Follow on to Jim’s earlier post on this issue. A lot of the buzz surrounding this is taking a “BitPass vs. Peppercoin” slant. Not an altogether invalid comparison, considering the two companies started at about the same time and had the similar vision…

...of capturing the vast opportunity that is micropayments. The comparison begs further analysis. Peppercoin recognized relatively early in their existence that digital content (or even limiting themselves to internet-only transactions, digital or physical goods) wasn’t going to be a sustainable business model. I think that’s a big part of it. It was a very limiting factor for BitPass and certainly contributed to their demise.

Although I don’t see this solely as a “BitPass vs. Peppercoin� story, the comparison is valid. Peppercoin cast a wider net, and is still a viable business. I’m sure that BitPass had visions of an expansion beyond digital purchases/sales, but either wasn’t able to expand the business model (as Peppercoin was), or saw it as more of a future aspiration.

The path is littered with former companies that thought consumers would flock to use their “better [micropayments] mouse trap,” but none has really made the pure digital content play work. Some have suggested that there is an inherent “inside the box” line of thinking with all micropayments solutions. After years and dozens of examples, I’m inclined to agree, which is why I was excited when Peppercoin expanded their vision beyond digital content, and beyond internet transactions. We’ll see if they (and others, for that matter) can continue to choose the road less traveled, and whether that will make the difference.