4 ms·

> Free content will continue to survive Most "free content" is paid by ads. Most hosting is paid by ads. Most online services are paid by ads. Do you ever use

> Free content will continue to survive Most "free content" is paid by ads. Most hosting is paid by ads. Most online services are paid by ads. Do you ever use WhatsApp? Gone. Google Maps? Gone. Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? Gone. > The advertising industry is not the benefactor that you're trying to paint them as Who talked about benefactors? They're just a business like any other. I hate ads, but I know that they fund a lot of the content and services I use.

muninn_ 9y ago
People will find another way to support the service, or people will just pay for it if it's valuable. If you want to be advertised to, turn off all your ad blockers, create legit accounts on every site you visit that asks for one, and support the advertising community. ...or you probably don't do that because you know in your heart that the advertising industry has largely made the Internet suck. People need to rethink how they approach Internet services. You're going to have to start paying for them in cash instead of getting them for 'free' through ads. If it's not worth paying for, then that's that.
p2t2p 9y ago
> Do you ever use WhatsApp? Gone. Google Maps? Gone. Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? Gone Fine! iMessage and Telegram doesn’t show any adds to me so they go nowhere. If telegram tomorrow says to me - 10$ a year or ads, I gladly pay. Google Maps? Screw this burp of evil anyway, Apple Maps and Here We Go maps are go nowhere any time soon. Guardian? Well, I have adblocker enabled anyway and donate 10$ when I happen to read something well written. I had an experience recently. One of podcasters that I’m listening to created website and started to treat his podcast more seriously. Also he created a Patreon account with clearly defined goals. I went and had my Patreon account created as soon as I had seen his and now I’m doing a monthly contribution. That guy went to 4K$ in two days. Why I’m saying this? Well, because all other subscriptions that I have doesn’t provide _that_ value for me so if they all are gone tomorrow, I won’t even notice that. So, if being free is the only reason people use something to kill time that means that th thing has no value for them ang can and should go away. I have never disabled my Adblock at Forbes and never payed for anything paywalled. I simply didn’t read those articles and I don’t feel like I’ve lost much. I think it actually for the best if many of tools/services/publishers will go away and people will have more incentive to actually pay for things if they consider th m valuable. And if people are not ready to give a way a cup of coffee for monthly subscription then well.... nobody needs that service then. I was really happy about WhatsApp at first, that it is a payed service - 30$ a year or something and then Facebook bought it...
- ucaetano 9y ago
  What about the people who aren't as rich as you and can't pay $10 for Telegram? Some people can pay cash for products, others can't and will happily exchange their attention for the service. You proposal boils down to "rich people like me will be fine, screw the rest".
  - p2t2p 9y ago
    This is not an argument really. Why then not to ask for free data packages and free smartphones? People can afford an iPhone/Android smartphone which are required t use those services but not the service itself? That sounds strange for me, it like buying a Bentley and complaining that insurance is too expensive.
    - tszyn 9y ago
      My mom's pension is $400 / month (Eastern Europe). She browses the Internet on an old hand-me-down Thinkpad. I suppose she should just get off the Internet if she cannot afford to buy website subscriptions. Anything to make the online experience of wealthy IT professionals better.
      - p2t2p 9y ago
        Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps. On that Thinkpad thing, I have multiple questions, just because you're trying to induce emotional response here: does your mom uses Adblock? Did you install it for her? Why can't you buy a subscription for her if you care so much? Do you really want you mom trade her and probably other relatives personal data for access to some shady newspaper with dubious quality of journalism?
        ucaetano 9y ago
        > Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps. No, I'm talking about the entire ad-funded internet. Including, for example, the very Guardian article we're discussing. So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly. You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.
jxdxbx 9y ago
Ads are never going anywhere. We had ads for decades that did not need to track your every move. They work fine and can work fine online. I fail to see why internet ads being more like TV, radio, and print ads means that free services would go away. Rough geographic and interest-based targeting would still be possible, just like it is in those media.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I fail to see why internet ads being more like TV, radio, and print ads means that free services would go away. Internet ads have drawn much of the money (disproportionately to their audience draw) from those other sources because they are more valuable because of better targeting and tracking. Reducing that reduces the value of internet ads, which reduces the level ofmserviced they will support; ones that are currently marginal will fail, and ones that are currently more solid will become marginal.
- tzs 9y ago
  With radio and TV, it costs the same to produce and broadcast a show from a radio or TV station regardless of how many people actually listen to or watch it [1]. With a web site, the more people that visit it, the more it costs for hosting and bandwidth. Websites having a higher marginal cost for each new audience member compared to TV and radio might have an affect on how effective ads have to be to pay for the content. I could see web ads needing to be more effective than radio or TV ads because of that marginal cost. [1] well, sort of. If a show is popular, actors on the show might be able to negotiate higher pay, for example.
kalleboo 9y ago
> Do you ever use WhatsApp? Nope, I use LINE, which is monetized by sticker packs > Google Maps? Nope, I use a local mapping service, which while it has a monthly fee is far better > Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? I'd be happy to pay for a Spotify/Netflix-style subscription to journalistic content, but the newspapers are still busy fighting each other rather than their own obsolescence so I don't see that happening.

muninn_ 9y ago

People will find another way to support the service, or people will just pay for it if it's valuable. If you want to be advertised to, turn off all your ad blockers, create legit accounts on every site you visit that asks for one, and support the advertising community. ...or you probably don't do that because you know in your heart that the advertising industry has largely made the Internet suck. People need to rethink how they approach Internet services. You're going to have to start paying for them in cash instead of getting them for 'free' through ads. If it's not worth paying for, then that's that.

p2t2p 9y ago

> Do you ever use WhatsApp? Gone. Google Maps? Gone. Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? Gone Fine! iMessage and Telegram doesn’t show any adds to me so they go nowhere. If telegram tomorrow says to me - 10$ a year or ads, I gladly pay. Google Maps? Screw this burp of evil anyway, Apple Maps and Here We Go maps are go nowhere any time soon. Guardian? Well, I have adblocker enabled anyway and donate 10$ when I happen to read something well written. I had an experience recently. One of podcasters that I’m listening to created website and started to treat his podcast more seriously. Also he created a Patreon account with clearly defined goals. I went and had my Patreon account created as soon as I had seen his and now I’m doing a monthly contribution. That guy went to 4K$ in two days. Why I’m saying this? Well, because all other subscriptions that I have doesn’t provide _that_ value for me so if they all are gone tomorrow, I won’t even notice that. So, if being free is the only reason people use something to kill time that means that th thing has no value for them ang can and should go away. I have never disabled my Adblock at Forbes and never payed for anything paywalled. I simply didn’t read those articles and I don’t feel like I’ve lost much. I think it actually for the best if many of tools/services/publishers will go away and people will have more incentive to actually pay for things if they consider th m valuable. And if people are not ready to give a way a cup of coffee for monthly subscription then well.... nobody needs that service then. I was really happy about WhatsApp at first, that it is a payed service - 30$ a year or something and then Facebook bought it...

ucaetano 9y ago
What about the people who aren't as rich as you and can't pay $10 for Telegram? Some people can pay cash for products, others can't and will happily exchange their attention for the service. You proposal boils down to "rich people like me will be fine, screw the rest".
- p2t2p 9y ago
  This is not an argument really. Why then not to ask for free data packages and free smartphones? People can afford an iPhone/Android smartphone which are required t use those services but not the service itself? That sounds strange for me, it like buying a Bentley and complaining that insurance is too expensive.
  - tszyn 9y ago
    My mom's pension is $400 / month (Eastern Europe). She browses the Internet on an old hand-me-down Thinkpad. I suppose she should just get off the Internet if she cannot afford to buy website subscriptions. Anything to make the online experience of wealthy IT professionals better.
    - p2t2p 9y ago
      Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps. On that Thinkpad thing, I have multiple questions, just because you're trying to induce emotional response here: does your mom uses Adblock? Did you install it for her? Why can't you buy a subscription for her if you care so much? Do you really want you mom trade her and probably other relatives personal data for access to some shady newspaper with dubious quality of journalism?
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        > Nah, that's not what OP's talking about. OP's talking about services we use on smartphones mostly - WhatsApp, Google Maps. No, I'm talking about the entire ad-funded internet. Including, for example, the very Guardian article we're discussing. So yep, you're suggesting that tszyn's mom should not access content she can't pay for directly. You forget that most people isn't as rich as you or most HN readers.

jxdxbx 9y ago

Ads are never going anywhere. We had ads for decades that did not need to track your every move. They work fine and can work fine online. I fail to see why internet ads being more like TV, radio, and print ads means that free services would go away. Rough geographic and interest-based targeting would still be possible, just like it is in those media.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I fail to see why internet ads being more like TV, radio, and print ads means that free services would go away. Internet ads have drawn much of the money (disproportionately to their audience draw) from those other sources because they are more valuable because of better targeting and tracking. Reducing that reduces the value of internet ads, which reduces the level ofmserviced they will support; ones that are currently marginal will fail, and ones that are currently more solid will become marginal.
tzs 9y ago
With radio and TV, it costs the same to produce and broadcast a show from a radio or TV station regardless of how many people actually listen to or watch it [1]. With a web site, the more people that visit it, the more it costs for hosting and bandwidth. Websites having a higher marginal cost for each new audience member compared to TV and radio might have an affect on how effective ads have to be to pay for the content. I could see web ads needing to be more effective than radio or TV ads because of that marginal cost. [1] well, sort of. If a show is popular, actors on the show might be able to negotiate higher pay, for example.

kalleboo 9y ago

> Do you ever use WhatsApp? Nope, I use LINE, which is monetized by sticker packs > Google Maps? Nope, I use a local mapping service, which while it has a monthly fee is far better > Oh, that Guardian article we're discussing right now? I'd be happy to pay for a Spotify/Netflix-style subscription to journalistic content, but the newspapers are still busy fighting each other rather than their own obsolescence so I don't see that happening.