3 ms·

But masses of people want to use them, despite them not offering the extra features that apparently wouldn't increase their revenue, but that they should provid

by jhugo 4y ago

But masses of people want to use them, despite them not offering the extra features that apparently wouldn't increase their revenue, but that they should provide anyway for unstated reasons. Are you saying that if they don't provide these extra features, their advertising revenue will fall (due to reduced user base)? Because that's the opposite of what you started this thread by saying.

ddtaylor 4y ago
My only claim has been (and continues to be) that not all features a search engine provides need to have direct monetization. If you took the same concept and applied it to television then would it just be entirely advertisements? Who would watch it? Obviously there needs to be a balance between providing utility and earning revenue. And television is typically a service that users pay for in addition to having advertisements! > But masses of people want to use them Many products get popular by being high quality, lock in market domination as much as possible, and then maximize revenue even if at the expense of quality. Food brands often follow this trend by using high quality ingredients early on then go public and replace the ingredients with cheaper ones. Sure, eventually the brand loyalty is destroyed, but that can take significantly longer than it took to build the brand recognition. > despite them not offering the extra features Most search engines had this specific feature for most of their lifespan. It's difficult to tell if a search engine like Google would get popular if released back in 1999 while being operated like it is currently.
- jhugo 4y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that having non-advertising programming on television increases their advertising revenue, since with 100% advertising that revenue would trend to zero. This whole thread has been a response to this: > I don't think search engines should only be providing features that boost advertising revenue. It seems you don't actually mean that, so I guess we probably agree.

by jhugo 4y ago

ddtaylor 4y ago

My only claim has been (and continues to be) that not all features a search engine provides need to have direct monetization. If you took the same concept and applied it to television then would it just be entirely advertisements? Who would watch it? Obviously there needs to be a balance between providing utility and earning revenue. And television is typically a service that users pay for in addition to having advertisements! > But masses of people want to use them Many products get popular by being high quality, lock in market domination as much as possible, and then maximize revenue even if at the expense of quality. Food brands often follow this trend by using high quality ingredients early on then go public and replace the ingredients with cheaper ones. Sure, eventually the brand loyalty is destroyed, but that can take significantly longer than it took to build the brand recognition. > despite them not offering the extra features Most search engines had this specific feature for most of their lifespan. It's difficult to tell if a search engine like Google would get popular if released back in 1999 while being operated like it is currently.

jhugo 4y ago
I think it's pretty obvious that having non-advertising programming on television increases their advertising revenue, since with 100% advertising that revenue would trend to zero. This whole thread has been a response to this: > I don't think search engines should only be providing features that boost advertising revenue. It seems you don't actually mean that, so I guess we probably agree.