3 ms·

You are arguing that people "should" pay based on value. This is a competitive market. There are reasonable alternatives. Cost to switch is low. Economics 101

by sfink 5y ago

You are arguing that people "should" pay based on value. This is a competitive market. There are reasonable alternatives. Cost to switch is low. Economics 101 (literally that class!) says that the price in that situation is going to be based on competition (for the companies/producers that survive), and the price of the competition is $0. (It's actually not, you're paying with slightly less personal data for Firefox than the alternatives, and there are substantial externalities like the effects of monoculture, but none of that is going to change the big picture.) Not only are you not going to get a critical mass of people willing to pay, but also those who are willing to pay will feel massively entitled, and will abandon your product when it changes in any way they don't like. The only way to make it work would be to provide some value that cannot be replicated by competitors, in order to add switching costs and reduce the fidelity of alternatives. And for that to be relevant to Mozilla, it must also be compatible with the mission of an open web. Good luck with that.

freediver 5y ago
> You are arguing that people "should" pay based on value. I believe I am arguing that we underestimate the willingness of people to part with their money when there is a right product. > Cost to switch is low. Economics 101 (literally that class!) says that the price in that situation is going to be based on competition (for the companies/producers that survive), and the price of the competition is $0. Not sure whether we live in different times, but isn't the same with YouTube? The cost to watch is $0, and you can even watch it ad-free for $0 with a free ad-blocker, yet 50 million people still choose to pay $12/mo for YouTube Premium. >Not only are you not going to get a critical mass of people willing to pay, I think you are speculating, so let me speculate as well. If Firefox does not make a radical turn, it will become irrelevant in 3-5 years. > but also those who are willing to pay will feel massively entitled With YT Premium, the one thing I request is that the one killer feature that I pay for (no ads) works reliably. So yes, I can agree that users will feel massively entitled to get what they paid for, but that is up to Firefox to define and control. > The only way to make it work would be to provide some value that cannot be replicated by competitors I agree! Firefox lost a lot of the product innovation and leadership mindset it had until roughly 2010-2011. Bringing that back would help (and the right business model could do it). > And for that to be relevant to Mozilla, it must also be compatible with the mission of an open web. How does making Google a default search engine in Firefox help that mission? Firefox should do it because it believes Google is the best default choice for their users and the open web, not because it gets paid to do it (if compatibility with its mission is what Firefox is striving for).
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Not sure whether we live in different times, but isn't the same with YouTube? The cost to watch is $0, and you can even watch it ad-free for $0 with a free ad-blocker, yet 50 million people still choose to pay $12/mo for YouTube Premium. Isn't that more about information asymmetry than value proposition? Blocking YouTube ads with the appropriate add-ons for free isn't necessarily that well known, except among the tech savvy. While some tech savvy folks may choose to pay rather than use such add-ons is one thing, but the "great unwashed masses" don't have information about such add-ons, perhaps encouraging them to purchase something they wouldn't purchase if there was more perfect information availability in the market. I'm not claiming that's the case, but it seems a reasonable supposition.
  - freediver 5y ago
    Potentially yes, but hard to believe that a $7bn business exists only because of lack of information. I certainly don't lack the information and few other people from my circle that also pay for it so it is hard for me to scale from there.
    - cpeterso 5y ago
      Ad blockers don't work for YouTube on a TV or the native YouTube app (unless you are one of the few people with a DNS ad blocker). I wonder how many of YouTube Premium subscribers primarily use the website. I'm a YouTube Premium subscribers solely because I typically watch YouTube on my TV.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        > Ad blockers don't work for YouTube on a TV or the native YouTube app (unless you are one of the few people with a DNS ad blocker). I wonder how many of YouTube Premium subscribers primarily use the website. I'm a YouTube Premium subscribers solely because I typically watch YouTube on my TV. An excellent point. I mostly watch YouTube on a computer with ad blockers, and I also have a DNS-based ad blocker (Pi-hole). And the combination does block many ads, but other add-ons are required to block the video window ads as well. I don't use YouTube enough on non-general purpose computer devices enough to care about that. As such, I didn't consider that as a reason to pay for Premium. Thanks for expanding my view on this!

by sfink 5y ago

freediver 5y ago

> You are arguing that people "should" pay based on value. I believe I am arguing that we underestimate the willingness of people to part with their money when there is a right product. > Cost to switch is low. Economics 101 (literally that class!) says that the price in that situation is going to be based on competition (for the companies/producers that survive), and the price of the competition is $0. Not sure whether we live in different times, but isn't the same with YouTube? The cost to watch is $0, and you can even watch it ad-free for $0 with a free ad-blocker, yet 50 million people still choose to pay $12/mo for YouTube Premium. >Not only are you not going to get a critical mass of people willing to pay, I think you are speculating, so let me speculate as well. If Firefox does not make a radical turn, it will become irrelevant in 3-5 years. > but also those who are willing to pay will feel massively entitled With YT Premium, the one thing I request is that the one killer feature that I pay for (no ads) works reliably. So yes, I can agree that users will feel massively entitled to get what they paid for, but that is up to Firefox to define and control. > The only way to make it work would be to provide some value that cannot be replicated by competitors I agree! Firefox lost a lot of the product innovation and leadership mindset it had until roughly 2010-2011. Bringing that back would help (and the right business model could do it). > And for that to be relevant to Mozilla, it must also be compatible with the mission of an open web. How does making Google a default search engine in Firefox help that mission? Firefox should do it because it believes Google is the best default choice for their users and the open web, not because it gets paid to do it (if compatibility with its mission is what Firefox is striving for).

nobody9999 5y ago
>Not sure whether we live in different times, but isn't the same with YouTube? The cost to watch is $0, and you can even watch it ad-free for $0 with a free ad-blocker, yet 50 million people still choose to pay $12/mo for YouTube Premium. Isn't that more about information asymmetry than value proposition? Blocking YouTube ads with the appropriate add-ons for free isn't necessarily that well known, except among the tech savvy. While some tech savvy folks may choose to pay rather than use such add-ons is one thing, but the "great unwashed masses" don't have information about such add-ons, perhaps encouraging them to purchase something they wouldn't purchase if there was more perfect information availability in the market. I'm not claiming that's the case, but it seems a reasonable supposition.
- freediver 5y ago
  Potentially yes, but hard to believe that a $7bn business exists only because of lack of information. I certainly don't lack the information and few other people from my circle that also pay for it so it is hard for me to scale from there.
  - cpeterso 5y ago
    Ad blockers don't work for YouTube on a TV or the native YouTube app (unless you are one of the few people with a DNS ad blocker). I wonder how many of YouTube Premium subscribers primarily use the website. I'm a YouTube Premium subscribers solely because I typically watch YouTube on my TV.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      > Ad blockers don't work for YouTube on a TV or the native YouTube app (unless you are one of the few people with a DNS ad blocker). I wonder how many of YouTube Premium subscribers primarily use the website. I'm a YouTube Premium subscribers solely because I typically watch YouTube on my TV. An excellent point. I mostly watch YouTube on a computer with ad blockers, and I also have a DNS-based ad blocker (Pi-hole). And the combination does block many ads, but other add-ons are required to block the video window ads as well. I don't use YouTube enough on non-general purpose computer devices enough to care about that. As such, I didn't consider that as a reason to pay for Premium. Thanks for expanding my view on this!