28 ms·
> friction being enough to chock it ... Subscriptions (at least at first) were too highly priced I totally agree. Subscribing to one site for, say, $5/month do
by oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> friction being enough to chock it ... Subscriptions (at least at first) were too highly priced
I totally agree. Subscribing to one site for, say, $5/month doesn't seem that onerous, and if it's a really, really good source of information, may be worth it. But subscribing to every website that I might want to visit a few times each month? Forget it. It's like the 'X different streaming services' problem writ much, much larger.
This is why I had so much hope in the readability approach — $5 in total, the site I visit most might get $2.50, then the next gets $1, etc.
- Bluestein 2y agoThat approach would have worked, probably.- Indeed, what you mention (death by a thousand cuts) is an issue ... ... for the sake of argument, however, you then end "back on square one", so to speak, with a "centralized" "gatekeeper" for content ... ... so, what to do (maybe): An open standard for pre-paid balances that is interoperable, as a sort of "pay-per-rss-article" standard, with standarized pricing. But, good luck with any of that ...
- Bluestein 2y agoPS. This is making the HN rounds and looks promising IMHO ... - https://l402.org/ https://l402.org/