3 ms·

> hopefully that will become "was" at some point > their interests are not aligned with user interests How do you propose apps monetize going forward? The vas

> hopefully that will become "was" at some point > their interests are not aligned with user interests How do you propose apps monetize going forward? The vast majority of users do not want to pay for the apps/utilities on their phones, but still appreciate the value these apps provide them nonetheless. Targeted advertising enables apps to provide these services to users for free by having marketing budgets front the cost. The removal of IDFA really only cripples the little guy, and speeds up the consolidation of wealth among Apple, Amazon, Google, and FB. I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to remain free, if not advertising-based?

JoshTriplett 6y ago
> The vast majority of users do not want to pay for the apps/utilities on their phones, but still appreciate the value these apps provide them nonetheless. Chicken and egg problem. There are enough free apps that they drag down user expectations for pricing. It's hard to figure out value on an absolute scale ("hmmm, is this worth $4?"), and easy to compare value on a relative scale ("wow, $8 seems expensive for an app"). Ads push the app market downwards. > I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to remain free The same revenue model I'd suggest for any other kind of regularly produced content that can't charge or doesn't want to: patronage, subscriptions, sponsorships, merch, add-ons or regular updates that people want to pay for, services people want to pay for. Have you ever read some of the behind-the-scenes details from YouTube channels that support the people making them? Ads don't even come close to paying the bills, even if you're huge. Patronage, subscriptions, sponsorships, and merchandise do.
- crakhamster01 6y ago
  How is it a chicken and egg problem if we're in a post-ads world? Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads in their feed. From the perspective of someone in a developed nation, the change to a patronage revenue model may seem trivial, but for the vast majority of the world this is a non-starter. You're arguing that information should paywalled, when it currently can exist free of charge. Also re: the Youtube anecdote - YT ads actually pay out quite well, especially if you're huge. You usually see Patreons, etc. from the smaller channels or content creators that want to hit a certain quality of life/stability. The top 10 YouTube channels easily clear $10M from ad rev alone.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    > Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads in their feed. They can still opt-in; not to mention this is about creepy ad targeting that exposes the user to lots of risk if the targeting data ever leaks (it's a time bomb); advertising per-se isn't banned, it just can't stalk the user. However this will hopefully open the door for alternative monetization options, like you know, the old-school, boring paper bills that some people might have in their wallet and might be willing to hand over in exchange for a good app, service or product. ;)
ShroudedNight 6y ago
Merchandising, both virtual and physical? I firmly recognise that this would have a vastly different market structure, would cause tremendous pain to many in the transition, and really, that this is very likely nowhere near as remunerative, but it's not inconceivable that the game itself would be means to inject experience into people's sense of identity in order to sell them the clothing and accessories for signalling that identity to others. I agree that it would probably make it impossible to financially justify investing in time-wasting games that would not be compelling enough for people to engage at that level. As a disclaimer, I'm also not convinced that maximising the gross financial product of the app ecosystem is inherently the 'Right Thing' from a public policy perspective, either.

JoshTriplett 6y ago

> The vast majority of users do not want to pay for the apps/utilities on their phones, but still appreciate the value these apps provide them nonetheless. Chicken and egg problem. There are enough free apps that they drag down user expectations for pricing. It's hard to figure out value on an absolute scale ("hmmm, is this worth $4?"), and easy to compare value on a relative scale ("wow, $8 seems expensive for an app"). Ads push the app market downwards. > I'm curious what revenue model you would suggest for apps that wish to remain free The same revenue model I'd suggest for any other kind of regularly produced content that can't charge or doesn't want to: patronage, subscriptions, sponsorships, merch, add-ons or regular updates that people want to pay for, services people want to pay for. Have you ever read some of the behind-the-scenes details from YouTube channels that support the people making them? Ads don't even come close to paying the bills, even if you're huge. Patronage, subscriptions, sponsorships, and merchandise do.

crakhamster01 6y ago
How is it a chicken and egg problem if we're in a post-ads world? Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads in their feed. From the perspective of someone in a developed nation, the change to a patronage revenue model may seem trivial, but for the vast majority of the world this is a non-starter. You're arguing that information should paywalled, when it currently can exist free of charge. Also re: the Youtube anecdote - YT ads actually pay out quite well, especially if you're huge. You usually see Patreons, etc. from the smaller channels or content creators that want to hit a certain quality of life/stability. The top 10 YouTube channels easily clear $10M from ad rev alone.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  > Billions of people now have the expectation that content, utilities, and information can be made accessible to them, for free, by simply allowing ads in their feed. They can still opt-in; not to mention this is about creepy ad targeting that exposes the user to lots of risk if the targeting data ever leaks (it's a time bomb); advertising per-se isn't banned, it just can't stalk the user. However this will hopefully open the door for alternative monetization options, like you know, the old-school, boring paper bills that some people might have in their wallet and might be willing to hand over in exchange for a good app, service or product. ;)

ShroudedNight 6y ago

Merchandising, both virtual and physical? I firmly recognise that this would have a vastly different market structure, would cause tremendous pain to many in the transition, and really, that this is very likely nowhere near as remunerative, but it's not inconceivable that the game itself would be means to inject experience into people's sense of identity in order to sell them the clothing and accessories for signalling that identity to others. I agree that it would probably make it impossible to financially justify investing in time-wasting games that would not be compelling enough for people to engage at that level. As a disclaimer, I'm also not convinced that maximising the gross financial product of the app ecosystem is inherently the 'Right Thing' from a public policy perspective, either.