4 ms·
Isn't this a way of saying you can only monetise a site off the backs of users who have money? There are two ways out of this. One, as described, to block off
by frossie 18y ago
Isn't this a way of saying you can only monetise a site off the backs of users who have money?
There are two ways out of this. One, as described, to block off users who can't pay. I can't tell you how sad that makes me - the net, divided into haves and have nots. Progress, not.
The second one is to take the long view. Many of the places mentioned are emerging economies. Subsidise them now and that will pay off in the long run. I like this one better, but then I am not the Facebook CFO.
- HSO 18y agoAgree. OTOH, a business is not a charity, by definition. I guess that as a businessman, you'd have to calculate whether your expectation of future revenue justifies the added expense, in which case you are really "investing" in a future market, not "subsidising" it. Still, something feels wrong about cutting data/information flow on this basis on the net...
- harpastum 18y agoBusiness: "The practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce." Charity: "Generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering." I don't see how business precludes charity 'by definition'. "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."[1] They don't qualify that with 'only if it makes us money.' [1]http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/