4 ms·

Isn't this just a function of a lot of these business models don't actually work? Ie a lot of these are the equivalent of giving away free ( investor funded )

Isn't this just a function of a lot of these business models don't actually work? Ie a lot of these are the equivalent of giving away free ( investor funded ) banana fritters, getting decent uptake and using it to declare that the market in banana fritters is huge, but when you start to charge for them it turns our the market is quite small. Another way the business models don't work is the companies start off assuming no costs around policing - like a shop with no security whatsoever. Works fine for a while, but as it grows and people realise it's got no security they start to get targeted, and costs go up.

bsenftner 3y ago
We have an evil cabal of enshitification enforcers in the form of the entire advertising and marketing industry. They enforce the group think impressed on society, and will not put any energy into anything not following the current zeitgeist of shitty exploitation and only the legally required (reluctant) fair treatment of their consumer and their employees. Our society voices, both journalism and advertising/marketing, are owned by the Orwellian Capitalists and only what they allow get through... which is a declining human society.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  I think you've missed the point of the parent comment. The point is that the entire model only exists in symbiosis with what you call "enshitification enforcers". There is no mass market social media without the "evil cabal... of the advertising and marketing industry". There is no other model that can pay the bills for a site with hundreds of millions of active users posting their own content with mostly no restraint. The closest to an alternative model that works here is wikipedia. They achieve it by having a different default for user generated content - that it doesn't remain unless it is strictly on topic (you can't just write your random thoughts and shitposts in an article) - and by having a social mission that attracts donations. (They also run incredibly lean, which other mass market sites could definitely learn from.) Another alternative model being pursued is the federated approach. I like this approach in principle but I don't think it will ever reach the mass market hundreds of millions of active users position of the mainstream social media products. Its solution to the problem is that some subset of power users will self-host and absorb the costs, either via individual altruism or something, or by developing some other model. I think this will end up centralizing, with a small number of nodes hosting most of the usage, and probably eventually falling back to advertising to cover costs. But I dunno, we'll see, maybe this will work. Another more successful model is to just not be mass market at all, like HN and other various message boards. This reduces costs both for hosting and moderation and can then be justified by some non-financial benefit (like tacit advertisement for YC in the case of HN, or by tight community camaraderie for niche message boards). Then another model that works is subscriptions. This drops the active user count massively and generally makes it harder to get traction, but I think it works the best of any of these when the stars align. I'd rather be Netflix or the NYT than Twitter or Reddit.
  - pmoriarty 3y ago
    "There is no other model that can pay the bills for a site with hundreds of millions of active users posting their own content with mostly no restraint." The government can. These companies could be nationalized, or the government could make their own competing sites if they were interested in doing so. But they're just not. It takes more than just the means. It takes a will to do it.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      The government can afford to do this. In every single other way, this is a terrible idea.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Why? At least in the case of democratic governmwnts, there is more control and oversight than there is in case of Meta, Twitter or Google.
        sanderjd 3y ago
        Just went into more detail on this in a different comment. Basically I think this would suck in the same ways that public meetings inevitably suck, but times a million.
    - dynamorando 3y ago
      I blogged about this yesterday after seeing a similar post on HN https://dynamorando.pages.dev/blog/the-public-web/ https://dynamorando.pages.dev/blog/the-public-web/ Though I am not sure the political will exists.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        Government funding of generic user generated content hosting is a terrible idea, IMO. But I do quite like your proposal for how it could be accomplished technically through federation. It at least sidesteps the problem of the government building it through their fundamentally broken technology "procurement" processes.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  >advertising and marketing industry Which today is primarily Google, Amazon, Meta, and yes, even Apple (0) (0) https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-analytics-class-action-suit-1849774313 https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-analytics-class-act...
  - throw0101c 3y ago
    > […] and yes, even Apple I was under the impression that Apple makes most of its money from margins on hardware sales, with services a growing percentage (Apple TV, App Store). The "advertising and marketing" that is involved with Apple is them spending money on it so people know about what they sell, and not so much Apple taking in advertising and marketing money (which Google and Meta do).
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      The bad part (from my perspective) is that I pay a premium for iOS/MacOS but still get ads anyways. Why does the App Store show me ads if I'm sponsoring it with every app I purchase? Why does Apple Music show me a pop-up ad when I accidentally auto-launch it with my headphones? Why does Safari still want me to try the new one? Apple does not live or die off advertisements like some others, but they are definitely a victim of this downward trend. As their margins on hardware shrink, their relationship with China comes under threat, and their monopoly on The App Store becomes less certain, it will be interesting to see how well they resist this pattern.
    - michaelcampbell 3y ago
      Part of their advertising IS their hardware. It's definitely good, but it's almost mostly fashion.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      Nope, they have an extensive ad network that conveniently continues to track users, even when they opt out of the tracking that Meta and Google fought so hard against: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-aapl-set-to-expand-advertising-bringing-ads-to-maps-tv-and-books-apps-l6tdqqmg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/10/19/apples-ad-network-is-the-biggest-beneficiary-of-apples-new-marketing-rules-report https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/10/19/apples-... https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/03/apple-ads-expansion/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/03/apple-ads-expansion/
trabant00 3y ago
It's basically just "if it's too good to be true than it ain't". Which was obvious for me from the begging for free video streaming, lower cost higher quality taxi, lower cost higher quality hotel rooms, zero cost but quality banking and so on. Oh, wait, it's not just that. It's also greed. Greedy customers wanting things without paying what they're worth, greedy entrepreneurs not wanting to grow a business steady, healthy and organically, greedy investors, greedy software engineers, etc, etc.
- wholinator2 3y ago
  Can we really say the customers are the greedy ones? I take some offense to that. Most people are just trying to survive with the options they're offered. If someone comes along promising a free solution to something i previously had to pay for, or even better, offering something for free which was never previously offered even at cost. By taking that offer I'm being greedy? What if it actually works, and it's free? I'm suddenly greedy for trying to save up to survive the housing market? Or student loans, or a million other things? What expectation of knowledge make the average person taking a deal, greedy? And how many people taking that deal meet that expectation of knowledge?
  - Given_47 3y ago
    Yea “greedy” customers is probably unfair but I get that it was for effect. To flesh out the point I assume they were making is that customers unfairly adjust their expectations around an unsustainable, too-good-to-be-true edge case, rather than recognizing it for what it is. And consequently scoff at anything that doesn’t now align with what they’ve unfairly shifted their expectations to.
  - jterrys 3y ago
    >Most people are just trying to survive with the options they're offered. I disagree with this. While this group certainly exists, there's a far larger segment of people that have a variable cost-return analysis eschewing towards rock bottom that inevitably lends itself to buying shittier products. In other words, a lot of people are cheapskates. You can make a stellar game app but even charging one flat $5 fee will absolutely tank your downloads because people would rather play hundreds of ad-ridden shitty lootbox gambling games for free. And what's worse, they'll even try to pirate your game for the fuck of it too. It plagues food shelves with increasingly worse results. People don't give a shit about cage free, roaming organically grass fed whatever eggs. Sure, some do, but not most. Oh, Carton B costs 20 cents less than Carton A? Bingo. I just saved 20 cents. The eggs taste practically the same (they don't). But it gets them 90% there, and that's a compromise most people are fine with because they saved money. This trickles up to the producers, who obviously emphasize Carton A production now. Let it go on for long enough, with a little bit of poor government oversight, and you can even sell Carton A eggs as Carton B, and reap more from the suckers who think they're getting a better product. It's greed all the way around, and people fuck themselves constantly because of it. It's why we have laws and building codes and health and safety regulations. Society functions on setting the minimum bar for everything, because otherwise we devolve into chaos. And people constantly love to fucking limbo.
classified 3y ago
> a lot of these business models don't actually work It depends on how you define "work". They may not work in the way that the users were led to believe, but often enough someone got rich, and in that sense they do work.

bsenftner 3y ago

We have an evil cabal of enshitification enforcers in the form of the entire advertising and marketing industry. They enforce the group think impressed on society, and will not put any energy into anything not following the current zeitgeist of shitty exploitation and only the legally required (reluctant) fair treatment of their consumer and their employees. Our society voices, both journalism and advertising/marketing, are owned by the Orwellian Capitalists and only what they allow get through... which is a declining human society.

sanderjd 3y ago
I think you've missed the point of the parent comment. The point is that the entire model only exists in symbiosis with what you call "enshitification enforcers". There is no mass market social media without the "evil cabal... of the advertising and marketing industry". There is no other model that can pay the bills for a site with hundreds of millions of active users posting their own content with mostly no restraint. The closest to an alternative model that works here is wikipedia. They achieve it by having a different default for user generated content - that it doesn't remain unless it is strictly on topic (you can't just write your random thoughts and shitposts in an article) - and by having a social mission that attracts donations. (They also run incredibly lean, which other mass market sites could definitely learn from.) Another alternative model being pursued is the federated approach. I like this approach in principle but I don't think it will ever reach the mass market hundreds of millions of active users position of the mainstream social media products. Its solution to the problem is that some subset of power users will self-host and absorb the costs, either via individual altruism or something, or by developing some other model. I think this will end up centralizing, with a small number of nodes hosting most of the usage, and probably eventually falling back to advertising to cover costs. But I dunno, we'll see, maybe this will work. Another more successful model is to just not be mass market at all, like HN and other various message boards. This reduces costs both for hosting and moderation and can then be justified by some non-financial benefit (like tacit advertisement for YC in the case of HN, or by tight community camaraderie for niche message boards). Then another model that works is subscriptions. This drops the active user count massively and generally makes it harder to get traction, but I think it works the best of any of these when the stars align. I'd rather be Netflix or the NYT than Twitter or Reddit.
- pmoriarty 3y ago
  "There is no other model that can pay the bills for a site with hundreds of millions of active users posting their own content with mostly no restraint." The government can. These companies could be nationalized, or the government could make their own competing sites if they were interested in doing so. But they're just not. It takes more than just the means. It takes a will to do it.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    The government can afford to do this. In every single other way, this is a terrible idea.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Why? At least in the case of democratic governmwnts, there is more control and oversight than there is in case of Meta, Twitter or Google.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        Just went into more detail on this in a different comment. Basically I think this would suck in the same ways that public meetings inevitably suck, but times a million.
  - dynamorando 3y ago
    I blogged about this yesterday after seeing a similar post on HN https://dynamorando.pages.dev/blog/the-public-web/ https://dynamorando.pages.dev/blog/the-public-web/ Though I am not sure the political will exists.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Government funding of generic user generated content hosting is a terrible idea, IMO. But I do quite like your proposal for how it could be accomplished technically through federation. It at least sidesteps the problem of the government building it through their fundamentally broken technology "procurement" processes.
passwordoops 3y ago
>advertising and marketing industry Which today is primarily Google, Amazon, Meta, and yes, even Apple (0) (0) https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-analytics-class-action-suit-1849774313 https://gizmodo.com/apple-iphone-privacy-analytics-class-act...
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > […] and yes, even Apple I was under the impression that Apple makes most of its money from margins on hardware sales, with services a growing percentage (Apple TV, App Store). The "advertising and marketing" that is involved with Apple is them spending money on it so people know about what they sell, and not so much Apple taking in advertising and marketing money (which Google and Meta do).
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    The bad part (from my perspective) is that I pay a premium for iOS/MacOS but still get ads anyways. Why does the App Store show me ads if I'm sponsoring it with every app I purchase? Why does Apple Music show me a pop-up ad when I accidentally auto-launch it with my headphones? Why does Safari still want me to try the new one? Apple does not live or die off advertisements like some others, but they are definitely a victim of this downward trend. As their margins on hardware shrink, their relationship with China comes under threat, and their monopoly on The App Store becomes less certain, it will be interesting to see how well they resist this pattern.
  - michaelcampbell 3y ago
    Part of their advertising IS their hardware. It's definitely good, but it's almost mostly fashion.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    Nope, they have an extensive ad network that conveniently continues to track users, even when they opt out of the tracking that Meta and Google fought so hard against: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-aapl-set-to-expand-advertising-bringing-ads-to-maps-tv-and-books-apps-l6tdqqmg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-08-14/apple-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/10/19/apples-ad-network-is-the-biggest-beneficiary-of-apples-new-marketing-rules-report https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2021/10/19/apples-... https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-is-an-ad-company-now https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/03/apple-ads-expansion/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/03/apple-ads-expansion/

trabant00 3y ago

It's basically just "if it's too good to be true than it ain't". Which was obvious for me from the begging for free video streaming, lower cost higher quality taxi, lower cost higher quality hotel rooms, zero cost but quality banking and so on. Oh, wait, it's not just that. It's also greed. Greedy customers wanting things without paying what they're worth, greedy entrepreneurs not wanting to grow a business steady, healthy and organically, greedy investors, greedy software engineers, etc, etc.

wholinator2 3y ago
Can we really say the customers are the greedy ones? I take some offense to that. Most people are just trying to survive with the options they're offered. If someone comes along promising a free solution to something i previously had to pay for, or even better, offering something for free which was never previously offered even at cost. By taking that offer I'm being greedy? What if it actually works, and it's free? I'm suddenly greedy for trying to save up to survive the housing market? Or student loans, or a million other things? What expectation of knowledge make the average person taking a deal, greedy? And how many people taking that deal meet that expectation of knowledge?
- Given_47 3y ago
  Yea “greedy” customers is probably unfair but I get that it was for effect. To flesh out the point I assume they were making is that customers unfairly adjust their expectations around an unsustainable, too-good-to-be-true edge case, rather than recognizing it for what it is. And consequently scoff at anything that doesn’t now align with what they’ve unfairly shifted their expectations to.
- jterrys 3y ago
  >Most people are just trying to survive with the options they're offered. I disagree with this. While this group certainly exists, there's a far larger segment of people that have a variable cost-return analysis eschewing towards rock bottom that inevitably lends itself to buying shittier products. In other words, a lot of people are cheapskates. You can make a stellar game app but even charging one flat $5 fee will absolutely tank your downloads because people would rather play hundreds of ad-ridden shitty lootbox gambling games for free. And what's worse, they'll even try to pirate your game for the fuck of it too. It plagues food shelves with increasingly worse results. People don't give a shit about cage free, roaming organically grass fed whatever eggs. Sure, some do, but not most. Oh, Carton B costs 20 cents less than Carton A? Bingo. I just saved 20 cents. The eggs taste practically the same (they don't). But it gets them 90% there, and that's a compromise most people are fine with because they saved money. This trickles up to the producers, who obviously emphasize Carton A production now. Let it go on for long enough, with a little bit of poor government oversight, and you can even sell Carton A eggs as Carton B, and reap more from the suckers who think they're getting a better product. It's greed all the way around, and people fuck themselves constantly because of it. It's why we have laws and building codes and health and safety regulations. Society functions on setting the minimum bar for everything, because otherwise we devolve into chaos. And people constantly love to fucking limbo.

classified 3y ago

> a lot of these business models don't actually work It depends on how you define "work". They may not work in the way that the users were led to believe, but often enough someone got rich, and in that sense they do work.