5 ms·

> "Because nearly every internet business gets it's revenue from advertising" Citation please? There are many "internet businesses" that don't derive their rev

> "Because nearly every internet business gets it's revenue from advertising" Citation please? There are many "internet businesses" that don't derive their revenue from advertising, e.g., AWS, Dropbox, Netflix. Spotify derives some revenue from advertising, but their core business is subscriptions. ad nauseum

eevilspock 12y ago
Count all of the web content you've consumed and all the web services you've used in the past year. Now count all the ones you've paid for. Also, those paid-for services you mention are of such high quality (to you, not advertisers) because you pay for them. You are the customer not the product, as they say.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  That isn't entirely fair. There are some websites that offer a free tier in the hopes that enough users will buy the paid tier. I suppose one could call this a form of advertising, but Dropbox giving me 2gb free does not seem to the type of manipulative advertising you are referring to (and is not a revenue source for them).
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    Granted. But it does't change the numbers very much. Keep counting.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  You're right, and it's depressing that you're being downvoted. Then again, HN can be a very hostile place if you bring an unpopular perspective to a discussion, even if that perspective is presented with clarity of thought and reason.
  - vdaniuk 12y ago
    Unpopular? Really? "Advertising is bad" is one of the most supported memes on HN.
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    Thanks. The vote total on my original comment has swung up and down so many times that I know it's getting lots of downvotes. The same goes for many of my previous comments in this vein. As to vdaniuk's claims of an anti-advertising meme on HN, I say: "show me". I've seen little.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Most people don't pay for Wikipedia, how are they the product? Many people pay for Hulu and many other services, and still get ads, how are they not the product? That cliché can't die soon enough.
  - jamesisaac 12y ago
    It's quite representative of the problem if you can't identify the difference between Wikipedia - a non-profit which is entirely ad-free and runs exclusively on donations, compared with the majority of other free sites which are funded by subjecting their visitors to advertising. No wonder Wikipedia has so to push so hard with its annual donation drives, if people can't even recognise the benefits of keeping it free from commercialism. Hulu is an example which mixes both approaches - clearly an $8/mo premium subscription isn't enough to support their business model, so it has to be supplemented with ads. Not sure why this needs explaining. TV is obviously an industry very tightly coupled with ads, making it more difficult to disrupt with a fully ad-free approach.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I can identify the difference - the cliché can't! That's my whole point! Wikipedia is the proof the paying is not always required to not "be the product", unlike claimed. Hulu proves that it's also not sufficient.
      - jamesisaac 12y ago
        Fair enough - I thought you were claiming the cliché was generally incorrect, not that there are a few exceptions which break it. Obviously I can't argue with that. It's intended as a rule of thumb and applies to the vast majority of the internet. Especially if you count a donation-driven site like shareware software - an encouraged, but optional, request for payment.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Wikipedia is not a business, so that's irrelevant. Hulu's just funny to me. You're paying to be a product. It means the business decision makers will respect you a little, but how much depends on how much of the revenue you're bringing in and what sort of industry it is. The cliché is an excellent guide to the situation. So many people don't seem to understand why ad-supported businesses work they way they do, and in particular why they don't seem to have the customer's best interests in mind.

eevilspock 12y ago

Count all of the web content you've consumed and all the web services you've used in the past year. Now count all the ones you've paid for. Also, those paid-for services you mention are of such high quality (to you, not advertisers) because you pay for them. You are the customer not the product, as they say.

gizmo686 12y ago
That isn't entirely fair. There are some websites that offer a free tier in the hopes that enough users will buy the paid tier. I suppose one could call this a form of advertising, but Dropbox giving me 2gb free does not seem to the type of manipulative advertising you are referring to (and is not a revenue source for them).
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Granted. But it does't change the numbers very much. Keep counting.
enraged_camel 12y ago
You're right, and it's depressing that you're being downvoted. Then again, HN can be a very hostile place if you bring an unpopular perspective to a discussion, even if that perspective is presented with clarity of thought and reason.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  Unpopular? Really? "Advertising is bad" is one of the most supported memes on HN.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Thanks. The vote total on my original comment has swung up and down so many times that I know it's getting lots of downvotes. The same goes for many of my previous comments in this vein. As to vdaniuk's claims of an anti-advertising meme on HN, I say: "show me". I've seen little.
icebraining 12y ago
Most people don't pay for Wikipedia, how are they the product? Many people pay for Hulu and many other services, and still get ads, how are they not the product? That cliché can't die soon enough.
- jamesisaac 12y ago
  It's quite representative of the problem if you can't identify the difference between Wikipedia - a non-profit which is entirely ad-free and runs exclusively on donations, compared with the majority of other free sites which are funded by subjecting their visitors to advertising. No wonder Wikipedia has so to push so hard with its annual donation drives, if people can't even recognise the benefits of keeping it free from commercialism. Hulu is an example which mixes both approaches - clearly an $8/mo premium subscription isn't enough to support their business model, so it has to be supplemented with ads. Not sure why this needs explaining. TV is obviously an industry very tightly coupled with ads, making it more difficult to disrupt with a fully ad-free approach.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I can identify the difference - the cliché can't! That's my whole point! Wikipedia is the proof the paying is not always required to not "be the product", unlike claimed. Hulu proves that it's also not sufficient.
    - jamesisaac 12y ago
      Fair enough - I thought you were claiming the cliché was generally incorrect, not that there are a few exceptions which break it. Obviously I can't argue with that. It's intended as a rule of thumb and applies to the vast majority of the internet. Especially if you count a donation-driven site like shareware software - an encouraged, but optional, request for payment.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Wikipedia is not a business, so that's irrelevant. Hulu's just funny to me. You're paying to be a product. It means the business decision makers will respect you a little, but how much depends on how much of the revenue you're bringing in and what sort of industry it is. The cliché is an excellent guide to the situation. So many people don't seem to understand why ad-supported businesses work they way they do, and in particular why they don't seem to have the customer's best interests in mind.