4 ms·

The pricing denomination is set both too high and too low at the same time, depending on whom we're talking about. The whole idea of micropayments to support, f

by lvs 12y ago

The pricing denomination is set both too high and too low at the same time, depending on whom we're talking about. The whole idea of micropayments to support, for instance, content creators was to generally envision a transactional denomination far below $1 -- hence the word "micro." Since even this really never got off the ground in any significant way, isn't it a stretch to imagine that $1/month is a low enough psychological barrier-to-entry for most average consumers. Similarly, for those true supporter zealots, is limiting the top end to $3/month logical? Why should it be limited at all?

lettergram 12y ago
My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.
- ori_b 12y ago
  Basically, if this is the project I think it is, all they're doing is letting you act as your own advertiser, with the ad that you're running being an empty pixel pattern.
  - username223 12y ago
    Good call. Basically, they can turn users with a PREF cookie into additional bidders for ad auctions on their network (and others, maybe?). $1-3 isn't much, but if you pool a large number of users' money, you can both drive auction prices to increase your revenue, and drive users to contribute more when their "contribution" stops removing ads. One can never be too cynical.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Wouldn't they be basically holding your sanity to ransom at this point, asking for an ever increasing amount of money?
      - username223 12y ago
        Protection rackets aren't exactly a new way to make money. People don't like ads, and Google serves many of the ads, so they can shake people down, and use the extra money to make their competitors' lives harder. Meanwhile, their tracking business is unaffected.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jonlucc 12y ago
  Perhaps, but I think $1 across enough sites would be fine to me. The problem for me is that my dollar will almost certainly go to one or two of the sites each month. In that case, I'll just go pay for that website's upgraded service.
  - koala_man 12y ago
    my dollar will almost certainly go to one or two of the sites each month. Why? Do you only visit one or two sites in a given month?
    - jonlucc 12y ago
      Because of the very few sites involved, yes, I will only visit 1 or 2 of them.
jacques_chester 12y ago
Microtransactions didn't work because it either imposed mental overhead or relied on tipping culture. So either you're guessing whether the article is reeeeaaaally worth 1 cent, or you're wondering if these $0.001 increments are going to add up to a whopper, or you feel annoyed having to press the "tip" button all the time. This model -- independently invented several times -- removes that entirely. > Why should it be limited at all? Small amounts drastically reduce the attractiveness of using this to launder stolen credit card money.

by lvs 12y ago

lettergram 12y ago

My guess (haven't researched yet) is that Google is taking a percentage, and Google needs that percentage needs to be high enough to make it worth while.

ori_b 12y ago
Basically, if this is the project I think it is, all they're doing is letting you act as your own advertiser, with the ad that you're running being an empty pixel pattern.
- username223 12y ago
  Good call. Basically, they can turn users with a PREF cookie into additional bidders for ad auctions on their network (and others, maybe?). $1-3 isn't much, but if you pool a large number of users' money, you can both drive auction prices to increase your revenue, and drive users to contribute more when their "contribution" stops removing ads. One can never be too cynical.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Wouldn't they be basically holding your sanity to ransom at this point, asking for an ever increasing amount of money?
    - username223 12y ago
      Protection rackets aren't exactly a new way to make money. People don't like ads, and Google serves many of the ads, so they can shake people down, and use the extra money to make their competitors' lives harder. Meanwhile, their tracking business is unaffected.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jonlucc 12y ago
Perhaps, but I think $1 across enough sites would be fine to me. The problem for me is that my dollar will almost certainly go to one or two of the sites each month. In that case, I'll just go pay for that website's upgraded service.
- koala_man 12y ago
  my dollar will almost certainly go to one or two of the sites each month. Why? Do you only visit one or two sites in a given month?
  - jonlucc 12y ago
    Because of the very few sites involved, yes, I will only visit 1 or 2 of them.

jacques_chester 12y ago

Microtransactions didn't work because it either imposed mental overhead or relied on tipping culture. So either you're guessing whether the article is reeeeaaaally worth 1 cent, or you're wondering if these $0.001 increments are going to add up to a whopper, or you feel annoyed having to press the "tip" button all the time. This model -- independently invented several times -- removes that entirely. > Why should it be limited at all? Small amounts drastically reduce the attractiveness of using this to launder stolen credit card money.