are just simply “off the network.”

While it may be tempting to assume that the ranks of the “motivated by media” segment will continue to grow at the same rapid pace (or even faster) going forward, the Pew study throws cold water on such a notion. Indeed, it finds that the “stationary media majority” segment, far from becoming more comfortable or accepting of cell phones and other mobile devices, is actually displaying increasingly more negative attitudes about them.

Maybe it’s an understandable reaction to the relentless press of new technology for people to push back like this. And we’ve seen it before – back in the 1970s and ’80s with the high-tech/high-touch phenomenon when desktop computers were being introduced in a big way into the office environment.

People do come around eventually, of course. But it takes longer than many would expect. And it’s really too bad when some early adopters respond with impatience and exasperation. Instead, why not just chill and give the rest of the world a chance to catch up?

Even better, let them do it on their own terms and at their own pace.