5 ms·

Interesting, though I don't think the optimization of friction in payment flows is the issue -- it's more that people in general don't want to pay for access to

Interesting, though I don't think the optimization of friction in payment flows is the issue -- it's more that people in general don't want to pay for access to the internet just to have to pay for specific sites/apps. It would be like paying for cable connection AND paying for individual channels -- it's stupid and a generally despised practice (and they STILL show you commercials!) Further it's regressive, as it impacts lower income and developing countries hardest.

betterunix 13y ago
"people in general don't want to pay for access to the internet just to have to pay for specific sites/apps" People in general do pay for apps and do pay for subscriptions to specific sites (e.g. Netflix). I do not think the problem is that people are cheap. Let's put it this way: imagine having to enter payment information every time you clicked on a HN link. That is the reason sites see people running for the hills when they put up a paywall. The paywall interrupts the entire experience, and people just go elsewhere. There is also the matter of charging people enough to even cover the transaction costs -- which results in big charges that scare people off. From where I sit, the answer is to make the payments as small and transparent as possible, and digital cash is a perfect fit. "it's stupid and a generally despised practice (and they STILL show you commercials!)" This is where I think the problem will come in: the fact that web advertising would not go away even if a micropayment system were used. The answer is for browsers to fight advertising head on, making things like ABP the default. "Further it's regressive, as it impacts lower income and developing countries hardest." Sure, but that is a social problem, not a technical problem, and there are social solutions to it. Here is one idea, adapted from Jaron Lanier: pay people for their contributions to websites. Imagine if every HN upvote gave you 1/10 the cost of a single page view. Imagine if every time someone viewed your Youtube video, you received some fraction of the micropayment sent to Youtube. That is clearly a harder thing to do, since it requires that individual people receive payments, but again it is not insurmountable from a technical perspective. People in developing countries could then monetize their own use of the Internet, and possibly bootstrap their web browsing (or make it less painful). Another idea is that developing countries can host their own websites, with their own payment structures, catering to local cultures and languages. The Internet is not supposed to have borders, so I am not a big fan of this approach, but it does have its advantages.

betterunix 13y ago

"people in general don't want to pay for access to the internet just to have to pay for specific sites/apps" People in general do pay for apps and do pay for subscriptions to specific sites (e.g. Netflix). I do not think the problem is that people are cheap. Let's put it this way: imagine having to enter payment information every time you clicked on a HN link. That is the reason sites see people running for the hills when they put up a paywall. The paywall interrupts the entire experience, and people just go elsewhere. There is also the matter of charging people enough to even cover the transaction costs -- which results in big charges that scare people off. From where I sit, the answer is to make the payments as small and transparent as possible, and digital cash is a perfect fit. "it's stupid and a generally despised practice (and they STILL show you commercials!)" This is where I think the problem will come in: the fact that web advertising would not go away even if a micropayment system were used. The answer is for browsers to fight advertising head on, making things like ABP the default. "Further it's regressive, as it impacts lower income and developing countries hardest." Sure, but that is a social problem, not a technical problem, and there are social solutions to it. Here is one idea, adapted from Jaron Lanier: pay people for their contributions to websites. Imagine if every HN upvote gave you 1/10 the cost of a single page view. Imagine if every time someone viewed your Youtube video, you received some fraction of the micropayment sent to Youtube. That is clearly a harder thing to do, since it requires that individual people receive payments, but again it is not insurmountable from a technical perspective. People in developing countries could then monetize their own use of the Internet, and possibly bootstrap their web browsing (or make it less painful). Another idea is that developing countries can host their own websites, with their own payment structures, catering to local cultures and languages. The Internet is not supposed to have borders, so I am not a big fan of this approach, but it does have its advantages.