4 ms·

Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model.

by Workaccount2 1y ago

xandrius 1y ago
Are those the only options? How about paying once, owning a specific version and that's it?
- dukeyukey 1y ago
  Not great for a chat app, which needs ongoing active servers and someone to fix stuff that breaks, even if you feature-freeze it.
  - jjani 1y ago
    Pretty great for a chat app used by a few billion people, a few $billion is enough to keep things running for many decades. e.g. banks do exactly this, with much more critical and complicated infra.
    - xur17 1y ago
      How do banks do this?
    - ldsd 1y ago
      Don't banks also charge a monthly fee?
- phalangion 1y ago
  That works for software, but not as well for services like YouTube
  - dilyevsky 1y ago
    Even for software practice has shown few are actually willing to pay hundreds to thousands for a lifetime license. And you still need to purchase service packs, etc
leptons 1y ago
Were we even given a choice? In most cases, no.
93po 1y ago
people didn't vote for shit, if they could vote they'd vote for no ads and no cost. companies like google destroyed this option on purpose. there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free. if i look for tetris on the app store it's literally impossible to find a version that's both ad free and free of purchases despite the fact that i know there's at minimum 100 options that fit this criteria. google/apple just buries them and deliberately doesnt allow filtering to find them
- thfuran 1y ago
  >there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free You can give away software, but running a service costs money. P2p messaging can be free (and signal exists), but nothing like free and adless YouTube or Facebook is going to happen regardless whether google or meta do anything to prevent it.
  - jjani 1y ago
    The Saudis would love to have a platform as popular as YouTube for their image washing purposes, no matter if it costs them a cool $billion or two per year to keep it ad-free. They don't do it because they'd rather not antagonize Google, a company wielding global power, otherwise they'd love to.
  - 93po 1y ago
    there are tons of free mastadon servers that cost nothing to end users and perfectly capture the functionality of twitter/facebook/whatever. yes there is root cost at its core, but its distributed across people who volunteer to pay for it on smaller scales becasue they enjoy running those services. agreed its trickier when its gets to stuff like youtube, but piracy being free and widely spread is an example of how its possible, just not well developed right now there's also options where it's pay-as-you-go with stuff like bitcoin (e.g. i pay $0.01 to watch a video) where it's effectively free but on large scale does cover the costs of infra
    - 9dev 1y ago
TrackerFF 1y ago
As we have all learned, ad and subscription models aren't mutually exclusive. You can still get ads while paying for a subscription. In fact, I don't believe the ad model would have gone away if everyone started paying for a subscription. The bottom tier would still be filled with ads. Ideally, the market would solve this. The companies that are pushing annoying would lose customers to the companies that don't. But since we don't live in a ideal world, I honestly think regulations would be the only way. Something like "If a customer pays for subscription in any way, you can't show ads" - and then let the companies put a realistic price to their subscription tiers, which makes it worthwhile for them.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Ad subsidized subscriptions are cheaper. I don't see what people find so grating about having a ad-load/cost spectrum. Maybe it's just confusion about the billing model.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    They are cheaper until they aren’t. The neat thing about a plan that removes all ads is that you can just add the ads again later and introduce yet another, even more expensive plan that removes the ads again. Such fun! Much profit!
dakiol 1y ago
I pay for 2 streaming services. They include annoying ads and the only way to avoid ads is, yeah to just pay more. No sense at all.
- drexlspivey 1y ago
  That makes perfect sense actually, you pay them half of the ad revenue to get rid of half the ads.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Perfect sense. Later, we pay to get ride of 90% of the ads to still have ads everywhere. Then 99% and on.
JohnFen 1y ago
It's totally possible to have the ad model without all the spying. It's just that marketers don't want that to be an option. They're all in on spying on us.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Yes, it's possible for marketers to act contrary to their own interests. Is that really your point?
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    My point is that the problem isn't really advertising, it's the spying.
Macha 1y ago
As smart TVs, cable TV and streaming services show, even things that people generally pay for will get the ad model given enough time.
fransje26 1y ago
> Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model You make it sound as if those were the only two options available..
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Right, I left out the donation model because less than 1% of users ever actually donate anything. It's hardly worth even considering for vast majority of businesses.

Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model.

xandrius 1y ago

Are those the only options? How about paying once, owning a specific version and that's it?

dukeyukey 1y ago
Not great for a chat app, which needs ongoing active servers and someone to fix stuff that breaks, even if you feature-freeze it.
- jjani 1y ago
  Pretty great for a chat app used by a few billion people, a few $billion is enough to keep things running for many decades. e.g. banks do exactly this, with much more critical and complicated infra.
  - xur17 1y ago
    How do banks do this?
  - ldsd 1y ago
    Don't banks also charge a monthly fee?
phalangion 1y ago
That works for software, but not as well for services like YouTube
- dilyevsky 1y ago
  Even for software practice has shown few are actually willing to pay hundreds to thousands for a lifetime license. And you still need to purchase service packs, etc

leptons 1y ago

Were we even given a choice? In most cases, no.

93po 1y ago

people didn't vote for shit, if they could vote they'd vote for no ads and no cost. companies like google destroyed this option on purpose. there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free. if i look for tetris on the app store it's literally impossible to find a version that's both ad free and free of purchases despite the fact that i know there's at minimum 100 options that fit this criteria. google/apple just buries them and deliberately doesnt allow filtering to find them

thfuran 1y ago
>there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free You can give away software, but running a service costs money. P2p messaging can be free (and signal exists), but nothing like free and adless YouTube or Facebook is going to happen regardless whether google or meta do anything to prevent it.
- jjani 1y ago
  The Saudis would love to have a platform as popular as YouTube for their image washing purposes, no matter if it costs them a cool $billion or two per year to keep it ad-free. They don't do it because they'd rather not antagonize Google, a company wielding global power, otherwise they'd love to.
- 93po 1y ago
  there are tons of free mastadon servers that cost nothing to end users and perfectly capture the functionality of twitter/facebook/whatever. yes there is root cost at its core, but its distributed across people who volunteer to pay for it on smaller scales becasue they enjoy running those services. agreed its trickier when its gets to stuff like youtube, but piracy being free and widely spread is an example of how its possible, just not well developed right now there's also options where it's pay-as-you-go with stuff like bitcoin (e.g. i pay $0.01 to watch a video) where it's effectively free but on large scale does cover the costs of infra
  - 9dev 1y ago

TrackerFF 1y ago

As we have all learned, ad and subscription models aren't mutually exclusive. You can still get ads while paying for a subscription. In fact, I don't believe the ad model would have gone away if everyone started paying for a subscription. The bottom tier would still be filled with ads. Ideally, the market would solve this. The companies that are pushing annoying would lose customers to the companies that don't. But since we don't live in a ideal world, I honestly think regulations would be the only way. Something like "If a customer pays for subscription in any way, you can't show ads" - and then let the companies put a realistic price to their subscription tiers, which makes it worthwhile for them.

Workaccount2 1y ago
Ad subsidized subscriptions are cheaper. I don't see what people find so grating about having a ad-load/cost spectrum. Maybe it's just confusion about the billing model.
- 9dev 1y ago
  They are cheaper until they aren’t. The neat thing about a plan that removes all ads is that you can just add the ads again later and introduce yet another, even more expensive plan that removes the ads again. Such fun! Much profit!

dakiol 1y ago

I pay for 2 streaming services. They include annoying ads and the only way to avoid ads is, yeah to just pay more. No sense at all.

drexlspivey 1y ago
That makes perfect sense actually, you pay them half of the ad revenue to get rid of half the ads.
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Perfect sense. Later, we pay to get ride of 90% of the ads to still have ads everywhere. Then 99% and on.

JohnFen 1y ago

It's totally possible to have the ad model without all the spying. It's just that marketers don't want that to be an option. They're all in on spying on us.

IAmBroom 1y ago
Yes, it's possible for marketers to act contrary to their own interests. Is that really your point?
- JohnFen 1y ago
  My point is that the problem isn't really advertising, it's the spying.

Macha 1y ago

As smart TVs, cable TV and streaming services show, even things that people generally pay for will get the ad model given enough time.

fransje26 1y ago

> Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model You make it sound as if those were the only two options available..

Workaccount2 1y ago
Right, I left out the donation model because less than 1% of users ever actually donate anything. It's hardly worth even considering for vast majority of businesses.