3 ms·

It might target people who can't afford cell service, but I don't see how that's taking advantage of them. Maybe it's profiting off them, but nobody has to use

It might target people who can't afford cell service, but I don't see how that's taking advantage of them. Maybe it's profiting off them, but nobody has to use it. If it isn't worth it to you, then don't use it, but if it is, then do, and that's better than if it didn't exist. Nobody is forcing you to use the app, though. What do you mean by infrastructure cost not being important? They either take a loss on the free plan to get downloads, the ads cover the costs and they break even, or they make a profit. All of those options seem fine and potentially sustainable to me (not sure about the loss leader though).

thomastjeffery 3y ago
It's about backing people into a corner who don't have the means to choose an alternative situation. No one is forcing you to have cell service? Sure they are! Good luck participating in society without it. As for infrastructure costs, that's the entire service. How much does it really cost to provide 300kbit/s? Surely less than it costs to serve ads! Sure, you can turn a profit from the ad revenue, but that means your profit is the end user's attention. My overall point is that we should not call ads "free". Watching ads is labor, and labor ain't free.