I mean, you can run numbers all you want. All I'm reporting is an anecdotal n=1 experience, and the psychological barrier I'm reporting was strong enough to make me quit, where I was totally fine with paying prices that aren't calibrated to the disposable income of a lower-middle class American worker.
And probably would have consumed far more, because the volume would make up for it. That's my whole point. As someone who voraciously reads online stuff, I'd far prefer to pay 25x 2.3 cent than 2x 23 cents. Maybe I'm an outlier, but so I'd expect most article readers who care about truthfulness of the material to be.
My point was that your preferences don't make for a good business model when it comes to micropayments.
What I am telling you that based on online readership patterns, people that read 25 and more articles per month don't make up for enough of a base to be worth monetizing at 2.3 cents per article. These are hard facts.
In this case the market evolution is the proof that micropayments are not feasible. Not one company succeeded running them, but you have plenty of news companies using subscriptions that scaled the approach and made significant revenues. These are lessons learned across hundreds of news sites. With all due respect, your opinion is just that - anecdotal.
And probably would have consumed far more, because the volume would make up for it. That's my whole point. As someone who voraciously reads online stuff, I'd far prefer to pay 25x 2.3 cent than 2x 23 cents. Maybe I'm an outlier, but so I'd expect most article readers who care about truthfulness of the material to be.