B. Why pay to read content! It's as lame as the idea I once heard about the Government wanting to charge for sending emails!
Huh? As if paying to read something was a brand-new idea, even on the Internet.
According to the blog post linked above, and to another article I read yesterday in the newspaper, this is just another cog in Big Content grand plans for getting away from the "free for all" model that rules the Internet nowadays. The general idea is to charge users a fee that allows access to premium features and/or content, although certain
company wants to impose a fee for pretty much everything you want to do in their webpages (yup, News Corporation). Which, as long as the premium perks are worth the price, is a fine idea.
As I see it, Google's idea is one of the faulty cogs. As app says, if the scheme gets adopted, you'll end up paying to read anything in any given site, which is downright stupid, so the idea is doomed from the start. Users won't buy that, and they'll end up looking for information elsewhere.
That said, it could be that Google intended its new micropayment system to be used as an alternative to subscriptions, which would make a lot of sense. Keep daily news free (after all, most of the times a headline and a summary is more than enough), but make opinion pieces, interviews or articles available either by purchasing a monthly or yearly subscription, or by charging a small fee for casual readers to access it during a given period of time.