6 ms·

I hope it succeeds and then charges downmarket to invade the middlebrow space where the big profits are (and which Facebook originally catered to with its own k

I hope it succeeds and then charges downmarket to invade the middlebrow space where the big profits are (and which Facebook originally catered to with its own kind of snobbishness.) I want to see more of the web paid for directly, rather than funded through snooping. If some platform becomes hip because it is paid for, then it will give people food for thought. A $50/month "social network", including whatever addons have been added to the platform by then would be a way in which the 21st century re-evovles the service which ISPs were providing back in the good ole' 1990s.

arganit 10y ago
Yes but big corps taught people that these services should be free :-/ (paid from ads)
Deutscher 10y ago
> I want to see more of the web paid for directly, rather than funded through snooping. I could possibly live with paying for the privilege of using the web, if respect for user privacy is, um, guaranteed somehow. But that probably won't (can't?) happen, and we'd end up having to pay for the privilege of being snooped upon.
onion2k 10y ago
A $50/month "social network"... ...would be beyond the budget of a large part of the population. Not many people have $600/year to spend on a communications tool. The simple fact is, while it's quite distasteful, paying for services by giving away access to your social profile and contact information is a great leveller. Everyone can afford it if they choose to, so everyone gets to access the benefits of social media. A network where you could pay $50/month in order to block the tracking features would be a great idea though.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>A $50/month "social network" would be beyond the budget of a large part of the population. Not many people have $600/year to spend on a communications tool. You do realize many cellphone plans cost that much if not a lot more, right?
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    And the people who can't afford it have cheaper plans, and use mostly WiFi for data edit: just checked US mobile pricing. Damn you guys are getting ripped off hard
  - darklajid 10y ago
    Based on what observations? Around here most people pay half of that as far as I'm aware - and I'm hoping that this number is even lower in low income countries. Plus, comparing a general internet access & phone plan with a specific online service seems odd. Even if I'd trust you with this number, paying $50 for 'the internet' or paying the same amount for WhatsApp 2.0 doesn't seem direcly comparable.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      We were easily paying $100/month for AT&T's "family plan." This was about 8 years ago. We then switched to T-Mobile's pre-paid plans, which start at $40/month. That's for 3 GB of data. If you want 5 GB, it's $50/month, which comes to $600/year.
  - siscia 10y ago
    I pay roughly 7$/month for my phone plane here in Italy...
    - pmontra 10y ago
      Me too. 6.05 Euro for 2 hours of voice calls (which I never use fully), 120 SMS (same as before), 2 GB data (anything the tower has up to LTE). I typically use 300 MB of data and some 3 GB of WiFi. Most people won't find those 2 hours of voice calls enough, but voice calls in apps are starting to erode the "real" calls.
      - siscia 10y ago
        Wait, what plans are you on? I pay ~7€ (5 for 1GB of data) and 2€ for accessories such as call and SMS that I seldom use...
- 7952 10y ago
  A lot of services are based on exclusivity. Without a pricing barrier to entry you loose that.
dspillett 10y ago
> I want to see more of the web paid for directly, rather than funded through snooping. Call me cynical, but I don't think that will ever happen. Even if it starts out that way, once the number of users stabilises and the board/investors/other still want commercial growth someone will notice how easy it would be to track the users and sell the resulting data and you'll be paying both directly and by having yourself tracked & sold in the background. The information would be much more valuable than that for general web users too: you are automatically pre-selecting for people with enough disposable income that they'll pay $50/month for a social network subscription (to use your example).
- unicornporn 10y ago
  Does anybody remember app.net[1]? [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/appnet-do-people-really-want-paid-twitter-alternative-742913 http://www.ibtimes.com/appnet-do-people-really-want-paid-twi...
user5994461 10y ago
> A $50/month "social network"... OMG. That's one month of disposable income.

arganit 10y ago

Yes but big corps taught people that these services should be free :-/ (paid from ads)

Deutscher 10y ago

> I want to see more of the web paid for directly, rather than funded through snooping. I could possibly live with paying for the privilege of using the web, if respect for user privacy is, um, guaranteed somehow. But that probably won't (can't?) happen, and we'd end up having to pay for the privilege of being snooped upon.

onion2k 10y ago

A $50/month "social network"... ...would be beyond the budget of a large part of the population. Not many people have $600/year to spend on a communications tool. The simple fact is, while it's quite distasteful, paying for services by giving away access to your social profile and contact information is a great leveller. Everyone can afford it if they choose to, so everyone gets to access the benefits of social media. A network where you could pay $50/month in order to block the tracking features would be a great idea though.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>A $50/month "social network" would be beyond the budget of a large part of the population. Not many people have $600/year to spend on a communications tool. You do realize many cellphone plans cost that much if not a lot more, right?
- kalleboo 10y ago
  And the people who can't afford it have cheaper plans, and use mostly WiFi for data edit: just checked US mobile pricing. Damn you guys are getting ripped off hard
- darklajid 10y ago
  Based on what observations? Around here most people pay half of that as far as I'm aware - and I'm hoping that this number is even lower in low income countries. Plus, comparing a general internet access & phone plan with a specific online service seems odd. Even if I'd trust you with this number, paying $50 for 'the internet' or paying the same amount for WhatsApp 2.0 doesn't seem direcly comparable.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    We were easily paying $100/month for AT&T's "family plan." This was about 8 years ago. We then switched to T-Mobile's pre-paid plans, which start at $40/month. That's for 3 GB of data. If you want 5 GB, it's $50/month, which comes to $600/year.
- siscia 10y ago
  I pay roughly 7$/month for my phone plane here in Italy...
  - pmontra 10y ago
    Me too. 6.05 Euro for 2 hours of voice calls (which I never use fully), 120 SMS (same as before), 2 GB data (anything the tower has up to LTE). I typically use 300 MB of data and some 3 GB of WiFi. Most people won't find those 2 hours of voice calls enough, but voice calls in apps are starting to erode the "real" calls.
    - siscia 10y ago
      Wait, what plans are you on? I pay ~7€ (5 for 1GB of data) and 2€ for accessories such as call and SMS that I seldom use...
7952 10y ago
A lot of services are based on exclusivity. Without a pricing barrier to entry you loose that.

dspillett 10y ago

> I want to see more of the web paid for directly, rather than funded through snooping. Call me cynical, but I don't think that will ever happen. Even if it starts out that way, once the number of users stabilises and the board/investors/other still want commercial growth someone will notice how easy it would be to track the users and sell the resulting data and you'll be paying both directly and by having yourself tracked & sold in the background. The information would be much more valuable than that for general web users too: you are automatically pre-selecting for people with enough disposable income that they'll pay $50/month for a social network subscription (to use your example).

unicornporn 10y ago
Does anybody remember app.net[1]? [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/appnet-do-people-really-want-paid-twitter-alternative-742913 http://www.ibtimes.com/appnet-do-people-really-want-paid-twi...

user5994461 10y ago

> A $50/month "social network"... OMG. That's one month of disposable income.