Why Google gave free full access instead of limited access like Facebook is up for speculation but one of the reason could be the fundamental difference in their services. Google provides information, be it web searches or maps and provides a wide host of services like Gmail (62% market share in 2011) and Google Now. They also sell ad space in their search engine and use customer search data to make profiles. Google stands to benefit no matter how you log on to the net, it will be either providing you the service or collecting data or showing ads. Facebook is not that lucky because apart from Whatsapp, it stands to gain only if users are actually using the Facebook app and so needs to be restrictive in order to make the deal mutual beneficial.
Personally, I feel that Free Basics represents a new business model that companies can try to win customers. A company like Flipkart can offer free internet to their customers to increase the amount of time spent on their site and thus improve sales, Times of India can use this to improve free news to its clients and thus improve its readership and thus ad revenue (Currently TOI offers its e-paper for free while Business Standard follows a subscription model, which proves that businesses may choose not to offer a free version if they sufficiently believe in their paid model)
I would like to conclude by saying that while net neutrality is an important basic right, the internet represents a scarce and vital resource akin to land. Companies invest a lot in Search Engine Optimization and digital marketing in order to solidify their internet presence and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to offer free services in order to woo customers.
Chat
Comments