3 ms·
Well, I agree. That's what I meant to say when I referred to the cultural reason; since free alternatives always appear, people always expect a good free versi
by mquander 17y ago
Well, I agree. That's what I meant to say when I referred to the cultural reason; since free alternatives always appear, people always expect a good free version to be available, and are even more hesitant to pay. However, I don't think that's a good place for us to be.
Firstly, it remains to be seen whether it's technically sustainable; if ad blockers continue to become more mainstream and more sophisticated, ads will start bringing in less and less money. Secondly, I think that many non-ad-blocking users are making a poor choice when they choose an ad-supported free version, because it's very hard to evaluate the costs to you of having ads on content. It puts a mental burden on you, wastes your time, and may (invisibly to you) cause you to make poor purchasing decisions later. Those are all real costs, but it's impossible for you to put a dollar value on them.
- davidw 17y agoWhether we think that's a good place to be or not does not really matter. What matters are the underlying economics, which seem to pretty much continuously push in the direction of free services.
- axod 17y ago>> "Firstly, it remains to be seen whether it's technically sustainable; if ad blockers continue to become more mainstream and more sophisticated, ads will start bringing in less and less money." It's been rising steadily for 10+ years :/ Advertising in general has been pretty strong for 100+ years. I doubt that'll change in our lifetimes. Advertisers always want to get their message to audiences, audiences always want to hear about new products. It's a pretty safe bet.