Hacker News Reader

Comment by iMerNibor | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty stupid what they try to do to get even more money

They somehow managed to get a law in place which prohibits quoting of even small passages online (i.e. Google News) without paying for it. What did Google do? Simply removed them from the results, they tried to sue and lost. Now they gave Google permission to include them for free. What about the smaller services? Who cares about those - loads of news aggregators shut down in response.

Now that (some) adblockers have been ruled legal they sued a bunch of people (youtuber, the adblock forum) for providing instruction on how to get around the anti-adblocker wall they put in Fun times

View on HN

"Now they gave Google permission to include them for free. What about the smaller services? Who cares about those - loads of news aggregators shut down in response."

Sounds as if it worked out beautifully for Springer - the competition is gone and they are included with Google again.

Even more money? The delicious graphs at http://www.bildblog.de/auflage.php show twelve consecutive years of decline. That's not "even more money".

That's only offline sales. They know this business is dead and aggressively push their online services.

I don't see a downward trend in their over-all profits: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/451654/umfrage...

> Größter Wachstumstreiber ist das Geschäft mit Kleinanzeigen im Internet wie Immobilien-, Job- und Autoportalen. Hier verfolge Springer eine "sehr aggressive Wachstumsstrategie", sagte Döpfner. Das Ergebnis in diesen Rubrikenmärkten kletterte binnen Jahresfrist um 35,2 Prozent auf 221 Millionen Euro und steuerte damit rund 44 Prozent des gesamten Konzerngewinns bei. [1]

But most of their profits are generated by their online markets for cars, houses and jobs, not their digital journalism.

[1] http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article138064544/Digitalstrate...

Oddly, that graph starts after the graph to which I linked. I can't find anything that covers more years (don't have time to search thoroughly now).

BTW I like your choice of adverb.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com