4 ms·

I believe it will still comprise a reduction in their revenue. The internet as a whole will be less profitable, and only the big players will be able to survive

I believe it will still comprise a reduction in their revenue. The internet as a whole will be less profitable, and only the big players will be able to survive. Maybe with time there can be a shift in the economics, but I would not bet on it. I can’t imagine people will start paying for email, search, music streaming...

fuzzer37 6y ago
Or we'll shift back to an internet where people make things because they enjoy making them, not because they're trying to get a million clicks on blog spam. I'd be happy if the internet as a whole was a less profitable place.
- gregorythecat 6y ago
  Don’t assume I’m against that from the perspective of a netizen. I too grew up reading slashdot and idolizing the FSF. I’m just pointing out this well could be the death knell of SWE as we know it. I will definitely miss the ridiculous TC fueled by the ad-laden web, but at least maybe I won’t work alongside physics and math phds on optimizing clicks....
akmarinov 6y ago
Don’t people already pay for music streaming?
Nextgrid 6y ago
> I can’t imagine people will start paying for email, search, music streaming... There's absolutely now reason why these services can't all fit in a 5-10$/month allowance. E-mail is already ~2$/month with Office 365, and if everyone starts paying economies of scale would make even cheaper plans profitable. Some of these services can just as well be provided by the ISP, like e-mail was back in the days. A lot of ISPs are indeed scum but there isn't technically anything forcing the users to use them (you can pay for a third-party) and I think the move away from e-mail being centralized around a few giants like Google (GMail), Microsoft (Outlook), etc would be a good thing.
- gregorythecat 6y ago
  FB’s ARPU in US in 2019 was $112. Google’s was $256. By comparison, paid services would cost $30/month. You might be willing to pay that, but many will not. People already share Netflix accounts or bootleg their friend’s HBO accounts. I think a shift to paid services is _possible_ but I won’t bet on it. The economics and market forces that brought us metered data and text usage haven’t really changed. Destroying the advertising-supported offerings will not spawn competition overnight. But in any case I think the big players are positioned to weather the changes. And by the way, $30/month/user is an average. If you are have high disposable income you are likely netting FB et al more than that.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    How much of that ARPU is covering overheads of the advertising model (all the infrastructure and middlemen) as opposed to being actual money spent by brands on customer acquisition? If ads didn't exist and people wanted to pay for stuff, wouldn't brands be able to offer lower prices because of easier customer acquisition (not having to pay for ads) and thus people wouldn't need to share accounts if the account costs a couple of bucks a month?

fuzzer37 6y ago

Or we'll shift back to an internet where people make things because they enjoy making them, not because they're trying to get a million clicks on blog spam. I'd be happy if the internet as a whole was a less profitable place.

gregorythecat 6y ago
Don’t assume I’m against that from the perspective of a netizen. I too grew up reading slashdot and idolizing the FSF. I’m just pointing out this well could be the death knell of SWE as we know it. I will definitely miss the ridiculous TC fueled by the ad-laden web, but at least maybe I won’t work alongside physics and math phds on optimizing clicks....

akmarinov 6y ago

Don’t people already pay for music streaming?

Nextgrid 6y ago

> I can’t imagine people will start paying for email, search, music streaming... There's absolutely now reason why these services can't all fit in a 5-10$/month allowance. E-mail is already ~2$/month with Office 365, and if everyone starts paying economies of scale would make even cheaper plans profitable. Some of these services can just as well be provided by the ISP, like e-mail was back in the days. A lot of ISPs are indeed scum but there isn't technically anything forcing the users to use them (you can pay for a third-party) and I think the move away from e-mail being centralized around a few giants like Google (GMail), Microsoft (Outlook), etc would be a good thing.

gregorythecat 6y ago
FB’s ARPU in US in 2019 was $112. Google’s was $256. By comparison, paid services would cost $30/month. You might be willing to pay that, but many will not. People already share Netflix accounts or bootleg their friend’s HBO accounts. I think a shift to paid services is _possible_ but I won’t bet on it. The economics and market forces that brought us metered data and text usage haven’t really changed. Destroying the advertising-supported offerings will not spawn competition overnight. But in any case I think the big players are positioned to weather the changes. And by the way, $30/month/user is an average. If you are have high disposable income you are likely netting FB et al more than that.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  How much of that ARPU is covering overheads of the advertising model (all the infrastructure and middlemen) as opposed to being actual money spent by brands on customer acquisition? If ads didn't exist and people wanted to pay for stuff, wouldn't brands be able to offer lower prices because of easier customer acquisition (not having to pay for ads) and thus people wouldn't need to share accounts if the account costs a couple of bucks a month?