5 ms·

I don't watch regular tv because of the ads either. It's time to change revenue models.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
They tried all kinds of models. People rejected them for free stuff with ads. So, it's correct to build on the only thing that works for most content most of the time. The market is the problem. Here's a nice write-up on the beginnings: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advert...
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Except that Netflix and even Apple iTunes show that if you price your content to be reasonable and allow people to actually choose what they want to watch, read or hear when they want to do so you can actually make a lot of money. And you don't have to show ads.
  - jbooth 10y ago
    Every WSJ article on HN has instructions to circumvent the pay wall as top comment. And it's not like we couldn't afford it.
    - angry-hacker 10y ago
      Exactly. Top comment is always how to bypass the paywall and the readers here are wealthy than average. Having everything behind paywall would make the content available for selected few. How would HN even work if everything is paywalled?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        I believe the academics' comments in the Elselvier threads show how it would work. Hint: it wouldn't. ;)
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Netflix and iTunes are outliers. There were tons of attempts in those sectors. You haven't heard of most because they went bankrupt. The others barely make money and/or acquired little content. Try these: - Market for paid search of general content vs Google, Yahoo, and Bing. - Market for paid downloading of arbitrary, user-generated video vs YouTube and Vimeo. - Market for paid blogging vs Wordpress etc. - Number of people paying for news vs reading ad-supported news. - Number of new companies using LAMP or cloud stacks vs Microsoft Server stacks. And so on. Paid markets kept getting tinier and tinier with less and less money.
- vitd 10y ago
  > The market is the problem. That sounds like another way of saying they don't have a product that people value. And for the record they haven't tried nearly all the models possible. This is discussed every time the subject comes up.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Let me give you an example. There's all kinds of people that were concerned about privacy when messaging. What you said made sense when people recommended PGP. Then, we had things like Threema ($2) or Signal (free) that were ultra-easy to use, cheap/free, and on their favorite devices. Still using surveillance platforms or insecure messaging. Still contributing to their proliferation and lack of alternatives. Lock-in is another issue. People wanted alternatives to IBM mainframes, Windows desktops, and so on. Great one's were produced. They didn't run their prior software. They didn't want to port it, even gradually. So, most of those firms folded while predecessors kept making billions. Cost-sensitivity is a big one. They'll take something that cost them nothing of immediate value over something that cost them directly. They'll also take cheap over inexpensive. So, for instance, the companies charging 50% more for software with either zero or near-zero defects in production make very little compared to those charging 50% less. Despite a demand for higher quality stuff. For content, that companies charging for it... even under a buck an article... failed in favor of free + advertising sort of speaks for itself on user preferences. Time/convenience is another one. This market has such a small attention span that they might ignore you within seconds of not seeing what they want. The norm is an ad on the page with content appearing quickly. With that the norm, the sites doing paid articles for new members have to somehow convince them in seconds or just a few impressions to start buying articles. Atavist giving a few away for free might be an example but they're kind of unique compared to most sites. Yet, the small player faces free, instant content vs paid, go-through-some-trouble content. And many sites usually cover similar topics. Uphill battle. So, these are just a few issues with trying to get people to pay for things instead of use ads in a market that almost always works in favor of low-cost, low-time, and preferably-free suppliers. It's a problem with or preference of the market.

They tried all kinds of models. People rejected them for free stuff with ads. So, it's correct to build on the only thing that works for most content most of the time. The market is the problem. Here's a nice write-up on the beginnings: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advert...

chris_wot 10y ago
Except that Netflix and even Apple iTunes show that if you price your content to be reasonable and allow people to actually choose what they want to watch, read or hear when they want to do so you can actually make a lot of money. And you don't have to show ads.
- jbooth 10y ago
  Every WSJ article on HN has instructions to circumvent the pay wall as top comment. And it's not like we couldn't afford it.
  - angry-hacker 10y ago
    Exactly. Top comment is always how to bypass the paywall and the readers here are wealthy than average. Having everything behind paywall would make the content available for selected few. How would HN even work if everything is paywalled?
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      I believe the academics' comments in the Elselvier threads show how it would work. Hint: it wouldn't. ;)
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Netflix and iTunes are outliers. There were tons of attempts in those sectors. You haven't heard of most because they went bankrupt. The others barely make money and/or acquired little content. Try these: - Market for paid search of general content vs Google, Yahoo, and Bing. - Market for paid downloading of arbitrary, user-generated video vs YouTube and Vimeo. - Market for paid blogging vs Wordpress etc. - Number of people paying for news vs reading ad-supported news. - Number of new companies using LAMP or cloud stacks vs Microsoft Server stacks. And so on. Paid markets kept getting tinier and tinier with less and less money.
vitd 10y ago
> The market is the problem. That sounds like another way of saying they don't have a product that people value. And for the record they haven't tried nearly all the models possible. This is discussed every time the subject comes up.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Let me give you an example. There's all kinds of people that were concerned about privacy when messaging. What you said made sense when people recommended PGP. Then, we had things like Threema ($2) or Signal (free) that were ultra-easy to use, cheap/free, and on their favorite devices. Still using surveillance platforms or insecure messaging. Still contributing to their proliferation and lack of alternatives. Lock-in is another issue. People wanted alternatives to IBM mainframes, Windows desktops, and so on. Great one's were produced. They didn't run their prior software. They didn't want to port it, even gradually. So, most of those firms folded while predecessors kept making billions. Cost-sensitivity is a big one. They'll take something that cost them nothing of immediate value over something that cost them directly. They'll also take cheap over inexpensive. So, for instance, the companies charging 50% more for software with either zero or near-zero defects in production make very little compared to those charging 50% less. Despite a demand for higher quality stuff. For content, that companies charging for it... even under a buck an article... failed in favor of free + advertising sort of speaks for itself on user preferences. Time/convenience is another one. This market has such a small attention span that they might ignore you within seconds of not seeing what they want. The norm is an ad on the page with content appearing quickly. With that the norm, the sites doing paid articles for new members have to somehow convince them in seconds or just a few impressions to start buying articles. Atavist giving a few away for free might be an example but they're kind of unique compared to most sites. Yet, the small player faces free, instant content vs paid, go-through-some-trouble content. And many sites usually cover similar topics. Uphill battle. So, these are just a few issues with trying to get people to pay for things instead of use ads in a market that almost always works in favor of low-cost, low-time, and preferably-free suppliers. It's a problem with or preference of the market.