4 ms·

I think I'm failing to communicate my point here. It's the wrong bussiness model. The power of these chats is integration. To have the chat suggest a travel pl

by ralfn 4y ago

I think I'm failing to communicate my point here. It's the wrong bussiness model. The power of these chats is integration. To have the chat suggest a travel plan -and- book all the underlying steps. To integrate 3rd party services on the fly based on your specific requirements while rolling it up in a single transaction. That only works if the chat is representing my interests. Not just from a user perspective, but also from a regulatory and anti-trust perspective. ChatGPT is positioned to be a platform of apps that are integrated. Bing is positioned to be a search engine, making money on ads. The whole point is to never leave the chat. To have it all come to you on your terms. I want to do every transaction that I do online today from my chat. I don't care if you have a website or an app. If I can't order/subscribe from the chat your product might as well not exist. Examples: - I want a peperroni pizza from the highest rated place that doesn't also sell kebab that can deliver within 30 minutes. - Send a neutral professional Christmas gift to every customer in our EMEA region that generates at least 50k revenue for us At no point would I accept the product choices to be decided by who pays Microsoft more. Nor do I care who makes it happen. I don't want a link. I don't want to engage. But I'm perfectly fine with a neutral chat taking 5-30% cut on the transaction.

travisjungroth 4y ago
But are you willing to pay a 5-30% premium? I think I am, but not everyone is.
- ralfn 4y ago
  You are always paying that! Ads aren't free either. Neither is the marketing, the website, the app, etc. Getting your customers is expensive, serving them is as well. But you wouldn't need any of those to compete in this market, any more than an Uber driver would need that. All you need is to tell a chat about your API and focus on your actual product. It is a much more submissive relationship with the customer, but not a less profitable one.
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    It’s not the same. The mechanism has a serious effect on behavior. You’re saying you would give the chat a cut but it’s not yours to give. You pay $100 for something and you tell the vendor “I found this through chat. You get $70 and they get $30.” I don’t really see that working. If the vendor opts-in to this relationship and chat only shows people who pay then it’s called advertising or reselling. If they show everyone, then there’s little incentive to pay. I’m not saying it’s unsolvable, but this getting a cut idea is not a solution. I do see abandoning normal advertising and optimizing for chat being possible. It’s like SEO. Not sure it’s a sufficient model for the chat services.
    - ralfn 4y ago
      Let me phrase it differently. When people give Apple Music a cut of their song sales, or when people give Apple a cut of their iOS in game spending, it is not called advertisement. When you pay to tell someone who doesn't want to hear it about your product, thats advertisement. The smart play here is the platform play. Clicking on a link and leaving the chat is the opposite of the intent and purpose of the chat. It makes sense for search because going to another website is the point. For search it is the correct business model, but for chat it is not. The chat is the platform. Leaving it breaks all the advantages.
      - ezst 4y ago
        > When people give Apple Music a cut of their song sales, or when people give Apple a cut of their iOS in game spending, it is not called advertisement. That's assuming the song or app you purchase isn't the result of heavy promotion in the first place (in all ways possible, direct or indirect)…
      - travisjungroth 4y ago
        Apple Music is a reseller, distributor, whatever you want to call it. Their interests are generally more aligned with yours but not entirely. This commission based system is not a silver bullet. It won’t be the optimal business model, the smart move, and be totally aligned with your interests. You can’t do that with commissions. No one is going to trust it to help them decide between going on a vacation versus taking time off at home when it’s getting a cut of the plane tickets.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  A huge number of people are. You can very often get cheaper prices than Uber/Deliveroo if you order from the restaurant directly but that's less convenient so it doesn't happen (as much).
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    Good example!
bruce511 4y ago
I feel like you're almost advocating for a "Google where -only- ads are displayed. >> At no point would I accept the product choices to be decided by who pays Microsoft more But in all your examples you're absolutely going to get products which pay MS more. Pizza from the "highest rated place". Rated by whom? Against what criteria? Neutral professional Chriatmas Gift; I mean, paid product placement here we come. >> But I'm perfectly fine with a neutral chat taking 5-30% cut on the transaction. So, I sign up to "supply" (but not "advertise") my product for a 30% cut of the proceeds, but you don't expect the engine to push the higher-value ,higher-cut options? The engine should be neutral - regardless if the product is signed up or not? Regardless of the commission?
- ralfn 4y ago
  The engine wouldn't allow you to order something from a vendor that hasn't signed up. Just like you can't pay for iOS app outside of their appstore. Just like how Uber, DoorDash, Booking.com are neutral vendors. They don't care from which restaurant you order or which hotel you book. You can filter by customer rating. They make the same either way. Same for iOS or Android apps or Apple Music or Steam. It is in their interest to keep it fair and have the users decide which of their suppliers wins. I don't see a difference. They especially don't care if I'm doing all my transactions though them anyway. The only thing that decides how much I spend, and therefore they make, would be my income. Keep in mind OpenAI wouldn't be the only game in town, just the first, so if the same query gets a better or cheaper deal somewhere else they would lose me as a customer.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    You don't have to signup for Uber or Doordash they send orders your way regardless.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    DoorDash and Booking.com have paid placements. They are not neutral.
manuelmoreale 4y ago
> I don't want a link. I don't want to engage. Isn’t this just another way to say that you don’t want the burden of choice, you just want someone else to chose for you? And in that case, capitalism will chose for you and you’ll definitely not get what you want or what is best for you but rather what has paid more to be promoted and sold to you. It’s not better than clicking and buying the first result on Amazon.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by ralfn 4y ago

travisjungroth 4y ago

But are you willing to pay a 5-30% premium? I think I am, but not everyone is.

ralfn 4y ago
You are always paying that! Ads aren't free either. Neither is the marketing, the website, the app, etc. Getting your customers is expensive, serving them is as well. But you wouldn't need any of those to compete in this market, any more than an Uber driver would need that. All you need is to tell a chat about your API and focus on your actual product. It is a much more submissive relationship with the customer, but not a less profitable one.
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  It’s not the same. The mechanism has a serious effect on behavior. You’re saying you would give the chat a cut but it’s not yours to give. You pay $100 for something and you tell the vendor “I found this through chat. You get $70 and they get $30.” I don’t really see that working. If the vendor opts-in to this relationship and chat only shows people who pay then it’s called advertising or reselling. If they show everyone, then there’s little incentive to pay. I’m not saying it’s unsolvable, but this getting a cut idea is not a solution. I do see abandoning normal advertising and optimizing for chat being possible. It’s like SEO. Not sure it’s a sufficient model for the chat services.
  - ralfn 4y ago
    Let me phrase it differently. When people give Apple Music a cut of their song sales, or when people give Apple a cut of their iOS in game spending, it is not called advertisement. When you pay to tell someone who doesn't want to hear it about your product, thats advertisement. The smart play here is the platform play. Clicking on a link and leaving the chat is the opposite of the intent and purpose of the chat. It makes sense for search because going to another website is the point. For search it is the correct business model, but for chat it is not. The chat is the platform. Leaving it breaks all the advantages.
    - ezst 4y ago
      > When people give Apple Music a cut of their song sales, or when people give Apple a cut of their iOS in game spending, it is not called advertisement. That's assuming the song or app you purchase isn't the result of heavy promotion in the first place (in all ways possible, direct or indirect)…
    - travisjungroth 4y ago
      Apple Music is a reseller, distributor, whatever you want to call it. Their interests are generally more aligned with yours but not entirely. This commission based system is not a silver bullet. It won’t be the optimal business model, the smart move, and be totally aligned with your interests. You can’t do that with commissions. No one is going to trust it to help them decide between going on a vacation versus taking time off at home when it’s getting a cut of the plane tickets.
sebzim4500 4y ago
A huge number of people are. You can very often get cheaper prices than Uber/Deliveroo if you order from the restaurant directly but that's less convenient so it doesn't happen (as much).
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  Good example!

bruce511 4y ago

I feel like you're almost advocating for a "Google where -only- ads are displayed. >> At no point would I accept the product choices to be decided by who pays Microsoft more But in all your examples you're absolutely going to get products which pay MS more. Pizza from the "highest rated place". Rated by whom? Against what criteria? Neutral professional Chriatmas Gift; I mean, paid product placement here we come. >> But I'm perfectly fine with a neutral chat taking 5-30% cut on the transaction. So, I sign up to "supply" (but not "advertise") my product for a 30% cut of the proceeds, but you don't expect the engine to push the higher-value ,higher-cut options? The engine should be neutral - regardless if the product is signed up or not? Regardless of the commission?

ralfn 4y ago
The engine wouldn't allow you to order something from a vendor that hasn't signed up. Just like you can't pay for iOS app outside of their appstore. Just like how Uber, DoorDash, Booking.com are neutral vendors. They don't care from which restaurant you order or which hotel you book. You can filter by customer rating. They make the same either way. Same for iOS or Android apps or Apple Music or Steam. It is in their interest to keep it fair and have the users decide which of their suppliers wins. I don't see a difference. They especially don't care if I'm doing all my transactions though them anyway. The only thing that decides how much I spend, and therefore they make, would be my income. Keep in mind OpenAI wouldn't be the only game in town, just the first, so if the same query gets a better or cheaper deal somewhere else they would lose me as a customer.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  You don't have to signup for Uber or Doordash they send orders your way regardless.
- lancesells 4y ago
  DoorDash and Booking.com have paid placements. They are not neutral.

manuelmoreale 4y ago

> I don't want a link. I don't want to engage. Isn’t this just another way to say that you don’t want the burden of choice, you just want someone else to chose for you? And in that case, capitalism will chose for you and you’ll definitely not get what you want or what is best for you but rather what has paid more to be promoted and sold to you. It’s not better than clicking and buying the first result on Amazon.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]