6 ms·

Sure, but that's essentially just "we all agree capitalism sucks, right?" in more words. I'd rather I just get a free voice chat app forever, but given that tha

Sure, but that's essentially just "we all agree capitalism sucks, right?" in more words. I'd rather I just get a free voice chat app forever, but given that that's not the way this current economy works, I'm going to take the wins where I can when a company is choosing to monetize in ways that are generally good for everyone involved. Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways.

jjulius 3y ago
>Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways. I'd argue that's why we end up in the position we often end up in, as users. We take it little by little until it's too late. The "Well yeah that's capitalism and it sucks so /shrug, right?" argument feels kinda weak to me. If Discord's profitable and users are happy, why beat them for even more profit? Why can't we just go, "Welp, this is working, let's maintain where we're at"?
- paddw 3y ago
  There's no way Discord is profitable.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Then, and I recognize that this is just my opinion, we should just let it die rather than going, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?".
    - noirbot 3y ago
      I'm really confused by your attitude that a company giving out a quality free service is some kind of abusive orphanage owner giving out slop to kids here. Like, are you against them making money off of this? This isn't Netflix cutting off shared accounts and ramping up the price every year. This isn't Amazon swindling people into signing up for Prime. This is a company that sells product A also deciding to sell a complimentary product B that they think will help them continue to sell product A at a good price. If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory, I'm not sure how that's a consistent way to interact with modern capitalism at all. Almost every company has loss-leaders or cross-marketing or vertical/horizontal integration. If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News...
      - jjulius 3y ago
        >I'm really confused by your attitude that a company giving out a quality free service is some kind of abusive orphanage owner giving out slop to kids here. All I am is pessimistic about Discord in the long-run, as it tries to become profitable, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm very aware of the pessimistic part of my approach to the world and how it shapes my view, and perhaps could even be clouding my judgement here. I'd be equally curious about what makes you so staunchly defensive of Discord when it comes to some random dude going, "Hmm, I dunno, I feel like I've been here before and it hasn't ended well". >If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory... I don't think this specific move is, no. I don't feel like repeating that I'm simply pessimistic long-term. >If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News... Again, see above, re: long-term pessimism. After all, I'm aware of ads on HN and I'm still here, aren't I?
        noirbot 3y ago
        I'm not putting words in your mouth - you literally referenced Oliver Twist as an analogy for the user's relationship with Discord with us begging for more slop. > 'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.' > The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle. I suppose I'm defensive of Discord because I think they have and are generally acting in better faith and with a better model that is intentionally avoiding a lot of the worst problems that many of their peer companies have run into. It's grating to feel like you've found somewhere that's doing better than average, and then constantly have people show up and go "yea, but everyone else sucks and it'll probably be bad anyway." It's also that it's not actionable. It's just doomsaying. It reminds me of the old saying that economists have predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions. It's not that I don't think there's a chance Discord will run off a cliff in the future, but it doesn't feel useful to abstain from praising their good moves now because there's always a chance they could ruin it later.
        jjulius 3y ago
        >I'm not putting words in your mouth... I mean, you are. Literally. I never said Discord was the equivalent of an abusive orphanage owner, and I even explicitly highlighted that this does, in fact, benefit the user. Not only that, but I also did not "literally" reference Oliver Twist, and it feels weird for you to say that I "literally" referenced it when the quote you posted is quite literally not the quote I posted. My quote was, genuinely literally, an Animal House reference[0]. But perhaps I'm being pedantic. Perhaps I should've been a bit more clear, in that the sentiment I was trying to convey with that quote/comment was more generalized. It's great that we have tools like Discord and others, but if we find that these tools have to become bastardized and user-hostile in order to be financially viable long-term, should they even exist? >It's grating to feel like you've found somewhere that's doing better than average, and then constantly have people show up and go "yea, but everyone else sucks and it'll probably be bad anyway." I can see how that can get pretty annoying, but given what we've seen happen to so many tech companies, can you really blame people for having that sentiment? For being burned in a similar manner enough times that we're not really willing to go all-in for a company that has all the signs that it could very easily/likely head down that path? Nobody's trying to stop you from using it, and if it benefits you, go for it. Like I was trying to allude to in my previous comment - fuck what some random chud deep in the HN comments (that's me!) thinks about it. You dig it, that's awesome, go enjoy it! I don't want to ruin it for you, but, if we're having a conversation about this sort of thing then I'm gonna speak my mind. >It's also that it's not actionable. Sure it is. It's a reminder to proceed with caution if you're going to use the product. Use it, but don't become so dependent on it that you're lost if the rug gets pulled out from underneath you. But like I said in a separate comment, I'd be more than happy to eat my hat down the line if it turns out my pessimism is wrong. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz8PTWReWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz8PTWReWo
- noirbot 3y ago
  But that's what I mean - I don't feel like they're beating users for more profit here as much as just eating Patreon's lunch. As a user, if someone I'm paying $5/month on Twitch or Patreon wants me to pay them via Discord instead, that's fine by me as a user. Discord has generally been doing a good job of making more money by selling more and better features to people, or at least trying to. If they're not profitable now, and I doubt they are, I'd rather they keep trying to innovate or improve on other people's bad businesses to grow vs. charging to not make the platform worse like Reddit and co. As someone who used to pay for a Vent/Mumble/Teamspeak server, as well as hosting for chat apps, Discord is currently giving me that for free. I understand that that's costing them money they need to make back some way, so if they can do that by stealing Patreon's business, or making a better Steam, or a better Jackbox, or charging companies for better server features like higher bitrate audio/video, then that's fine by me. I'm just not seeing how this new feature is obviously worse for users where we have to "take it little by little until it's too late". You're acting like Discord is removing features and doing clearly malicious things that we're all just tolerating. The name changes are a misstep, but doesn't seem malicious. Them adding new features and trying to sell them seems like just an extension of the brand, which as long as it doesn't degrade the core product, is pretty much the best way for a company to grow.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >I'm just not seeing how this new feature is obviously worse for users where we have to "take it little by little until it's too late". You're acting like Discord is removing features and doing clearly malicious things that we're all just tolerating. Huh? In my first response to you I said, "I'd argue that the improvement for the users is just a byproduct in Discord's eyes". I've never said that this particular move is an inherently negative one for users who use Patreon. Two things can be true at once - a move primarily motivated by fiscal reasons can also be good for users. Because sure, as you and another user in this comment chain (their quote is the second quote below) have said... >If they're not profitable now, and I doubt they are... >There's no way Discord is profitable. ... I get that they need to make a profit. But as I've also said, I can't help but be pessimistic. This change may benefit users, but if they're still not profitable after this change, what next? Yeah, this might not "feel like they're beating users for more profit here as much as just eating Patreon's lunch", but that's the whole point. Again, "pardon my pessimism"...
- waboremo 3y ago
  That's kind of a big if. We're assuming the users are happy, but from what I've seen having to rely on Patreon or other external apps is making users unhappy.

jjulius 3y ago

>Discord, thus far, has generally been monetizing in ways I find pretty generally positive. I'm going to celebrate that until they actually start monetizing in shittier ways. I'd argue that's why we end up in the position we often end up in, as users. We take it little by little until it's too late. The "Well yeah that's capitalism and it sucks so /shrug, right?" argument feels kinda weak to me. If Discord's profitable and users are happy, why beat them for even more profit? Why can't we just go, "Welp, this is working, let's maintain where we're at"?

paddw 3y ago
There's no way Discord is profitable.
- jjulius 3y ago
  Then, and I recognize that this is just my opinion, we should just let it die rather than going, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?".
  - noirbot 3y ago
    I'm really confused by your attitude that a company giving out a quality free service is some kind of abusive orphanage owner giving out slop to kids here. Like, are you against them making money off of this? This isn't Netflix cutting off shared accounts and ramping up the price every year. This isn't Amazon swindling people into signing up for Prime. This is a company that sells product A also deciding to sell a complimentary product B that they think will help them continue to sell product A at a good price. If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory, I'm not sure how that's a consistent way to interact with modern capitalism at all. Almost every company has loss-leaders or cross-marketing or vertical/horizontal integration. If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News...
    - jjulius 3y ago
      >I'm really confused by your attitude that a company giving out a quality free service is some kind of abusive orphanage owner giving out slop to kids here. All I am is pessimistic about Discord in the long-run, as it tries to become profitable, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm very aware of the pessimistic part of my approach to the world and how it shapes my view, and perhaps could even be clouding my judgement here. I'd be equally curious about what makes you so staunchly defensive of Discord when it comes to some random dude going, "Hmm, I dunno, I feel like I've been here before and it hasn't ended well". >If you think this is "well the company should die then" territory... I don't think this specific move is, no. I don't feel like repeating that I'm simply pessimistic long-term. >If we're bailing on companies and services at the first encroachment of them maybe seeking to be more profitable, then I have bad news about ads on Hacker News... Again, see above, re: long-term pessimism. After all, I'm aware of ads on HN and I'm still here, aren't I?
      - noirbot 3y ago
        I'm not putting words in your mouth - you literally referenced Oliver Twist as an analogy for the user's relationship with Discord with us begging for more slop. > 'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.' > The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle. I suppose I'm defensive of Discord because I think they have and are generally acting in better faith and with a better model that is intentionally avoiding a lot of the worst problems that many of their peer companies have run into. It's grating to feel like you've found somewhere that's doing better than average, and then constantly have people show up and go "yea, but everyone else sucks and it'll probably be bad anyway." It's also that it's not actionable. It's just doomsaying. It reminds me of the old saying that economists have predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions. It's not that I don't think there's a chance Discord will run off a cliff in the future, but it doesn't feel useful to abstain from praising their good moves now because there's always a chance they could ruin it later.
        jjulius 3y ago
        >I'm not putting words in your mouth... I mean, you are. Literally. I never said Discord was the equivalent of an abusive orphanage owner, and I even explicitly highlighted that this does, in fact, benefit the user. Not only that, but I also did not "literally" reference Oliver Twist, and it feels weird for you to say that I "literally" referenced it when the quote you posted is quite literally not the quote I posted. My quote was, genuinely literally, an Animal House reference[0]. But perhaps I'm being pedantic. Perhaps I should've been a bit more clear, in that the sentiment I was trying to convey with that quote/comment was more generalized. It's great that we have tools like Discord and others, but if we find that these tools have to become bastardized and user-hostile in order to be financially viable long-term, should they even exist? >It's grating to feel like you've found somewhere that's doing better than average, and then constantly have people show up and go "yea, but everyone else sucks and it'll probably be bad anyway." I can see how that can get pretty annoying, but given what we've seen happen to so many tech companies, can you really blame people for having that sentiment? For being burned in a similar manner enough times that we're not really willing to go all-in for a company that has all the signs that it could very easily/likely head down that path? Nobody's trying to stop you from using it, and if it benefits you, go for it. Like I was trying to allude to in my previous comment - fuck what some random chud deep in the HN comments (that's me!) thinks about it. You dig it, that's awesome, go enjoy it! I don't want to ruin it for you, but, if we're having a conversation about this sort of thing then I'm gonna speak my mind. >It's also that it's not actionable. Sure it is. It's a reminder to proceed with caution if you're going to use the product. Use it, but don't become so dependent on it that you're lost if the rug gets pulled out from underneath you. But like I said in a separate comment, I'd be more than happy to eat my hat down the line if it turns out my pessimism is wrong. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz8PTWReWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz8PTWReWo
noirbot 3y ago
But that's what I mean - I don't feel like they're beating users for more profit here as much as just eating Patreon's lunch. As a user, if someone I'm paying $5/month on Twitch or Patreon wants me to pay them via Discord instead, that's fine by me as a user. Discord has generally been doing a good job of making more money by selling more and better features to people, or at least trying to. If they're not profitable now, and I doubt they are, I'd rather they keep trying to innovate or improve on other people's bad businesses to grow vs. charging to not make the platform worse like Reddit and co. As someone who used to pay for a Vent/Mumble/Teamspeak server, as well as hosting for chat apps, Discord is currently giving me that for free. I understand that that's costing them money they need to make back some way, so if they can do that by stealing Patreon's business, or making a better Steam, or a better Jackbox, or charging companies for better server features like higher bitrate audio/video, then that's fine by me. I'm just not seeing how this new feature is obviously worse for users where we have to "take it little by little until it's too late". You're acting like Discord is removing features and doing clearly malicious things that we're all just tolerating. The name changes are a misstep, but doesn't seem malicious. Them adding new features and trying to sell them seems like just an extension of the brand, which as long as it doesn't degrade the core product, is pretty much the best way for a company to grow.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >I'm just not seeing how this new feature is obviously worse for users where we have to "take it little by little until it's too late". You're acting like Discord is removing features and doing clearly malicious things that we're all just tolerating. Huh? In my first response to you I said, "I'd argue that the improvement for the users is just a byproduct in Discord's eyes". I've never said that this particular move is an inherently negative one for users who use Patreon. Two things can be true at once - a move primarily motivated by fiscal reasons can also be good for users. Because sure, as you and another user in this comment chain (their quote is the second quote below) have said... >If they're not profitable now, and I doubt they are... >There's no way Discord is profitable. ... I get that they need to make a profit. But as I've also said, I can't help but be pessimistic. This change may benefit users, but if they're still not profitable after this change, what next? Yeah, this might not "feel like they're beating users for more profit here as much as just eating Patreon's lunch", but that's the whole point. Again, "pardon my pessimism"...
waboremo 3y ago
That's kind of a big if. We're assuming the users are happy, but from what I've seen having to rely on Patreon or other external apps is making users unhappy.