I've always thought that the ad supported internet is something people will eventually get sick of and the financial foundation would evolve over time to find models that don't rely on infinite spam. Instead efforts are focussed on forcing us to view them. At this point I'm expecting the next version of Chrome to require the Ludovico technique while browsing.
I mean, many (several?) sites tried optional subscriptions where you pay to get rid of ads, but that doesn't seem to have worked. Judging by the fact that most sites that have subscriptions instead of ads use pay walls.
People have come to expect free access, so if you can easily use an ad blocker, why would you choose to pay to remove the ads that a blocker removes for free.
Let's just take NYT for example. Subscription costs $325/year. Why would I ever pay that much? It's not 1954. I'm not sitting down with my morning coffee and reading the damn thing front to back. I'm reading maybe one article a week from 15 different sources. Am I supposed to pay $5000/year just to cover my bases?
As with everything else in [CURRENT YEAR] the value proposition is so absurdly out of step with reality that fixing it basically relies on rolling out the guillotines.
IMHO the problem is the same one as everywhere. Companies are no longer interested in creating products, they are only interested in creating revenue streams. I've been working on my finances lately and it's incredible how many 'products' have become subscriptions over time.
I'd love to be able to buy a day's access, or access to an article. If I want to share it, I'm willing to pay a small fee to show it to certain folks. I feel like there could be a market there but in the current financial climate it would never get any interest or backing because it wouldn't be a method to capture people into a reoccurring billing cycle.
Something I think is interesting is that, in order for companies to adopt these better non ad reliant models, they would have to dramatically scale down.
In a climate where ad and clicks = revenue, your solution is to scale as large as you can and pump out content to maximize views. But that wouldn't work under normal models
if I ran the world, these tech companies would get the ma bell treatment, heck the current phone companies need a round 2.
As does the entire financial sector
I'm not visiting any of those sites regularly. I'm not subscribing to any outlet without sampling their content, either. So that was always going to fail.
In the before times you were able to purchase one edition of a paper and be done with it. Now it's subscription only, so they won't see a dime from me.
Not only do people expect free access, they feel entitled to endless free content.
God forbid YouTube charge a subscription fee to help pay creators or show ads. No no, we all gotta jump on whatever app makes it free of ads and denies anyone a single cent for the content consumed.
Even if YouTube is the actual devil, other platforms exist that do a better job of paying creators but we don't talk about Nebula, we just talk about getting around the ads at YouTube without letting YouTube ever see a cent. As if having millions of videos available at the touch of a finger to anyone with an Internet connection is somehow free.
The problem with YouTube is they will keep adding more ads until people stop tolerating it.
It used to be a single ad at the start of the video you could skip after 5 seconds. Now it's multiple unskippable ads before the video starts. Often you don't know if this is the video you want anyway, and if it's not you spent more time on the ads than the video itself.
Once you do find the video you want you get random interruptions mid sentence for more unskippable ads. If people just shrug and say "they have to pay for it somehow" then YouTube rubs their hands together and puts more ads in until they find the point where more ads = less viewership.
If the single "skip after 5s" ad was untenable long term then they shouldn't have started with a service they couldn't actually provide. I'm sick of these companies purposely running an unprofitable business just to get users, and then when they change the model to try to become profitable act like it's the users fault that the company sold them on something they can't maintain.
If you want to support a creator do it through Patreon. The amount they get from YouTube is garbage. If I didn't have a way to block YouTube ads I just wouldn't watch YouTube anymore, so they aren't losing any money from me running an AdBlock.
Nebula is good. Maybe different models besides YouTube are in order.
I've always thought that the ad supported internet is something people will eventually get sick of and the financial foundation would evolve over time to find models that don't rely on infinite spam. Instead efforts are focussed on forcing us to view them. At this point I'm expecting the next version of Chrome to require the Ludovico technique while browsing.
I mean, many (several?) sites tried optional subscriptions where you pay to get rid of ads, but that doesn't seem to have worked. Judging by the fact that most sites that have subscriptions instead of ads use pay walls.
People have come to expect free access, so if you can easily use an ad blocker, why would you choose to pay to remove the ads that a blocker removes for free.
Let's just take NYT for example. Subscription costs $325/year. Why would I ever pay that much? It's not 1954. I'm not sitting down with my morning coffee and reading the damn thing front to back. I'm reading maybe one article a week from 15 different sources. Am I supposed to pay $5000/year just to cover my bases?
As with everything else in [CURRENT YEAR] the value proposition is so absurdly out of step with reality that fixing it basically relies on rolling out the guillotines.
IMHO the problem is the same one as everywhere. Companies are no longer interested in creating products, they are only interested in creating revenue streams. I've been working on my finances lately and it's incredible how many 'products' have become subscriptions over time.
I'd love to be able to buy a day's access, or access to an article. If I want to share it, I'm willing to pay a small fee to show it to certain folks. I feel like there could be a market there but in the current financial climate it would never get any interest or backing because it wouldn't be a method to capture people into a reoccurring billing cycle.
Something I think is interesting is that, in order for companies to adopt these better non ad reliant models, they would have to dramatically scale down.
In a climate where ad and clicks = revenue, your solution is to scale as large as you can and pump out content to maximize views. But that wouldn't work under normal models
if I ran the world, these tech companies would get the ma bell treatment, heck the current phone companies need a round 2.
As does the entire financial sector
I'm not visiting any of those sites regularly. I'm not subscribing to any outlet without sampling their content, either. So that was always going to fail.
In the before times you were able to purchase one edition of a paper and be done with it. Now it's subscription only, so they won't see a dime from me.
Not only do people expect free access, they feel entitled to endless free content.
God forbid YouTube charge a subscription fee to help pay creators or show ads. No no, we all gotta jump on whatever app makes it free of ads and denies anyone a single cent for the content consumed.
Even if YouTube is the actual devil, other platforms exist that do a better job of paying creators but we don't talk about Nebula, we just talk about getting around the ads at YouTube without letting YouTube ever see a cent. As if having millions of videos available at the touch of a finger to anyone with an Internet connection is somehow free.
The problem with YouTube is they will keep adding more ads until people stop tolerating it.
It used to be a single ad at the start of the video you could skip after 5 seconds. Now it's multiple unskippable ads before the video starts. Often you don't know if this is the video you want anyway, and if it's not you spent more time on the ads than the video itself.
Once you do find the video you want you get random interruptions mid sentence for more unskippable ads. If people just shrug and say "they have to pay for it somehow" then YouTube rubs their hands together and puts more ads in until they find the point where more ads = less viewership.
If the single "skip after 5s" ad was untenable long term then they shouldn't have started with a service they couldn't actually provide. I'm sick of these companies purposely running an unprofitable business just to get users, and then when they change the model to try to become profitable act like it's the users fault that the company sold them on something they can't maintain.
If you want to support a creator do it through Patreon. The amount they get from YouTube is garbage. If I didn't have a way to block YouTube ads I just wouldn't watch YouTube anymore, so they aren't losing any money from me running an AdBlock.
Nebula is good. Maybe different models besides YouTube are in order.
Some seem to do OK with:
Peertube + LiberaPay
The problem is they’re trying to double down on infinite spam by implementing infinite subscriptions alongside it.