4 ms·

Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd

Wouldn't all of this FB BS be solved if he just asks users to pay $3 a year (or .50 for developing nations), and then removing ads/sponsorship entirely? That'd be billions per year and they'd not face all these charges of political shenanigans, poisoning the democracy, etc. I doubt few of the FB users I know wouldn't part with $3 in exchange for their network/contacts that FB provides.

mrgreenfur 7y ago
That is against the business model of building a ubiquitous profile on every one and selling that for ad targeting. This way he can sell each person over and over instead of making a measly $3.
- ff317 7y ago
  Yeah but there's still a point to be made here. Maybe the amount is closer to $10/month instead of $3/year, which is still pretty cheap considering the social utility and "entertainment" hours people are getting out of the service. Also, maybe the costs of running facebook's infrastructure and code drop (and employee headcount, etc) off dramatically if they take an axe to all the parts of it that are devoted to advertising and user data tracking/sales and just focus on the useful core tech bits, which also helps increase the profit margin on the new income model. It's possible there's a rational price that the masses would pay that would still turn them a profit under this kind of setup.
  - nidificate 7y ago
    How many people would be willing to pay $10/month for something that they currently get for free?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cj 7y ago
$3 isn't enough. It would need to be well above $30/yr. Average revenue per user in the US/Canada is $26.76 [0] per user per year. Globally, the average is over $6. I'd wager a bet that the ARPU for users willing to pay $30/yr for no ads is even greater than $27 - likely above $100 - because the only people who would pay extra to remove ads are people with disposable income (which are usually the exact people advertisers want to target when trying to sell stuff). [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-arpu.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  A more accurate cost would be around $200/yr for a daily user [1]. US & Canada had 189 million daily users and a quarterly Ad revenue of 8.487 Billion dollars. That is $45 per user per quarter. [1] https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3.. https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3....
chrischen 7y ago
Charging upfront and knowing exactly what something will cost you for what you get is Apple’s business model, not Google/Facebook where they wave free things in your face to distract you while the other arm reaches around to your back pocket. You may balk at Apple’s high prices but at least you’ve chosen not to pay.
landryraccoon 7y ago
You're underestimating Facebook's revenue by an order of magnitude. If they charged $3 per month they would be making less money than they are now, even if nobody quit because it's no longer free.
triceratops 7y ago
They'd just be replaced by another company that offers the same stuff as FB for free.
notSupplied 7y ago
Network effects are the reason. If they charged for it, a chunk of users will leave, causing network to be less useful for the remaining users who were willing to pay, which then causes more users to leave, etc etc.

mrgreenfur 7y ago

That is against the business model of building a ubiquitous profile on every one and selling that for ad targeting. This way he can sell each person over and over instead of making a measly $3.

ff317 7y ago
Yeah but there's still a point to be made here. Maybe the amount is closer to $10/month instead of $3/year, which is still pretty cheap considering the social utility and "entertainment" hours people are getting out of the service. Also, maybe the costs of running facebook's infrastructure and code drop (and employee headcount, etc) off dramatically if they take an axe to all the parts of it that are devoted to advertising and user data tracking/sales and just focus on the useful core tech bits, which also helps increase the profit margin on the new income model. It's possible there's a rational price that the masses would pay that would still turn them a profit under this kind of setup.
- nidificate 7y ago
  How many people would be willing to pay $10/month for something that they currently get for free?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cj 7y ago

$3 isn't enough. It would need to be well above $30/yr. Average revenue per user in the US/Canada is $26.76 [0] per user per year. Globally, the average is over $6. I'd wager a bet that the ARPU for users willing to pay $30/yr for no ads is even greater than $27 - likely above $100 - because the only people who would pay extra to remove ads are people with disposable income (which are usually the exact people advertisers want to target when trying to sell stuff). [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-arpu.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 7y ago
A more accurate cost would be around $200/yr for a daily user [1]. US & Canada had 189 million daily users and a quarterly Ad revenue of 8.487 Billion dollars. That is $45 per user per quarter. [1] https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3.. https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2019/q3....

chrischen 7y ago

Charging upfront and knowing exactly what something will cost you for what you get is Apple’s business model, not Google/Facebook where they wave free things in your face to distract you while the other arm reaches around to your back pocket. You may balk at Apple’s high prices but at least you’ve chosen not to pay.

landryraccoon 7y ago

You're underestimating Facebook's revenue by an order of magnitude. If they charged $3 per month they would be making less money than they are now, even if nobody quit because it's no longer free.

triceratops 7y ago

They'd just be replaced by another company that offers the same stuff as FB for free.

notSupplied 7y ago

Network effects are the reason. If they charged for it, a chunk of users will leave, causing network to be less useful for the remaining users who were willing to pay, which then causes more users to leave, etc etc.