3 ms·
I’m sick of this idea that “free” services are beneficial to society. There is no such thing as a free lunch; users are essentially bartering their time, attent
by mcmcmc 8mo ago
I’m sick of this idea that “free” services are beneficial to society. There is no such thing as a free lunch; users are essentially bartering their time, attention, IP (contributed content) and personal/behavioral data in exchange for access to the service.
By selling those services at a cost of “free”, hyperscalers eliminate competition by forcing market entrants to compete against a unit price of 0. They have to have a secondary business to subsidize the losses from servicing the “free” users, which of course is usually targeted advertising to capitalize on the resources paid by users for access. Or simply selling to data brokers.
With the importance of training data and network effects, “free” services even further concentrate market power. Everyone talks about how AI is going to take away jobs, but no one wants to confront how badly the anticompetitive practices in big tech are hurting the economy. Less competition means less opportunity for everyone else, regardless of consumer benefit.
The only way it works if the “free” service for tutoring or healthcare is through government subsidies or an actual non-profit. Otherwise it’s just going to concentrate market power with the megacorps.
- hn_acc1 8mo agoThis 1000x. "Free" is only a viable business model if the govt funds it. Otherwise, the $$ has to come from somewhere else in the company - how long will it take for the company to lose interest in a loss-leader when they're making $$ from other parts? Look at all the deprecated Google products. What happens when Gemini-SaaS makes billions from licensing to other companies, and Gemini-Charity-for-the-poors starts losing money? Sadly, the bigger the $$ in the tech pie, the more we have attracted robber barons, etc.
- drnick1 8mo ago> I’m sick of this idea that “free” services are beneficial to society. There is no such thing as a free lunch; users are essentially bartering their time, attention, IP (contributed content) and personal/behavioral data in exchange for access to the service. In aggregate, this is true, but there are many ways to game the system to one's advantage and get a true "free lunch." For example, people watching Youtube with an adblocker and logged out don't provide Google with any income or useful telemetry. Likewise you can get practically unlimited GPT/Claude/etc by using multiple accounts.
- mcmcmc 8mo agoNo, you are misunderstanding th economic principle. There is still a cost associated with serving that user, and the user is still paying for the cost of their internet connection and the opportunity cost of spending time on the service, or of setting up new accounts to get past usage limits. “No useful telemetry” I don’t really agree with in the YouTube example, as view counts are still vital for their recommendation algorithm. TINSTAFL has two main implications. First that nothing is free, someone has to pay for it. Second is that money is not the only thing you pay with; every choice has an opportunity cost. Gaming the system costs someone something.
- wisty 8mo agoOk sow how about "much cheaper"?
- NetMageSCW 7mo agoSo what do you think of Linux or OSS / GPL software?