4 ms·

I think the author doesn't realize that what's changed about the Internet isn't the technology. It's the people that changed. Today folks expect to get things f

I think the author doesn't realize that what's changed about the Internet isn't the technology. It's the people that changed. Today folks expect to get things for free with adverts. But now people don't want the adverts either so they use uBlock (I know I do). So, what's left for content and technology/service creators to do? I think micropayments would be a viable solution if a platform that's fairly secure and non-intrusive was created (I don't think Paypal or Bitcoin fit the bill). But the problem is that people today are rightly concerned about identity theft which can wind up draining their bank accounts or tanking their credit score. So, I'm not sure such a scheme would ever take off if companies like Sony can't secure their own infrastructure. Anyways, the author should realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Either you pay in advertisements and data mining your personal info or you pay up front. Honestly, I prefer to pay up front and as directly to the creators as possible.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Except we tried micropayments about a bazillion times and they have universally failed. People don't want yet another monthly bill, which is what micropayments would be. You'd "subscribe" to various sites and services and it would eat at your bitcoin or whatever that you would need to replenish monthly. Ads aren't as terrible as the average INTJ male makes them out to be. They're trivial to block as well. The OP's post is just one long angry rant. I'm not even sure what the take away here is other than how monetization works on the modern web (internet is not only the web!!). Everything about this screams, "The mainstream doesn't care about my marginalized interests and opinions!" If anything, the mainstream has it pretty good. I pay something like 1/10th for Google Music what I spent at the record store annually. As a music lover, being able to tap into 30m songs trivially is pretty amazing. Geeks used to write love letters to a future with a "universal jukebox" and here we are, yet no one is happy! Old fashioned ideas of "collecting" albums and such are bizarre to me. The people into that always seemed to do it for some kinda of social gravitas so they could show off their "taste." I just like the music. I don't need to own it, I just need access to it. Hell, it even makes radio stations based on my library or by artist, or even by song if I choose. This completely invalidates whatever questionable value radio stations provide today. What a waste of bandwidth all these FM/AM stations are. Retiring them and selling that spectrum off for better LTE makes sense to me. The old ways aren't always good, in fact, a lot of the old ways were shit. They're old compromises and dinosaur tech that's overstayed their welcome. Lets not pine too badly for the past. It was shit for the most part. As a person in his 40s, I think we have it better than ever.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  The problem is the blocking of the adverts. Even if the percentage of users blocking is below a certain percentage like 20% or lower, that's still money lost to the ad firms. They won't just sit idly by while we use uBlock and the like. They'll double down on the whole matter. Probably start with interstitial ads, but it could become as annoying as blocking any browser that runs an adblocker extension.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Honestly, I don't think the new services are a problem. They fill a niche in the market. Streaming services are for folks who don't want to manage their own media (physical or digital). Those folks prefer ownership of access over ownership of media itself. In itself it's fine as something to supplement a media library. But I don't believe most people realize that once access to the media is lost due to economic reasons (loss of job, service company goes bankrupt, and etc) that it's lost forever. Well as much as forever means in such a situation since you have to rebuild your entire playlist as it's not a standardized format from streaming service to streaming service (and I'm willing to bet it never will become standardized in any capacity). Either way, you pay a price. I still stand by my view that up front cost (direct ownership) is better than cost applied over time (ownership of access).
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    This is a minor hassle compared to the fairly significant cost savings. When I was a teen/early 20s I'd spend something like $50-100 per record store visit. I'd go at least quarterly, buy music at concerts, etc. I'd easily spend $500 or more annually in 1990s/early 2000's money. Discs were $12-15 for a very long time, singles were economically stupid, and dealing with crap like scratched discs or skipping in the car was the norm. Now, I'm paying $120 annually, in 2015 dollars, and every single song of that 30m library is available on my phone, which seamlessly connects to my car and other devices. I can also listen via the under-rated google music web player. I don't know any young person without Google Music or Spotify. They're popular for a reason and not because we don't understand economics.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Except we tried micropayments about a bazillion times and they have universally failed. People don't want yet another monthly bill, which is what micropayments would be. You'd "subscribe" to various sites and services and it would eat at your bitcoin or whatever that you would need to replenish monthly. Ads aren't as terrible as the average INTJ male makes them out to be. They're trivial to block as well. The OP's post is just one long angry rant. I'm not even sure what the take away here is other than how monetization works on the modern web (internet is not only the web!!). Everything about this screams, "The mainstream doesn't care about my marginalized interests and opinions!" If anything, the mainstream has it pretty good. I pay something like 1/10th for Google Music what I spent at the record store annually. As a music lover, being able to tap into 30m songs trivially is pretty amazing. Geeks used to write love letters to a future with a "universal jukebox" and here we are, yet no one is happy! Old fashioned ideas of "collecting" albums and such are bizarre to me. The people into that always seemed to do it for some kinda of social gravitas so they could show off their "taste." I just like the music. I don't need to own it, I just need access to it. Hell, it even makes radio stations based on my library or by artist, or even by song if I choose. This completely invalidates whatever questionable value radio stations provide today. What a waste of bandwidth all these FM/AM stations are. Retiring them and selling that spectrum off for better LTE makes sense to me. The old ways aren't always good, in fact, a lot of the old ways were shit. They're old compromises and dinosaur tech that's overstayed their welcome. Lets not pine too badly for the past. It was shit for the most part. As a person in his 40s, I think we have it better than ever.

norea-armozel 11y ago
The problem is the blocking of the adverts. Even if the percentage of users blocking is below a certain percentage like 20% or lower, that's still money lost to the ad firms. They won't just sit idly by while we use uBlock and the like. They'll double down on the whole matter. Probably start with interstitial ads, but it could become as annoying as blocking any browser that runs an adblocker extension.
norea-armozel 11y ago
Honestly, I don't think the new services are a problem. They fill a niche in the market. Streaming services are for folks who don't want to manage their own media (physical or digital). Those folks prefer ownership of access over ownership of media itself. In itself it's fine as something to supplement a media library. But I don't believe most people realize that once access to the media is lost due to economic reasons (loss of job, service company goes bankrupt, and etc) that it's lost forever. Well as much as forever means in such a situation since you have to rebuild your entire playlist as it's not a standardized format from streaming service to streaming service (and I'm willing to bet it never will become standardized in any capacity). Either way, you pay a price. I still stand by my view that up front cost (direct ownership) is better than cost applied over time (ownership of access).
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  This is a minor hassle compared to the fairly significant cost savings. When I was a teen/early 20s I'd spend something like $50-100 per record store visit. I'd go at least quarterly, buy music at concerts, etc. I'd easily spend $500 or more annually in 1990s/early 2000's money. Discs were $12-15 for a very long time, singles were economically stupid, and dealing with crap like scratched discs or skipping in the car was the norm. Now, I'm paying $120 annually, in 2015 dollars, and every single song of that 30m library is available on my phone, which seamlessly connects to my car and other devices. I can also listen via the under-rated google music web player. I don't know any young person without Google Music or Spotify. They're popular for a reason and not because we don't understand economics.