4 ms·
I think there's at least two reasons. With Twitter or Facebook the problem is that they're dependent on network effects so asking for payments from users is out
by firasd 10y ago
I think there's at least two reasons. With Twitter or Facebook the problem is that they're dependent on network effects so asking for payments from users is out of the question, they would never get to 100s of millions of users that way. With Google search, you may have more of a point, but I guess in the end Procter and Gamble has more money to spend on individual search transactions for ads than the other parties involved (users searching for sites and website publishers who want to appear in results.)
Apple is probably the most successful counter-example but even they are now going to have app store ads.
- nerdponx 10y agoDon't have to charge everybody. There can be a free tier ("pay with your data") and a paid tier ("pay with your wallet")
- ajanuary 10y agoIt can be complicated. For example, now you're not advertising to your most engaged users, so advertising on the service becomes less valuable.
- toxican 10y agoOver the years I've seen the reaction to a lot of those "Facebook is going to start charging money!" fake posts and it's very negative. I can't imagine the outrage that would ensue if twitter or Facebook offered a "pro" experience. People don't respond well to free things becoming paid, even if the free version remains largely the same.