4 ms·

From the FAQ: Why isn't it free? So many things are free! This is a question we're surprised to get as often as we do. The short answer is we want to run an a

From the FAQ: Why isn't it free? So many things are free! This is a question we're surprised to get as often as we do. The short answer is we want to run an actual stable business so people know we're profitable and can meet their needs. We don't think someone's phone number is something we would trust to anyone but a business that will be there tomorrow. We also think it's a better relationship if we're trying to sell you a service instead of provide a service to you and sell YOU as the product to advertisers. Not everyone agrees, and that's ok, but it's worked well for us throughout our careers. We need more of this. Death to Ads!

kazinator 11y ago
It doesn't have to be either-or! Ads or fees can just be different points in a price structure. Pay nothing, and be the product sold to the ad syndicate. Or pay for the service, and don't view ads. One consumers may be all "Death to ads!". But the next one might be "Gimme for free! (And I will find a way to block the ads or just live with them)." In this situation, however, it's not obvious how the service could be supported by ads. This is a robot that works in the background and blocks calls. Whom do you show ads to pay for this? Audio ads to the callers who are rejected? The whole idea behind this is that the end-user who subscribes to the service is not to be bothered. He or she is not aware that the system is working when it is rejecting calls. If that user has to somehow view ads to have the service, it defeats the point. "An annoying call was blocked for you! Please view this 30 second ad in compensation!" LOL! Perhaps it could work like this: in the free version of the service, unwanted callers must hear an ad before they can get through to you or your voice mail. They are told this. If they listen to the ad, then they do get through. In the premium version, you pay for the service. Unwanted callers are no longer told that they will have access after the ad plays. (The ad still plays, and they don't have access.) Also, how about monetizing access to yourself or your mailbox? What if I don't want to reject people, but make them pay to talk to me? "Sorry, reaching ... Kazinator ... during these hours requires a payment of ... two ... dollars ... and ... ninety ... nine .... cents. Please enter your credit card number, followed by a pound sign, or your four-digit speed-pass payment code." :)
- eevilspock 11y ago
  Yes, it does. We all collectively pay for the economic and social costs of advertising. Advertising makes nothing free for anyone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords) also calls for an "anti-free-software movement" in Don't Be A Free User: https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/ https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/ There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers. As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Facebook Data Team, founder of Cloudera says, "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
  - kazinator 11y ago
    I was writing from the perspective of taking it for granted that this service is not actually free. From that perspective, ads versus fees are just different points in the price structure. (The very term "price structure" clarifies that it's not free.) Ad-supported services are quasi-free, in the sense that the the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio. Ads potentially rob you of time. But not necessarily. For instance during a TV commercial, you can take a washroom break or fix yourself a snack. Not all ad-supported programs are intrusive with the ads. I have a few on my smartphone, and none of them cause delays or very much interference with the operation of the program. They occupy some screen real estate and sometimes can be clicked by accident. (And that's probably a bad thing for the advertisers: an accidental click isn't an indication of true interest; such clicks will not become conversions at any significant rate.)
    - eevilspock 11y ago
      > the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio. I honestly don't think you followed my links and read carefully. And you're ignoring the opportunity costs and social costs, also explained in my link.
      - kazinator 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago

It doesn't have to be either-or! Ads or fees can just be different points in a price structure. Pay nothing, and be the product sold to the ad syndicate. Or pay for the service, and don't view ads. One consumers may be all "Death to ads!". But the next one might be "Gimme for free! (And I will find a way to block the ads or just live with them)." In this situation, however, it's not obvious how the service could be supported by ads. This is a robot that works in the background and blocks calls. Whom do you show ads to pay for this? Audio ads to the callers who are rejected? The whole idea behind this is that the end-user who subscribes to the service is not to be bothered. He or she is not aware that the system is working when it is rejecting calls. If that user has to somehow view ads to have the service, it defeats the point. "An annoying call was blocked for you! Please view this 30 second ad in compensation!" LOL! Perhaps it could work like this: in the free version of the service, unwanted callers must hear an ad before they can get through to you or your voice mail. They are told this. If they listen to the ad, then they do get through. In the premium version, you pay for the service. Unwanted callers are no longer told that they will have access after the ad plays. (The ad still plays, and they don't have access.) Also, how about monetizing access to yourself or your mailbox? What if I don't want to reject people, but make them pay to talk to me? "Sorry, reaching ... Kazinator ... during these hours requires a payment of ... two ... dollars ... and ... ninety ... nine .... cents. Please enter your credit card number, followed by a pound sign, or your four-digit speed-pass payment code." :)

eevilspock 11y ago
Yes, it does. We all collectively pay for the economic and social costs of advertising. Advertising makes nothing free for anyone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237 Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords) also calls for an "anti-free-software movement" in Don't Be A Free User: https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/ https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/ There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers. As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Facebook Data Team, founder of Cloudera says, "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads. That sucks."
- kazinator 11y ago
  I was writing from the perspective of taking it for granted that this service is not actually free. From that perspective, ads versus fees are just different points in the price structure. (The very term "price structure" clarifies that it's not free.) Ad-supported services are quasi-free, in the sense that the the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio. Ads potentially rob you of time. But not necessarily. For instance during a TV commercial, you can take a washroom break or fix yourself a snack. Not all ad-supported programs are intrusive with the ads. I have a few on my smartphone, and none of them cause delays or very much interference with the operation of the program. They occupy some screen real estate and sometimes can be clicked by accident. (And that's probably a bad thing for the advertisers: an accidental click isn't an indication of true interest; such clicks will not become conversions at any significant rate.)
  - eevilspock 11y ago
    > the display of ads is not actually eroding any dollars from your financial portfolio. I honestly don't think you followed my links and read carefully. And you're ignoring the opportunity costs and social costs, also explained in my link.
    - kazinator 11y ago