5 ms·

But it's still micropayments. They've done a good job of aggregating some quality content, but it's still pay per click to the consumer.

gedrap 11y ago
I'd assume it's to keep things easier, especially for a young company. It should be much easier to deal with publishers when you can agree on cost per view, rather than trying to work out some magic subscriptions share model, like the one used by spotify, which is pretty hard to do and keep everyone happy. But that's just an educated guess :)
- dexterdog 11y ago
  I agree, but that variable cost is what makes it variable to the consumer which is generally not accepted. Putting a hurdle before a click to view an article generally destroys your readership.
  - gedrap 11y ago
    It's totally true for things like spotify, where you can easily stream thousands of songs just in the background every month. Imagine how silly it would be if you had to make sure that spotify is closed when you leave your computer on for some time :) However, consuming written content is different. It's much more involved, conscious action. So I am not sure if it is really much worse for the user.
vanderZwan 11y ago
... with a one-click refund if you don't like the article. In regular use, you don't go through the process of paying - opening an article automatically pays the price, so it's very easy to do. However, you can always get a refund. It's a tiny detail, but it changes the whole flow. A nice side-effect is that clickbait is punished very harshly by the customers.
- chinathrow 11y ago
  The one-click refund isn't available after like 10 tries.
  - vanderZwan 11y ago
    You don't see this? http://i.imgur.com/5vYGsUg.png http://i.imgur.com/5vYGsUg.png (turns out you have two more clicks: there's one "please tell us why, for statistical purposes" multiple choice question followed by a confirmation - I think that's fair since it will greatly reduce abuse.)

gedrap 11y ago

I'd assume it's to keep things easier, especially for a young company. It should be much easier to deal with publishers when you can agree on cost per view, rather than trying to work out some magic subscriptions share model, like the one used by spotify, which is pretty hard to do and keep everyone happy. But that's just an educated guess :)

dexterdog 11y ago
I agree, but that variable cost is what makes it variable to the consumer which is generally not accepted. Putting a hurdle before a click to view an article generally destroys your readership.
- gedrap 11y ago
  It's totally true for things like spotify, where you can easily stream thousands of songs just in the background every month. Imagine how silly it would be if you had to make sure that spotify is closed when you leave your computer on for some time :) However, consuming written content is different. It's much more involved, conscious action. So I am not sure if it is really much worse for the user.

vanderZwan 11y ago

... with a one-click refund if you don't like the article. In regular use, you don't go through the process of paying - opening an article automatically pays the price, so it's very easy to do. However, you can always get a refund. It's a tiny detail, but it changes the whole flow. A nice side-effect is that clickbait is punished very harshly by the customers.

chinathrow 11y ago
The one-click refund isn't available after like 10 tries.
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  You don't see this? http://i.imgur.com/5vYGsUg.png http://i.imgur.com/5vYGsUg.png (turns out you have two more clicks: there's one "please tell us why, for statistical purposes" multiple choice question followed by a confirmation - I think that's fair since it will greatly reduce abuse.)