3 ms·

As someone in another thread mentioned, it's because the marketing budgets are way bigger than what people would, or even could, pay. Whichever corporations ar

As someone in another thread mentioned, it's because the marketing budgets are way bigger than what people would, or even could, pay. Whichever corporations are paying for these revenue streams of monetized data and attention, they can (and do) easily outbid whatever a human customer is willing or able to pay for software or services that don't track you. It's pretty obvious when you think about it. All the incentives for commercial software / services / sites anywhere are stacked against the user actually paying with money instead of data. There isn't even a good infrastructure for getting/passing this money, unlike the giant system of ad networks passing tracking data back and forth. People (complete idiots, IMHO) have been saying this is the transaction, you're paying with your data for the "free internet". But for starters, there is no choice. Also, nobody asked me. I've been "paying" with my data without consent for YEARS, even though I try not to. And now we see it's not an either/or question. They can just make you pay for the service AND extract your data and track you. Because why not both? Again we don't have a lot of choice.

isostatic 7y ago
> As someone in another thread mentioned, it's because the marketing budgets are way bigger than what people would, or even could, pay. This makes no sense. Someone paying £43 a month for Sky TV in the UK is only worth another £5 a month in adverts. Maybe that works out fine, but I don't pay for Sky because of this. London Underground brainwashes millions of people every day. They spend £4.50 on a ticket, but TFL want an extra 15p from advert income. Passengers then spend the cost of that advertising and then some on products they see being advertised, a cost they wouldn't have born without the adverts. Some businesses may make the bulk of their money from advertising other companies, but most don't.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  I'm not sure about your examples, they don't seem to be on line data harvesting tracking ads, monetizing consumers of software or content. Maybe I'm missing the analogy here. Anyway, it was this comment, they explained the idea better than I did maybe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20988742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20988742
TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
> They can just make you pay for the service AND extract your data and track you. Indeed. When cable TV started, it didn't have advertising. The premise was that you were paying for the service, so they didn't have to show you ads. That situation lasted as long as ice cream in the Nevada sun. Cell companies were capitalizing on tracking data we were providing them -- despite the high cost of cell service -- long before the general public got wise. Microsoft just took longer to get to the same idea. Microsoft is going to double down on this, and make the consumer version "free" by way of explicit advertising. If they lose customers, they won't care. They've got corporations around the globe by the short hairs for at least another generation. Maybe two. They've been losing the consumer space for years, and they're just going to ride it all the way into the ground.

isostatic 7y ago

> As someone in another thread mentioned, it's because the marketing budgets are way bigger than what people would, or even could, pay. This makes no sense. Someone paying £43 a month for Sky TV in the UK is only worth another £5 a month in adverts. Maybe that works out fine, but I don't pay for Sky because of this. London Underground brainwashes millions of people every day. They spend £4.50 on a ticket, but TFL want an extra 15p from advert income. Passengers then spend the cost of that advertising and then some on products they see being advertised, a cost they wouldn't have born without the adverts. Some businesses may make the bulk of their money from advertising other companies, but most don't.

tripzilch 7y ago
I'm not sure about your examples, they don't seem to be on line data harvesting tracking ads, monetizing consumers of software or content. Maybe I'm missing the analogy here. Anyway, it was this comment, they explained the idea better than I did maybe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20988742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20988742

TheRealDunkirk 7y ago

> They can just make you pay for the service AND extract your data and track you. Indeed. When cable TV started, it didn't have advertising. The premise was that you were paying for the service, so they didn't have to show you ads. That situation lasted as long as ice cream in the Nevada sun. Cell companies were capitalizing on tracking data we were providing them -- despite the high cost of cell service -- long before the general public got wise. Microsoft just took longer to get to the same idea. Microsoft is going to double down on this, and make the consumer version "free" by way of explicit advertising. If they lose customers, they won't care. They've got corporations around the globe by the short hairs for at least another generation. Maybe two. They've been losing the consumer space for years, and they're just going to ride it all the way into the ground.