Continuous Use Behavior of Knowledge Payment Platform Based on Edge Computing under Mobile Information System

Abstract

From 2015 to the end of 2016, the Internet set off a wave of payment for knowledge. Pay-for-knowledge platforms such as Fenda, iGet, and Qianliao went online quickly, and platforms such as Himalaya FM, Zhihu, and Qingting FM gathered to launch paid columns. The number of users increased rapidly, and payment for knowledge was considered to have reached the trend of development. This article aims to study the introduction of edge computing in the mobile information system into the existence and inevitability of the knowledge payment platform; analyze the advantages, dilemmas, and optimization paths of the knowledge payment platform; and try to provide a theoretical reference for promoting its development. This article puts forward an explanation of the related content of mobile edge computing and RFID technology overview, using comparative experiment and behavior analysis methods. The experimental results show that there are 98 people under the age of 18 in the questionnaire, accounting for 19.1% of the total, 201 people aged 18–29, accounting for 39.1% of the total, 142 people aged 30–39, accounting for 27.6% of the total, and 73 people over 40 years old, accounting for 14.2% of the total number. It can be seen from the data that the sample age is mainly concentrated in the 18–29 years old, followed by the 30–39 years old; the sample age is biased towards young people. It has well completed the continuous use behavior analysis of the knowledge payment platform based on edge computing under the mobile information system.

Information Adoption Patterns and Online Knowledge Payment Behavior: The Moderating Role of Product Type

“…In addition, grade level, monthly consumption, and frequency of use influence perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment of knowledge products [16]. Huo and Li [7] found that information flow among study participants in online consultations follows the common characteristics of searching, questioning, solving, implementing, and sharing, and that demand for health information is the driving factor for knowledge reuse.…”

“…The information quality of knowledge product description is measured by three variables: completeness, vividness, and relevance [3,51,52]. The credibility of knowledge producer is measured by three dimensions: reputation, experience, and integrity [7,8,32,45]. In accordance with customers' different purchase motivations and usage experiences, this study classified products into two types, namely utilitarian and hedonic products, where utilitarian products are based on practical utility, while hedonic products are based on entertainment experiences [17,53].…”

“…Moreover, it remains a challenge for knowledge providers to create an environment for paid knowledge exchange with knowledge seekers because knowledge products are intangible, inseparable, and heterogeneous [2]. Therefore, knowledge seekers have to bear high risk due to their limited prior knowledge before purchase [6], which in turn affects their experience and satisfaction [7].…”

“…The extant literature on knowledge payment mechanisms and behaviors has examined various factors related to the characteristics of knowledge demanders and providers, knowledge products and services, and knowledge payment platforms [3,7,13]. However, three important research gaps remain in the existing literature.…”

“…Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors that influence the knowledge payment decision and the moderating variables to gain a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge seekers' payment behavior [3,14]. Second, previous studies have investigated the influence of perceived information quality on knowledge payment willingness [7,13]. Most previous studies, however, focused on perceived information quality, which is a more subjective evaluation of products in the process of using knowledge payment products; little attention has been paid to objective indicators of the information quality of product descriptions.…”