I think it's time we all realize people who say stuff like this are just trying to get attention. The Internet is not a thing in and of itself. It's a designation we use to refer to an extremely varied group of things (web sites, Web applications, IM, etc...)
So no one can accurately say "the Internet is going to do [x]" because there are a billion different business models at play. Yes, some free content will be moved behind a pay wall but some content behind a pay wall will start being given away for free. Because every business will have a slightly different business plan.
So someone who says stuff like this is just trying to stir the pot and not trying to seriously engaged in a conversation.
That's true -- but only so far as absolute statements are usually wrong at the fringes. But the simple-minded retort that "other people will provide content for free, so you will too" is laughable.
Pay models are clearly going to become much more important, if only because the cost of good content isn't going down, while ad rates are dropping like a rock. Consider the fact that it's effectively impossible to make someone look at your ad on the internet (it's only a matter of time before ad-blockers become common), and it's pretty clear that the ad-supported internet model is on the wane.
I don't know if that's true but at least that's a serious point worthy of discussion (unlike the speaker here).
That said I don't think the ad-model is on the wane. I just think it looks that way because of a paradigm shift from what used to be a local world. In other words everyone used to need a local paper and all those papers carried the same AP stories. Now you have a world where all those papers compete against each other and obviously a lot of them are going to go out of business.
But that's not a problem with the Ad model it's just the economy of news shifting due to technological change. The money's still out there it's just consolidated.
My personal opinion, and it's just an opinion, but from what I've seen content that can't support an ad model usually isn't content people are willing to pay for.
The big problem that people that make this prediction don't realize is that people are already paying for the Internet. Overlooking the capital costs of the hardware to use it, most people are paying a monthly fee to either a phone company or cable provider for access. In many end users' minds, they are already paying, so why should they pay "again?" As a couple of the more savvy people interviewed in the article point out, what content can be charged for on top is already being paid for by now. (Just like a few people are willing to pay for premium channels on cable, but most just watch the basic package.)
What the statement suggests is that online advertisement is not a viable business. Try telling that to Google. Nonetheless, I'm sure there are going to be tons of sites offering paid, relevant services, but that's an easy prediction because there are tons of sites offering paid, relevant services today.
So no one can accurately say "the Internet is going to do [x]" because there are a billion different business models at play. Yes, some free content will be moved behind a pay wall but some content behind a pay wall will start being given away for free. Because every business will have a slightly different business plan.
So someone who says stuff like this is just trying to stir the pot and not trying to seriously engaged in a conversation.