Their platform, called Paypal X, is an API that will allow developers to tailor Paypal’s infrastructure for their own sites. Paypal themselves are highlighting the potential for micropayments that the platform might allow – Osama Bedier, the vice president of platform, told the FT: “I can pay 10 cents for something in real life. I can’t do that online”. The key with micropayments is to make them a) fast and b) not feel like you’re actually paying money; logging into Paypal and using one-click purchasing fills both of those criteria. Plus the traction Paypal already has with web users means that many won’t even have to bother signing up to a new service – it looks well placed to expand into the micropayment sector, as long as its API isn’t a total ballache to work with.

Paypal is looking ever more likely to be eBay’s saviour. Unlike Skype, Stumbleupon and others, Paypal is one of the only acquisitions the cash-drunk eBay made that actually dovetailed with its core business; the cash it’s generating is now accelerating eBay’s revenues even while the auctions business struggles to grow. Developers do have various beefs with Paypal in its current form, from seller protection to simplicity of use for customers. Paypal X is presumably designed to iron these out, and carry on growing eBay’s revenues – we’ll find out when it gets announced later today in San Francisco.

It comes as Amazon is expanding its payment platform, with PayPhrase. It’s a simple text field that you enter a special phrase into, something teeth-grindingly “funky” like “feisty mango”, rather than your email and password; along with a four-digit PIN it links to a set of specified billing and shipping info, and you can set up different phrases for different addresses, credit cards etc. The WSJ reports on some of the suggested phrases generated by Amazon (“Ingrained Abhorrance”, anyone?), while the Business Insider notes that the web stores currently partnered with Amazon for the scheme aren’t exactly chasing Paypal’s numbers. Still, early days yet.

Then of course there’s Facebook’s nascent attempt at internet domination, with Facebook Connect and Facebook Credits. Currently accepted by basically no-one, the credits are getting talked up today in the WSJ by interactive gaming developers Playfish – because they act as virtual currency, cross-border payment problems are solved. If you’re a developer wanting to start your own payment platform, think on – it’s not looking like there’s going to be much more market room outside of these three players.

Daniel Ek, Spotify’s co-founder said:”This is the first step towards becoming more of a platform. There are lots of services that have APIs, but this is different because it lets anyone build a Spotify client.”

Ek was the former CTO of Stardoll (a teeny bopper website) and Martin Lorentzon, co-founder of TradeDoubler (an Internet marketing company), and together they gave birth to Spotify in 2006. The company was launched for paid public access in October 2008, then in February 2009 Spotify opened free registration within the United Kingdom. Spotify currently has around one million users, and more than 40,000 people signing up to listen to the virtual jukebox daily; it can be blamed for the recent price wars going on between iTunes and Amazon.

So how does Spotify generate any cash if they offer their product for free? Here’s the catch: you have to deal with listening to an advertisement every 20 minutes or so, but there are subscriptions a user can purchase to access the site ad free. It’s gaining popularity with consumers – a report from KPMG this week said that 60% of people were happy to put up with advertising to get content or services for free, and just 16% would go for a paid-for, ad-free service.

So that’s the basic way that Spotify’s making the green, but things get a bit more complex as they begin to monetize other outlets. With YouTube facing troubles over royalty deals, it seems like this would be a difficult market to crack and would anger quiet a few people, for instance the The Performing Rights Society; recently US ad-generated music sites SpiralFrog and Ruckus failed thanks to lack of revenue and having to pay out royalties.

Tony Wadsworth, chairman of the BPI, the record industry trade body said: “You have to question any company based on an ad-funded model at the moment. Is it actually going to be possible to make it pay and produce the type of revenue that the creators and investors needs?”

To combat this Spotify is trying not to be the one trick pony the other music sites were by is tapping into multiple revenue streams. They made a deal with 7digital, the fresh-faced downloading site. If you listen to a song via Spotify you will now be given the option to pay to download songs from 7digital, which gives Spotify a percentage of each download. In another attempt to not go the way of SpiralFrog, last month they signed a deal with Condé Nast to promote the re-launch of Wired magazine. They also has retail relationships with Amazon and iTunes, but they currently apply to only a small selection of the site.

Spotify’s keeping their marketing up too – it’s to offer ‘play safe’ playlists compiled by artists like The Saturdays and Starsailor as part of an MTV and Body Shop campaign to promote safe sex. Good idea: just 30 seconds of Starsailor is enough to get anyone out of the mood for friskiness, and that’s before the advert kicks in.

As Spotify secures more and more music for its service, the question is whether it can keep persuading advertisers that the premiums are worth it, and getting those premiums to fund an increasing royalties cheque. Looking at KPMG’s findings, Spotify may find the £10-a-month premium service doesn’t generate as much cash as they thought it would. And its arguable how engaged someone is with an advert they’re desperately waiting to end. But surely now with consoles and smartphones ready to pump out music and adverts to ears and eyeballs on a massive scale, Spotify can really start gaining traction in a market that’s still very much living hand-to-mouth.

The service is known as an API and is common to sites like Google – basically it’s a tailor-made content interface, a rare and ambitious step in the media industry. The Guardian hope to eventually create an ad-network, using their acculmulated intelligence to be reach more eyeballs than the visibility and diversity of news-site would allow. Like all games, more eyeballs mean greater profit.

One half of Open Platform is dubbed Content API, allowing developers access to a vast array of archives, which would permit, for example, the free use of Guardian articles about relevant artist on a museum’s webpages. In addition they offer Datastore, a “collection of important and high quality data sets curated by Guardian journalists.”

It’s not all puppy dogs, confetti, and the beginning of web utopia. Eventually, commercial use of service with be served alongside adverts. The Guardian aren’t purely in it for profit; their composition assures that they don’t intend to seek profit for shareholders benefit. Instead, their motivation is independence and conformity to their trust’s founding values. They can afford to be innovative and take risks in order to lead the way: being courageous, as their values state, is important. Indeed, shareholders “would normally have a heart attack at such a move.”

The New York Times and LA Times have both been flirting with billionaires recently, as they fight for survival; the NYT have had to sell off and lease back parts of their headquarters, landing themselves with a $24m annual rent payment as they try to pay back their Carlos Slim loan. The LA Times may have the best deal, with their potential suitor pointing to the Guardian as an ideal model. “Newspapers ought to be owned by foundations, not look for great financial returns” suggested philanthropist Eli Broad.

This API sees the Guardian setting the pace ahead of competitors like the New York Times who launched a similar but more restrictive service recently, featuring – wow! -a search facility and access to live headlines. The Guardian’s model is different, focused on allowing commercial use of their content and data. The result may be a smart mash-up of data and content, much Guardian branding, and a new revenue streams from which the same water can be continually recycled, reused, and resold.

If content is king, then this is service is a hundred of the king’s best horses, and thousands of his best messengers, sending the Guardian far and wide. A misstep online is unlikely to cost the Guardian much, and should only encourage competitors innovation—the industry sure needs it. With this move, the Guardian redraw of where the boundaries of the newspaper industry lie, using to technology to reach as far as possible. It’s enough to make Conrad Black spit his prison breakfast all over his email-inbox. He would be right to be worried, though he may have to wait until his release in a few years time to see the Guardian’s plans for complete media-domination realised.