4 ms·

Overall I'm excited to see this, as much as I don't need one more subscription (and have a very legacy, free, personal GSuite for a custom domain so I can't use

Overall I'm excited to see this, as much as I don't need one more subscription (and have a very legacy, free, personal GSuite for a custom domain so I can't use One anyway). Maybe this is a strategic transition to a more consistent, less advertising dependent Google.

ignoramous 6y ago
Regardless, Google charging for these services bodes well for other consumer software shops because it is otherwise an uphill battle to compete with "free".
- zepto 6y ago
  I’m less optimistic. All they will do is consolidate lock-in and leave people with less money and willingness to spend on other software. As to advertising - why would they give up revenue? If they can both charge and advertise, they will, just like cable tv.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    > If they can both charge and advertise, they will, just like cable tv. While not always an exact distinction, the cost of cable is to carry the service to your house, and the advertising on cable is to pay for the content being served over the former.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I have no idea where you get this from. If you want more channels, you pay more, which is the reverse of how it would be if it worked the way you say it did.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      Given that carrying one channel to my house should cost the cable company the same as carrying 500 channels to my house, the fact that I have to pay more for more channels seems to discredit your explanation.
  - echelon 6y ago
    > I’m less optimistic. All they will do is consolidate lock-in and leave people with less money and willingness to spend on other software. I don't think that's the case at all. Look at the explosion of TV streaming services. Nevermind the fact that we're winding up with a situation worse than cable, people are paying for those. What people don't pay for is apps that are more expensive than $1. They complain if apps cost more than a cup of coffee because everything else is free. We have to push out the loss leaders and advertising subsidized garbage, because it puts expectations on the price of our software. Compare our situation with Steam. People are happy to pay tons of money for games. Often times, they spend money for games they don't even play! It's good for us if things start costing money and stop being free. Free is something only the giants can afford to offer.
    - zepto 6y ago
      “We have to push out the loss leaders and advertising subsidized garbage, because it puts expectations on the price of our software.“ I wholeheartedly agree with your desire here, however nothing that Google is doing is a move in this direction. The base service is an advertising supported loss leader. Upcharging on top of that is about capturing more money from those who have already been locked in.

ignoramous 6y ago

Regardless, Google charging for these services bodes well for other consumer software shops because it is otherwise an uphill battle to compete with "free".

zepto 6y ago
I’m less optimistic. All they will do is consolidate lock-in and leave people with less money and willingness to spend on other software. As to advertising - why would they give up revenue? If they can both charge and advertise, they will, just like cable tv.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  > If they can both charge and advertise, they will, just like cable tv. While not always an exact distinction, the cost of cable is to carry the service to your house, and the advertising on cable is to pay for the content being served over the former.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I have no idea where you get this from. If you want more channels, you pay more, which is the reverse of how it would be if it worked the way you say it did.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    Given that carrying one channel to my house should cost the cable company the same as carrying 500 channels to my house, the fact that I have to pay more for more channels seems to discredit your explanation.
- echelon 6y ago
  > I’m less optimistic. All they will do is consolidate lock-in and leave people with less money and willingness to spend on other software. I don't think that's the case at all. Look at the explosion of TV streaming services. Nevermind the fact that we're winding up with a situation worse than cable, people are paying for those. What people don't pay for is apps that are more expensive than $1. They complain if apps cost more than a cup of coffee because everything else is free. We have to push out the loss leaders and advertising subsidized garbage, because it puts expectations on the price of our software. Compare our situation with Steam. People are happy to pay tons of money for games. Often times, they spend money for games they don't even play! It's good for us if things start costing money and stop being free. Free is something only the giants can afford to offer.
  - zepto 6y ago
    “We have to push out the loss leaders and advertising subsidized garbage, because it puts expectations on the price of our software.“ I wholeheartedly agree with your desire here, however nothing that Google is doing is a move in this direction. The base service is an advertising supported loss leader. Upcharging on top of that is about capturing more money from those who have already been locked in.