4 ms·

Is that a serious question? Social networks are dependent on network effects. Having a subscription immediately increases the barrier to entry too high for peop

Is that a serious question? Social networks are dependent on network effects. Having a subscription immediately increases the barrier to entry too high for people to be able to get their friends on the same platform.

sfilargi 10y ago
Yes it is. My feeling is that we have entered an age that youth is not naive anymore and would happily pay $3/month (at least in the US) for a non-tracking all-round communication service.
- appetizer 10y ago
  SIKE!
- eightysixfour 10y ago
  Just asked my teenage siblings and both of them responded that they don't care that they are tracked and aren't sure why they'd pay. Only an anecdote, but there you go.
  - sfilargi 10y ago
    Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part then :D
    - ReverseCold 10y ago
      Yeah, as someone in that age range, none of my friends particularly care if some company has all their information and is doing whatever with it. As long as no one else they know sees...
    - j2bax 10y ago
      Mine too, believe me! My idea is to allow a group to contribute to cover a certain amount per year for their entire network, depending on the size of it. $50.00 split by 15-20 family/friend members would be pretty affordable. I would say a smaller more intimate network would be a major step in the right direction.
- phailhaus 10y ago
  I'm afraid there's not much to suggest that's the case.
- eropple 10y ago
  I'm pretty skeptical of this claim. The barrier from $0.00 to $0.01 is huge, and it's even moreso with people young enough to not have credit cards. It's not that "oh, if it'd succeed someone would have done it by now," but the attempts I've seen at this make me think that it'd be very difficult to even try.
  - sfilargi 10y ago
    I am sure that $3/month wouldn't be a financial problem for the majority of Harvard students, but I agree with the first part of your argument. We have yet to learne to pay for nice things on the internet.
    - eropple 10y ago
      It's not Harvard students you need. There aren't that many of them and they already have their own social networks. You need to market to middle- and high-schoolers. Because by the time they're in college and could afford $3/month, they've already got outlets. Network effects are king.
    - RhysU 10y ago
      When the time comes that I can't avoid them using something, as a parent I would pay $3/month for my kids.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  >My feeling is that we have entered an age that youth is not naive anymore and would happily pay $3/month Are you joking? When I was a broke student there was zero chance I would sign-up for a monthly subscription service. It's a pipe dream.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  The youth - under 18 - may or may not have a problem with it. However, they also can't readily do the actual payment portion of the deal and would have to buy a gift card or ask their parents - and their parents may object, especially if they are poor.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > My feeling is that we have entered an age that youth is not naive anymore and would happily pay $3/month (at least in the US) for a non-tracking all-round communication service. Probably not, but there just might be enough, youth (or people just out of the edge of that category with contacts inside of it) that will pay $10/month for such a service plus the privilege of sponsoring 9 of their friends with free accounts. Who, would of course have the option of upgrading to paid, getting their own 9 giveaway accounts, and returning the giveaway account to their sponsor. Which, sure, might be as little as $1/user/mo., rather than $3.
- sitkack 10y ago
  Do what Whatsapp did, free for the first year, then something really really low, but covers the cost of servers and headcount. Done right, this is probably around 0.50-1 a month for a really high quality service.
tmalsburg2 10y ago
What speaks against making subscription an option as with Spotify?
- NDT 10y ago
  A spotify subscription is more valuable than whatever option a social network could offer. Facebook makes a boatload off ads so there's no way they would just turn the option off even with a small subscription. Plus, not enough users care about ads. Most of the comments on this forum will be preaching to the choir.
  - tmalsburg2 10y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. A lot of people are not completely comfortable with Facebook using their data and I think a substantial number of people might be willing to pay, not primarily to get rid of ads but to have a sense of privacy. If they get rid of ads that a nice bonus. Saying it's never going to happen is like saying that people will never pay for music online. A lot of people believed that to be true just a couple of years ago and yet ...
whazor 10y ago
You could make it more exclusive.

sfilargi 10y ago

Yes it is. My feeling is that we have entered an age that youth is not naive anymore and would happily pay $3/month (at least in the US) for a non-tracking all-round communication service.

appetizer 10y ago
SIKE!
eightysixfour 10y ago
Just asked my teenage siblings and both of them responded that they don't care that they are tracked and aren't sure why they'd pay. Only an anecdote, but there you go.
- sfilargi 10y ago
  Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part then :D
  - ReverseCold 10y ago
    Yeah, as someone in that age range, none of my friends particularly care if some company has all their information and is doing whatever with it. As long as no one else they know sees...
  - j2bax 10y ago
    Mine too, believe me! My idea is to allow a group to contribute to cover a certain amount per year for their entire network, depending on the size of it. $50.00 split by 15-20 family/friend members would be pretty affordable. I would say a smaller more intimate network would be a major step in the right direction.
phailhaus 10y ago
I'm afraid there's not much to suggest that's the case.
eropple 10y ago
I'm pretty skeptical of this claim. The barrier from $0.00 to $0.01 is huge, and it's even moreso with people young enough to not have credit cards. It's not that "oh, if it'd succeed someone would have done it by now," but the attempts I've seen at this make me think that it'd be very difficult to even try.
- sfilargi 10y ago
  I am sure that $3/month wouldn't be a financial problem for the majority of Harvard students, but I agree with the first part of your argument. We have yet to learne to pay for nice things on the internet.
  - eropple 10y ago
    It's not Harvard students you need. There aren't that many of them and they already have their own social networks. You need to market to middle- and high-schoolers. Because by the time they're in college and could afford $3/month, they've already got outlets. Network effects are king.
  - RhysU 10y ago
    When the time comes that I can't avoid them using something, as a parent I would pay $3/month for my kids.
macspoofing 10y ago
>My feeling is that we have entered an age that youth is not naive anymore and would happily pay $3/month Are you joking? When I was a broke student there was zero chance I would sign-up for a monthly subscription service. It's a pipe dream.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
The youth - under 18 - may or may not have a problem with it. However, they also can't readily do the actual payment portion of the deal and would have to buy a gift card or ask their parents - and their parents may object, especially if they are poor.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> My feeling is that we have entered an age that youth is not naive anymore and would happily pay $3/month (at least in the US) for a non-tracking all-round communication service. Probably not, but there just might be enough, youth (or people just out of the edge of that category with contacts inside of it) that will pay $10/month for such a service plus the privilege of sponsoring 9 of their friends with free accounts. Who, would of course have the option of upgrading to paid, getting their own 9 giveaway accounts, and returning the giveaway account to their sponsor. Which, sure, might be as little as $1/user/mo., rather than $3.
sitkack 10y ago
Do what Whatsapp did, free for the first year, then something really really low, but covers the cost of servers and headcount. Done right, this is probably around 0.50-1 a month for a really high quality service.

tmalsburg2 10y ago

What speaks against making subscription an option as with Spotify?

NDT 10y ago
A spotify subscription is more valuable than whatever option a social network could offer. Facebook makes a boatload off ads so there's no way they would just turn the option off even with a small subscription. Plus, not enough users care about ads. Most of the comments on this forum will be preaching to the choir.
- tmalsburg2 10y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. A lot of people are not completely comfortable with Facebook using their data and I think a substantial number of people might be willing to pay, not primarily to get rid of ads but to have a sense of privacy. If they get rid of ads that a nice bonus. Saying it's never going to happen is like saying that people will never pay for music online. A lot of people believed that to be true just a couple of years ago and yet ...

whazor 10y ago

You could make it more exclusive.