5 ms·

And I'll agree with you the day we all decide to pay a monthly fee that is big enough to support various websites and creators.

by 0dayz 2y ago

ndriscoll 2y ago
Why? As a HN-er/content creator, I don't see why it would be taken for granted that people need to be paid for their hobbies. In fact many people post online for enjoyment.
- ESTheComposer 2y ago
  If you're a HN-er you should know the culture of HN is very old school and fringe mentality. E.g: - Flip phones are celebrated in some threads because people don't want smart phones (extreme minority in real life) - Disabling JS and pushing sites to go back to just raw HTML CSS (with some even not understanding why we need JS, extreme minority irl. IRL site owners care about attracting customers and the things they want to do can't be done with raw HTML CSS much of the time) - Kagi taking off. IRL most people still do and will continue to Google - People acting like if ads were disabled forever the population would totally pay for things they like (IRL people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. People want the things they want for the cheapest cost possible) HN is a very specific type of tech-centric bubble
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >IRL people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. It is? That's not my observation. In fact, music piracy seems to be all but dead, thanks to the streaming services. Movie piracy is not, and seems to be increasing (hard to say though), because of people getting frustrated with the fragmentation of streaming; back in Netflix's heyday, it seemed like movie piracy was much smaller, because you could just pay $7/month to Netflix and watch whatever you wanted. >People want the things they want for the cheapest cost possible No, most people want convenience. That's why music piracy is basically dead. Piracy is usually a PITA, and it's easy to subscribe to Spotify or Apple Music and listen to everything you want. Piracy is usually a service problem, not an economics problem.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > Movie piracy is not, and seems to be increasing (hard to say though), because of people getting frustrated with the fragmentation of streaming I feel that proves the point. When everything is all together for $20 people don't mind. when it's spread out, people are too lazy to sub/unsub to other $20 services as needed to watch content on demand. Someone that's a heavy enough power user to watch that much TV shouldn't mind paying $100+ to keep up. Premium cable was way more expensive and restrictive back in the day. Meanwhile, all that conversation and none of these streaming services are even profitable. Because giving all your content away for rent isn't financially viable. But it's still too much for lazy consumers. So the entire thing collapses. >No, most people want convenience. That's why music piracy is basically dead. It's also why people completely raged when Netflix and GamePass increased prices. There definitely is a breaking point for many (past the ones who complain about every price hike on the internet but stay subscribed). >Piracy is usually a service problem Everytime I hear this, I simply need to point to the mobile industry to prove it wrong (or maybe right? Just not the way people think is "fair"). They fixed piracy by doing the classic Web dev action: Keep everything valuable on your server. The APK you pirate is worthless, as it is simply a thin client into their actual value. We know how the rest ends from there.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >I feel that proves the point. When everything is all together for $20 people don't mind. I think this proves my point, that it's a service problem. Put everything together in a single, easy-to-use service for a low price (like Netflix in 2012), and only the true die-hards will still bother with piracy. Ask them to subscribe to a whole bunch of services (with a high total cost) or try to figure out how to save money by strategically subscribing and unsubscribing to see the stuff they want, and have to deal with shows suddenly disappearing or moving to a competing service when they're half-finished watching them, and many will simply go back to torrenting because it's honestly easier than all that BS. But instead you think people are "lazy"... A lazy person doesn't do torrenting; it's really not that easy. >Premium cable was way more expensive and restrictive back in the day. Back then, 1) there weren't many alternatives. At the beginning of cable TV's reign, videotapes weren't even commonly available. And 2) back then, people had more disposable income because the cost-of-living was much, much lower (particularly housing). Technology is much better now too, so people expect to pay less. >Meanwhile, all that conversation and none of these streaming services are even profitable. Citation needed. Last I checked, Netflix is doing quite well, and even better after cracking down on the password-sharing. >It's also why people completely raged when Netflix and GamePass increased prices. Some people raged, but Netflix's subscriber count has increased and profits are up, so obviously those people either got over it, or were a small minority.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    in all fairness, I'm sure Kagi is aware it's serving a niche right now. It's more a matter if that niche (maybe a few thousand consistent subscibers?) can support their infrastructure. You don't need to compete with Google to make a good living.
- labcomputer 2y ago
  I’m sort of amazed this has to be explicitly stated: Because most YouTube creators (even the hobbyists) are at least partially motivated by money, and if you take away all the money they will likely make less content or stop altogether. I understand that it’s fun to get things for free, but that’s usually not sustainable.
  - sdoering 2y ago
    If they want to make money, they are totally free to have a website hosting their content behind a paywall. Than I can decide if their content is worth money to me (let me tell you: in 999 out of 1000 "creators" it isn't). But I already pay for a few select content creators. And happily shell out more than I would pay YT for an adfree experience.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Spoilers: the 1 out of 1000's won't get your money either because of any number of arbitrary reasons unrelated to their craft that is conjured up. - Slow website/video host? Great now they need to pay for a better host or pay a web dev to optimize their site. - Not responive? now that dev/service needs more money. - pay is too much (meanwhile they still can't even make minimum wage)? Well, their fault for valuing themselves over a McDonalds' employee - they pivot to premium teaching and now are a "scam"? Why am I here, I can google and learn this for free on Youtube You can't win with some people.
      - sdoering 2y ago
        They receive my money, as I pay them the way they ask for it. I am actually not responsible for their choices of how they spend it. Everybody has to invest something to deliver their craft. A handyman needs tools and materials. A carpenter as well. They pay taxes. And so on. That’s the reality of doing business. If they are not business savvy enough to turn a profit. Not my responsibility. That’s called free market capitalism by the way. Everybody is free to try to make money on their terms in any given environment. But nobody is entitled to actually make money. That’s how the market actually acts as an agent for economic and business evolution. Not the worst thing there is, given how well real existing socialism worked. I grew up next to the GDR. I know how "strong" their economy was. How successful their companies were. Other aspects, like creating a social net to mitigate the worst effects of capitalism on the people is a topic for a different thread imho, though.

And I'll agree with you the day we all decide to pay a monthly fee that is big enough to support various websites and creators.

by 0dayz 2y ago

And I'll agree with you the day we all decide to pay a monthly fee that is big enough to support various websites and creators.

ndriscoll 2y ago

Why? As a HN-er/content creator, I don't see why it would be taken for granted that people need to be paid for their hobbies. In fact many people post online for enjoyment.

ESTheComposer 2y ago
If you're a HN-er you should know the culture of HN is very old school and fringe mentality. E.g: - Flip phones are celebrated in some threads because people don't want smart phones (extreme minority in real life) - Disabling JS and pushing sites to go back to just raw HTML CSS (with some even not understanding why we need JS, extreme minority irl. IRL site owners care about attracting customers and the things they want to do can't be done with raw HTML CSS much of the time) - Kagi taking off. IRL most people still do and will continue to Google - People acting like if ads were disabled forever the population would totally pay for things they like (IRL people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. People want the things they want for the cheapest cost possible) HN is a very specific type of tech-centric bubble
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >IRL people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. It is? That's not my observation. In fact, music piracy seems to be all but dead, thanks to the streaming services. Movie piracy is not, and seems to be increasing (hard to say though), because of people getting frustrated with the fragmentation of streaming; back in Netflix's heyday, it seemed like movie piracy was much smaller, because you could just pay $7/month to Netflix and watch whatever you wanted. >People want the things they want for the cheapest cost possible No, most people want convenience. That's why music piracy is basically dead. Piracy is usually a PITA, and it's easy to subscribe to Spotify or Apple Music and listen to everything you want. Piracy is usually a service problem, not an economics problem.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > Movie piracy is not, and seems to be increasing (hard to say though), because of people getting frustrated with the fragmentation of streaming I feel that proves the point. When everything is all together for $20 people don't mind. when it's spread out, people are too lazy to sub/unsub to other $20 services as needed to watch content on demand. Someone that's a heavy enough power user to watch that much TV shouldn't mind paying $100+ to keep up. Premium cable was way more expensive and restrictive back in the day. Meanwhile, all that conversation and none of these streaming services are even profitable. Because giving all your content away for rent isn't financially viable. But it's still too much for lazy consumers. So the entire thing collapses. >No, most people want convenience. That's why music piracy is basically dead. It's also why people completely raged when Netflix and GamePass increased prices. There definitely is a breaking point for many (past the ones who complain about every price hike on the internet but stay subscribed). >Piracy is usually a service problem Everytime I hear this, I simply need to point to the mobile industry to prove it wrong (or maybe right? Just not the way people think is "fair"). They fixed piracy by doing the classic Web dev action: Keep everything valuable on your server. The APK you pirate is worthless, as it is simply a thin client into their actual value. We know how the rest ends from there.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >I feel that proves the point. When everything is all together for $20 people don't mind. I think this proves my point, that it's a service problem. Put everything together in a single, easy-to-use service for a low price (like Netflix in 2012), and only the true die-hards will still bother with piracy. Ask them to subscribe to a whole bunch of services (with a high total cost) or try to figure out how to save money by strategically subscribing and unsubscribing to see the stuff they want, and have to deal with shows suddenly disappearing or moving to a competing service when they're half-finished watching them, and many will simply go back to torrenting because it's honestly easier than all that BS. But instead you think people are "lazy"... A lazy person doesn't do torrenting; it's really not that easy. >Premium cable was way more expensive and restrictive back in the day. Back then, 1) there weren't many alternatives. At the beginning of cable TV's reign, videotapes weren't even commonly available. And 2) back then, people had more disposable income because the cost-of-living was much, much lower (particularly housing). Technology is much better now too, so people expect to pay less. >Meanwhile, all that conversation and none of these streaming services are even profitable. Citation needed. Last I checked, Netflix is doing quite well, and even better after cracking down on the password-sharing. >It's also why people completely raged when Netflix and GamePass increased prices. Some people raged, but Netflix's subscriber count has increased and profits are up, so obviously those people either got over it, or were a small minority.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  in all fairness, I'm sure Kagi is aware it's serving a niche right now. It's more a matter if that niche (maybe a few thousand consistent subscibers?) can support their infrastructure. You don't need to compete with Google to make a good living.
labcomputer 2y ago
I’m sort of amazed this has to be explicitly stated: Because most YouTube creators (even the hobbyists) are at least partially motivated by money, and if you take away all the money they will likely make less content or stop altogether. I understand that it’s fun to get things for free, but that’s usually not sustainable.
- sdoering 2y ago
  If they want to make money, they are totally free to have a website hosting their content behind a paywall. Than I can decide if their content is worth money to me (let me tell you: in 999 out of 1000 "creators" it isn't). But I already pay for a few select content creators. And happily shell out more than I would pay YT for an adfree experience.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Spoilers: the 1 out of 1000's won't get your money either because of any number of arbitrary reasons unrelated to their craft that is conjured up. - Slow website/video host? Great now they need to pay for a better host or pay a web dev to optimize their site. - Not responive? now that dev/service needs more money. - pay is too much (meanwhile they still can't even make minimum wage)? Well, their fault for valuing themselves over a McDonalds' employee - they pivot to premium teaching and now are a "scam"? Why am I here, I can google and learn this for free on Youtube You can't win with some people.
    - sdoering 2y ago
      They receive my money, as I pay them the way they ask for it. I am actually not responsible for their choices of how they spend it. Everybody has to invest something to deliver their craft. A handyman needs tools and materials. A carpenter as well. They pay taxes. And so on. That’s the reality of doing business. If they are not business savvy enough to turn a profit. Not my responsibility. That’s called free market capitalism by the way. Everybody is free to try to make money on their terms in any given environment. But nobody is entitled to actually make money. That’s how the market actually acts as an agent for economic and business evolution. Not the worst thing there is, given how well real existing socialism worked. I grew up next to the GDR. I know how "strong" their economy was. How successful their companies were. Other aspects, like creating a social net to mitigate the worst effects of capitalism on the people is a topic for a different thread imho, though.