3 ms·

But if all the people who can afford to buy stuff buy "no ads", then there won't be a free/ads option at all, because advertisers are only interested in the peo

• Dragory 8y ago
  That's a fair point, but realistically, everyone won't be paying to hide ads - lots of people would prefer to browse for free, even if they could afford the subscription.
  • lev99 8y ago
    The people that can afford to pay and do not is a less valuable population than the people that can afford to pay and do. Edit: valuable from an advertisement point of view.
    • Dragory 8y ago
      Indeed, which is how we got into this comment thread to begin with. Personally I'd gladly pay to hide ads in services I use frequently, but that also makes me more attractive to the advertisers. Fortunately most services that I use that have an ad-free option have also kept it ad-free, at least for now.
• michaelt 8y ago
  But if all the people who can afford to buy stuff buy "no ads" Have you ever heard of a newspaper editor complaining "Too many of our readers are paying subscribers" ? I haven't - seems to me that's a problem a lot of publications would love to have!
  • taejo 8y ago
    Newspaper subscribers still see ads... that's the whole point of this discussion.