The company behind Adblock Plus is acquiring micropayment service Flattr(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
The company behind Adblock Plus is acquiring micropayment service Flattr
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/05/adblock-plus-acquires-flattr/
162 comments
The problem is pricing psychology. Netflix feels like a good deal because it is a ton of content for 10 bucks. Spotify feels like a good deal because individual songs are 1 buck, yes, but mostly because 10 bucks is worth not having to listen to the annoying ads.
Most internet content is just plain free. So people value it that way.
You can probably get people to subscribe to a WSJ/NYT/Local Paper subscription. But people probably won't pay for anything but the highest quality stuff they've long been conditioned to pay for. "Vox? Sorry but, I'd pay for blogs"
Most internet content is just plain free. So people value it that way.
You can probably get people to subscribe to a WSJ/NYT/Local Paper subscription. But people probably won't pay for anything but the highest quality stuff they've long been conditioned to pay for. "Vox? Sorry but, I'd pay for blogs"
There's also an issue of trust. I had an NYT subscription. NYT has always (more than) leaned left, but never in such a biased manner as in recent past. Their coverage (or lack of it) of Bernie's campaign for example.
So with a subscription, I'm not really subscribing to a rigorous and diplomatic institution that is helping me develop into a more knowledgeable person, or indeed, filling any useful role in my life. Instead, I'd be subscribing to further some numpty's propaganda pieces. And that would make me feel gross.
So with a subscription, I'm not really subscribing to a rigorous and diplomatic institution that is helping me develop into a more knowledgeable person, or indeed, filling any useful role in my life. Instead, I'd be subscribing to further some numpty's propaganda pieces. And that would make me feel gross.
Well substitute a more trusted source for you than NYT and we still have a problem to solve. I don't read NYT much, but Bernie was left of Hillary, FWIW- so I would have expected them to cover him more than her if they leaned heavily left. But whatevs; neither here nor there.
A microsubscription system (my own madeup name for the genre) needn't have 100% to be successful.
There were free newspapers before the internet, alongside the cover-priced ones. Bundling content is a proved business model at this point, except on the open web.
There were free newspapers before the internet, alongside the cover-priced ones. Bundling content is a proved business model at this point, except on the open web.
I pay for high bit rate and download in Spotify. Yes ads are definitely annoying but that alone wouldn't justify 10 bucks/month.
Regarding publishers, I'd happily pay 10 bucks/month for a bunch of publishers giving me a clean portal with focus on readability
Regarding publishers, I'd happily pay 10 bucks/month for a bunch of publishers giving me a clean portal with focus on readability
I thought about subscriptions for publishing in the past, very tricky. Surely I don't want revenue share to go "per view", quality is only going down that way (it's exactly the same situation as with ads, with publications struggling to get eyeballs, continuing in the clickbait practices that are killing the good stuff).
On the other hand I never felt like clicking the flattr button. But as things are now I prefer to opt in after reading a good article than ending up on some actual fake news by mistake and knowing I contributed to make them rich.
That is without even talking about the problem (in my opinion) that even the more innocent subscriptions (music, tv, movies) have with stuff like geo restrictions and exclusives...
And to be clear, I use uBlock Origin because ABP's idea of trusted publishers would be stupid even if it was not a shakedown business
On the other hand I never felt like clicking the flattr button. But as things are now I prefer to opt in after reading a good article than ending up on some actual fake news by mistake and knowing I contributed to make them rich.
That is without even talking about the problem (in my opinion) that even the more innocent subscriptions (music, tv, movies) have with stuff like geo restrictions and exclusives...
And to be clear, I use uBlock Origin because ABP's idea of trusted publishers would be stupid even if it was not a shakedown business
This lines up well with all the research into social vs financial norms and human biases surrounding things that are "free".
"I'll predict that within the next few years, the major publishers will come together and form their own subscription company with a revenue share"
That's like saying all the hotel companies should come together and form a company to compete with Expedia and Orbitz. But the hotel companies did exactly that, when they formed a joint venture to run RoomKey.com. And the team at RoomKey built some amazing technology. But the various hotel companies, who jointly owned the joint venture, fell to fighting and they starved RoomKey.com of money and independence. So RoomKey.com could have transformed the space for booking hotels, but RoomKey was sabotaged by its owners. Which turns out to be a very common story for joint ventures -- each partner has its own internal politics, and when they form a joint venture the result is complete dysfunction.
The moral of the story is: never underestimate the short-term greed and stupidity of big companies, and their ability to sabotage their own self-interest.
So don't expect the major publishers to have much success launching their own subscription service.
That's like saying all the hotel companies should come together and form a company to compete with Expedia and Orbitz. But the hotel companies did exactly that, when they formed a joint venture to run RoomKey.com. And the team at RoomKey built some amazing technology. But the various hotel companies, who jointly owned the joint venture, fell to fighting and they starved RoomKey.com of money and independence. So RoomKey.com could have transformed the space for booking hotels, but RoomKey was sabotaged by its owners. Which turns out to be a very common story for joint ventures -- each partner has its own internal politics, and when they form a joint venture the result is complete dysfunction.
The moral of the story is: never underestimate the short-term greed and stupidity of big companies, and their ability to sabotage their own self-interest.
So don't expect the major publishers to have much success launching their own subscription service.
RoomKey is also late and has extremely limited pricing options by existing contracts. Obviously, customers want the lowest price, but (as I understand it) RoomKey can't show the lowest price! How does RoomKey expect to gain market share with an unknown service that has higher prices?
One example of the joint venture model working in the content space is Hulu, owned by:
NBCUniversal (30%) Fox Entertainment Group (30%) Disney–ABC Television Group (30%) Turner Broadcasting System (10%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu
One example of the joint venture model working in the content space is Hulu, owned by:
NBCUniversal (30%) Fox Entertainment Group (30%) Disney–ABC Television Group (30%) Turner Broadcasting System (10%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulu
It might be interesting to compare the partnership agreements vis-a-vis Hulu and RoomKey to find where the weakness was in RoomKey, whether it was just "Huh, people turned out to like this Internet project, we better start micromanaging it," or if it was something more structural.
Only payment model that makes sense to me on the long run. Whichever company manages to conquer this space will make a fortune, this might replace a ton of advertising money.
[deleted]
I agree with all of this and have for years. I want to save the internet without having make people think about it.
About:
> If the WSJ and WaPo shared subscribers, the consumers would get double the content while the industry costs would stay the same. When consumers see additional value for their subscription dollars, they are more likely to sign up, increasing the number of potential customers.
The problem is paywalls. Both need paywalls to improve their revenue.
I have a protocol which covers both paywalled and unpaywalled sites. For the purposes of attracting ire, I applied for a US patent, which will hopefully land in the next month or two (I already hold an Australian one).
Then, I suppose, it will be time to ask rich people for money so I can make them richer.
Edit:
To expand a bit, consider that all the existing successful schemes are walled gardens. App stores are walled gardens, Netflix is a walled garden, Spotify is too.
But the web is, by its nature, an open garden.
What I developed, effectively speaking, allows users to support websites without paywalls, or to be passed through a paywall, without ever noticing the difference. All they'd notice is the absence of ads on participating websites.
About:
> If the WSJ and WaPo shared subscribers, the consumers would get double the content while the industry costs would stay the same. When consumers see additional value for their subscription dollars, they are more likely to sign up, increasing the number of potential customers.
The problem is paywalls. Both need paywalls to improve their revenue.
I have a protocol which covers both paywalled and unpaywalled sites. For the purposes of attracting ire, I applied for a US patent, which will hopefully land in the next month or two (I already hold an Australian one).
Then, I suppose, it will be time to ask rich people for money so I can make them richer.
Edit:
To expand a bit, consider that all the existing successful schemes are walled gardens. App stores are walled gardens, Netflix is a walled garden, Spotify is too.
But the web is, by its nature, an open garden.
What I developed, effectively speaking, allows users to support websites without paywalls, or to be passed through a paywall, without ever noticing the difference. All they'd notice is the absence of ads on participating websites.
So you reinvented Google Contributor?
Given that I thought of the basic model in 2008, based a dissertation on it in 2011 and filed for the patent in 2012, I am going to say no.
What you said is pretty much what I thought too. So i tried to validate if that is possible.
From a customers side: yes.
From a publishers side: No.
I went and talked to quite a lot CEOs in the news business. What i found is: the publishers don't care about their users. All they care about is not to cooperating with other publishers. That means, if you have a service that automatically gives each publisher a bit of money when you read their article. No publisher will join.
I went and talked to quite a lot CEOs in the news business. What i found is: the publishers don't care about their users. All they care about is not to cooperating with other publishers. That means, if you have a service that automatically gives each publisher a bit of money when you read their article. No publisher will join.
That makes me feel even less guilty about using adblockers and news aggregators primarily. They are stuck in the past, and the less we validate them in that and reinforce them in the opinion that this works, the better. We do need publishers, but we don't need publishers that are stuck on hating their users and each other. So maybe if enough people won't cooperate with their business model, somebody with money will get the message and disrupt them. I feel somewhat bad about it because innocent people may lose jobs on the way, but change is obviously needed, and it doesn't look like it will happen without disruption.
Wow, that is insanely broken. The publishers don't actually care about the people who read their articles.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but that's incredibly depressing.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but that's incredibly depressing.
[deleted]
Isn't this true of any industry that isn't "commodified"? That is to say, if there's still a narrative where a publisher can outperform other publishers, why would a publisher bind their future to other publishers?
IE, isn't this the same reason facebook doesn't partner with Google+ et al?
IE, isn't this the same reason facebook doesn't partner with Google+ et al?
I was looking (for research purposes only/for a friend/by mistake/I was bored) at the model used by the porn industry nowadays. I've never paid for porn, and I believe most people haven't either, but they have an incredibly efficient model. Instead of going for 1 shady website with some porn videos, you can signup for a porn network (brazzers, RealityKings, etc) that contains multiple smaller website as well. So for one flat monthly price you get multiple sites, each with a different theme to their porn content.
The free sites (pornhub, redtube and alikes) around use a different model though, where they make money from a side business of real time video chat, where you can tip the model with coins you buy in bulk, like a mobile game where you buy in-game currency.
I couldn't avoid making a comparison to the publisher business. Porn is just so much more efficient and advanced.
I would probably never pay a $5 subscription for WSJ, NYT or WaPo. But a $20 that gives me access to any news site online or even a $15 that gives me access to a good set of them now that's something I can wrap my head around.
The free sites (pornhub, redtube and alikes) around use a different model though, where they make money from a side business of real time video chat, where you can tip the model with coins you buy in bulk, like a mobile game where you buy in-game currency.
I couldn't avoid making a comparison to the publisher business. Porn is just so much more efficient and advanced.
I would probably never pay a $5 subscription for WSJ, NYT or WaPo. But a $20 that gives me access to any news site online or even a $15 that gives me access to a good set of them now that's something I can wrap my head around.
It's always weird to compare "mainstream" businesses to the porn industry, but they've shown themselves to consistently be ahead of the curve with technology.
Turn off your ad blocker, porn hub and redtube are still absolutely plastered in ads, invasive ads that get past the firefox popop blocker. I even had one the other day that stopped me from closing the firefox window it opened in.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up Blendle?
https://medium.com/on-blendle/blendle-a-radical-experiment-w...
https://medium.com/on-blendle/blendle-a-radical-experiment-w...
This was brought up by the top-voted post: I think Blendle has something going for it, but the individual articles are way too expensive (at least in Germany). Whenever I use Blendle I'm thinking: Do I really find that article worth 79 Cents? Three articles would be the whole paper - I don't want to read the whole paper on a computer screen anyway. With this economic considerations cascade going off anytime I'm using Blendle, I actually stopped using it completely.
I want a Spotify for newspapers.
I want a Spotify for newspapers.
It's like some law: everytime there's a discussion about newspapers, subscriptions or paying for content, someone will bring up Blendle. You can fairly say by now that Blendle is the Hitler of newspaper discussions.
The solution here is to use a hybrid model.
Users subscribe for $20/month (and that is their cap). And each page they visit they get dinged $0.01 (etc) and they have no risk of going over their cap.
When they hit a page with ads, the publisher site hides ads if they get paid $0.01, but they display ads if the users account is down to zero for that month.
Users subscribe for $20/month (and that is their cap). And each page they visit they get dinged $0.01 (etc) and they have no risk of going over their cap.
When they hit a page with ads, the publisher site hides ads if they get paid $0.01, but they display ads if the users account is down to zero for that month.
If I hit cap, it's not gunna force me to look at ads. It's gunna make me reinstall the ol adblocker.
Yes, the abonement payment is a great way to take the pain out of people's face. But most abo services have a long-a quitting period, like fitness centers usually have 6-12 months you need to pay after already deciding you don't want to anymore.
This is really bad and painful, and these service providers know that as well. But they still do it, so there must be a good reason for it.
I just suspect that abo is not the best way to make money because it also limits how much the user spends each month. For instance there may be a few months I don't spend a single cent on Steam (the computer game webshop/package manager), but when I spend, I spend a lot more than in a year of using Netflix. And even if I'm excited about Netflix, I can't give them more money (I have the biggest abo already).
Therefore I would say making money is not about the payment but about the sales process. It must be fun to buy and increase your excitement, then you'll buy more, maybe even unreasonable much. That's also why Kickstarter probably makes more money than Flattr. They enable and enforce good sales tactics with videos, picture driven articles and easily shared Kickstarter pages, while Flattr is only a button on another person's freely structured page. One increases excitement, the other doesn't.
This is really bad and painful, and these service providers know that as well. But they still do it, so there must be a good reason for it.
I just suspect that abo is not the best way to make money because it also limits how much the user spends each month. For instance there may be a few months I don't spend a single cent on Steam (the computer game webshop/package manager), but when I spend, I spend a lot more than in a year of using Netflix. And even if I'm excited about Netflix, I can't give them more money (I have the biggest abo already).
Therefore I would say making money is not about the payment but about the sales process. It must be fun to buy and increase your excitement, then you'll buy more, maybe even unreasonable much. That's also why Kickstarter probably makes more money than Flattr. They enable and enforce good sales tactics with videos, picture driven articles and easily shared Kickstarter pages, while Flattr is only a button on another person's freely structured page. One increases excitement, the other doesn't.
I don't think privacy and business mix. Personally, I have switched to uBlock Origin.
Agreed. If you haven't been following adblocking news in the last few years, Adblock Plus has been charging advertisers to get on a whitelist, as well as a few other less-than-ideal moves from a privacy perspective. There has also been issues with performance impact, which uBlock Origin seems to pretty consistently beat Adblock Plus on.
uBlock Origin is my recommendation as well.
Links:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/ublock/
uBlock Origin is my recommendation as well.
Links:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/ublock/
From a hustler perspective its genius. People install your add-on to block ads and then you SELL advertisers the right to get whitelisted. Genius move.
That being said, I also switched to uBlock and I owe Adblock plus nothing.
That being said, I also switched to uBlock and I owe Adblock plus nothing.
protection rackets are not really a novel invention..
Yup, and not new... In the tech space, that is what Yelp does (Pay $, suppress bad reviews). I'm sure there are other examples out there...
I don't think this is true. This may have happened in the past, but I don't think they do this, at least currently.
https://www.yelp.com/advertiser_faq
https://www.yelp.com/advertiser_faq
It may no longer be happening. Googling "Yelp extortion" will get you plenty of news hits, but this may have caused them to change their practices.
It's actually extraordinary how many "Yelp extortion" claims I've seen without a single bit of proof. It's not at all difficult to record a telephone conversation with a Yelp representative.
I've seen some thoughts about this:
- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" actually deserve their bad reviews.
- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" posted fake positive reviews. Unbeknownst to them, Yelp bots automatically detected and removed the fake reviews. Later, after rejecting a call from a Yelp rep asking to advertise, the business owner decides to check their Yelp page and sees that their fake reviews are gone, incorrectly deducing that Yelp is extorting them.
I've seen some thoughts about this:
- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" actually deserve their bad reviews.
- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" posted fake positive reviews. Unbeknownst to them, Yelp bots automatically detected and removed the fake reviews. Later, after rejecting a call from a Yelp rep asking to advertise, the business owner decides to check their Yelp page and sees that their fake reviews are gone, incorrectly deducing that Yelp is extorting them.
It's not at all difficult to record a telephone conversation with a Yelp representative.
I was at Radio Shack just yesterday looking for a way to do this. They didn't have a solution. Also, it's illegal where I am unless I advertise it.
So if I were to get a call right now from somebody and needed to record it I'm not sure what to do. Any suggestions?
I was at Radio Shack just yesterday looking for a way to do this. They didn't have a solution. Also, it's illegal where I am unless I advertise it.
So if I were to get a call right now from somebody and needed to record it I'm not sure what to do. Any suggestions?
I personally use an app called TapeACall. You could also just put your call on loudspeaker and record it with another device.
Google "chemtrails" you get lots of hits too.
Most of the people who read HN are probably knowledgable enough to also find uMatrix very useful (from the same author): https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix
In short, it allows for much more granular controls over what does and does-not load from any given domain. By default, it breaks a lot of websites. But with about 30 seconds of work, you will generate a policy for the domain, you hit save, and then that domain will be unbroken on every subsequent load. I find it useful as a noscript replacement.
In short, it allows for much more granular controls over what does and does-not load from any given domain. By default, it breaks a lot of websites. But with about 30 seconds of work, you will generate a policy for the domain, you hit save, and then that domain will be unbroken on every subsequent load. I find it useful as a noscript replacement.
+1. uMatrix is a bit of a pain the first few weeks, but once you get it configured for the sites you frequent, it's quite nice – and a nice side effect is that in general, pages load faster as you're not waiting on fifteen extra tracking scripts to load.
uMatrix is just the perfect union of script controls and ad blocking, and honestly even without knowledge the point-and-click interface would probably be very forgiving.
> Adblock Plus has been charging advertisers to get on a whitelist
For anyone interested, more details here: https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization
TLDR: it's for "unintrusive" ads only and you only pay if being on the whitelist gives you >10M extra ad impressions/month
The whole acceptable ads thing has an opt-out checkbox in the extension.
For anyone interested, more details here: https://adblockplus.org/about#monetization
TLDR: it's for "unintrusive" ads only and you only pay if being on the whitelist gives you >10M extra ad impressions/month
The whole acceptable ads thing has an opt-out checkbox in the extension.
I'd definitely prefer to use uBlock Origin for that reason, but Adblock Plus just seems to work better - I still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't..
> I still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't
Given that both Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin ("uBO") uses EasyList to block ads, this is a dubious claim, requiring at least some evidences.
Now add to this that uBO supports filter syntax not available on ABP[1], this makes your claim even more dubious. Feel free to provide actual examples.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#...
Given that both Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin ("uBO") uses EasyList to block ads, this is a dubious claim, requiring at least some evidences.
Now add to this that uBO supports filter syntax not available on ABP[1], this makes your claim even more dubious. Feel free to provide actual examples.
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#...
It's not a dubious claim, just his personal experience.
I switched to uBlock for a few years ago and had the opposite problem, it just seemed to break a few websites.
I didn't really dig into it, but from memory it seemed to be blocking a lot of requests it shouldn't resulting in things like Facebook Messenger breaking. So it's interesting that you point out they both use EasyList.
Perhaps I'll give it another try, but honestly, i don't notice any adverts with ABP so i tend to forget it's even there. I definitely noticed when uBO was installed.
Perhaps I'll give it another try, but honestly, i don't notice any adverts with ABP so i tend to forget it's even there. I definitely noticed when uBO was installed.
> It's not a dubious claim
The claim:
> still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't
... is definitely dubious. I still have to see such vague claims to be substantiated, with actual examples of where this happens.
Once in a while someone will provide a URL in support, but it turns out upon investigation that ABP also suffers the issue. I can readily provide URLs where it's actually the opposite, uBO works where ABP does not. For instance, try:
The claim:
> still see some ads using Origin, where with ABP I don't
... is definitely dubious. I still have to see such vague claims to be substantiated, with actual examples of where this happens.
Once in a while someone will provide a URL in support, but it turns out upon investigation that ABP also suffers the issue. I can readily provide URLs where it's actually the opposite, uBO works where ABP does not. For instance, try:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet
http://kissanime.ru/Anime/Demi-chan-wa-Kataritai-Dub (click on an episode link, start the player)
That sounds quite atypical, I can't imagine UBO/UB causing problems with FB Messenger of all things.
if someone is concerned about privacy they sure should not use Opera browser
+1 mee too.
Having run into this the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14032410
I'm inclined to agree. Clearly we're not alone in that sentiment, if you check the responses to their ill-conceived Twitter poll.
I'm inclined to agree. Clearly we're not alone in that sentiment, if you check the responses to their ill-conceived Twitter poll.
Me either, but I'm curious to see where this goes.
Ads suck but they are the defacto revenue model for the contemporary internet. Micropayments struggle partially because of the network effect... websites don't integrate because there aren't enough customers, and there aren't enough customers because most websites don't offer micropayments!
ABP could help establish a sustainable micropayment model for the broader internet, and ultimately help increase privacy by addressing that root cause (revenue). Their customer base is significant and the value proposition of "micropayments vs nothing" is much more compelling than "micropayments vs ads". Imagine if Google adopted the same standard with Google Wallet, Youtube, and native Chrome/Android support...
That said, I will continue using uBlock Origin in the mean time. Much faster than ABP :)
Ads suck but they are the defacto revenue model for the contemporary internet. Micropayments struggle partially because of the network effect... websites don't integrate because there aren't enough customers, and there aren't enough customers because most websites don't offer micropayments!
ABP could help establish a sustainable micropayment model for the broader internet, and ultimately help increase privacy by addressing that root cause (revenue). Their customer base is significant and the value proposition of "micropayments vs nothing" is much more compelling than "micropayments vs ads". Imagine if Google adopted the same standard with Google Wallet, Youtube, and native Chrome/Android support...
That said, I will continue using uBlock Origin in the mean time. Much faster than ABP :)
Ads don't suck per se. I could find them useful if they were related with the content I'm currently viewing and not with a search I did a week ago. It's profiling that makes things suck big time, because it's intrusive.
+1 for uBlock Origin.
+1 for uBlock Origin.
> Ads suck
I don't agree with this blanket statement. It is not ads that suck.
What sucks, for me, are ads that track me, ads that try to install malware, ads that are data and cpu hogs, ads that try to get my attention in anyway possible, ads that try to deceive me, etc..
I don't agree with this blanket statement. It is not ads that suck.
What sucks, for me, are ads that track me, ads that try to install malware, ads that are data and cpu hogs, ads that try to get my attention in anyway possible, ads that try to deceive me, etc..
> ads that try to deceive me
This is basically all ads, just a matter of degree. It's been a long time since ads where "Hello, I'm the spokesman, our product does X and Y, costs Z and I recommend it heartily".
Effective modern marketing is using a lot of psychology and statistics to tune the message to be as effective as possible without regard for facts (beyond what being caught obviously lying would cost you). It's all deception.
This is basically all ads, just a matter of degree. It's been a long time since ads where "Hello, I'm the spokesman, our product does X and Y, costs Z and I recommend it heartily".
Effective modern marketing is using a lot of psychology and statistics to tune the message to be as effective as possible without regard for facts (beyond what being caught obviously lying would cost you). It's all deception.
The new disgraced Pepsi ad for example. It's all about brand perception, not product quality.
Exactly. The Deck had great, non-intrusive adds. And they generally plugged good products. I clicked on just about everything I saw on Daring Fireball, both out of support for Gruber and because I was often introduced to new and interesting products. If done right, even an add agency can establish dedicated customers.
I use uBlock Origin and find that more and more content is blocked. Which frankly I don't mind--most content online is a waste of time. Even stuff like NYT or WSJ isn't worth much more than the headline.
> Imagine if Google adopted the same standard with Google Wallet, Youtube, and native Chrome/Android support...
major industry players charging us all for per-youtube, etc. views of everything? hmm
major industry players charging us all for per-youtube, etc. views of everything? hmm
You could say the same thing about Windows, especially now that they show ads (really?) in their product. Personally, I have switched to Linux (years ago).
I don't think privacy is the main motivation for most people installing ad block. I think HN is not representative of the market.
I developed a protocol for recording visits specifically designed to prevent publishers from piggybacking on it to identify users. Essentially, one less place for a supercookie.
However, it relies in part on a particular HTTP header, so from an information theoretic standpoint it will dramatically narrow the pool of candidates. Good enough for an individual who doesn't want to be profiled for advertising, not good enough for someone worried about advanced persistent threats.
However, it relies in part on a particular HTTP header, so from an information theoretic standpoint it will dramatically narrow the pool of candidates. Good enough for an individual who doesn't want to be profiled for advertising, not good enough for someone worried about advanced persistent threats.
My issue with flattr was that you actively had to tip. It would be nice to have a service that simply divided up a monthly allowance based on time and page views.
Maybe even make it a white list service that ask at the end of the month which sites you'd like to contribute and a notification if you have not black listed a site but keep saying you don't want to contribute.
Maybe even make it a white list service that ask at the end of the month which sites you'd like to contribute and a notification if you have not black listed a site but keep saying you don't want to contribute.
I started working on a very similar concept a couple of years ago, I called it PatronPie(.com). Patrons could specify a set monthly amount they wish to spend, then divvy up the "pie" by assigning percentage-based slices to their selected recipients.
Participating recipients could have an "Add us to your PatronPie" button on their sites that would give them a small, adjustable default slice. Patrons could edit their slices and monthly amount at any time. Monetization was easy, I just transparently took a percentage of each month's transactions by having a set slice of pie permanently pre-allocated to PatronPie.
I suspended the project when I discovered how hostile credit card companies are about letting an entity move funds in this way. Obviously it's possible to get special permission, as there are companies that do it, but I lacked the time and resources to push through the hassle barrier.
Participating recipients could have an "Add us to your PatronPie" button on their sites that would give them a small, adjustable default slice. Patrons could edit their slices and monthly amount at any time. Monetization was easy, I just transparently took a percentage of each month's transactions by having a set slice of pie permanently pre-allocated to PatronPie.
I suspended the project when I discovered how hostile credit card companies are about letting an entity move funds in this way. Obviously it's possible to get special permission, as there are companies that do it, but I lacked the time and resources to push through the hassle barrier.
It would be great to decentralize what is already done by Youtube Red and Spotify. I'm honestly surprised that something like that doesn't already exist. Allow sites to register against your payment service and then it keeps track of your visits and at the end of the month, shows you a report and distributes funds.
Edit: another cool facet to this idea would be that you don't have to hound end users to join, the content providers that sign up will do that for you :)
Edit round 2: looks like brave.com already does exactly this.
Edit: another cool facet to this idea would be that you don't have to hound end users to join, the content providers that sign up will do that for you :)
Edit round 2: looks like brave.com already does exactly this.
I'd like to see something that seamlessly ties a voting system (thumbs up/thumbs down) with a payment system and a social media aspect. Charge a dollar per thumbs up on a video, if a video has lots of thumbs ups than that means lots of people paid to say "this content is good" increasing the likelihood that it is actually good. All of the money can go to the content creator and the aggregator can make it's money with advertising.
Self-serving plug: I created valME.io to do exactly this. [1] It uses Bitcoin. [2] YoursNetwork also has a working prototype. [3]
[1] https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/pkqqs/the-genesis-of-v...
[2] https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/kqqqs/how-valme-works/
[3] https://stories.yours.org
[1] https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/pkqqs/the-genesis-of-v...
[2] https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/kqqqs/how-valme-works/
[3] https://stories.yours.org
That would be interesting. I like the idea of keeping a fixed monthly amount so you don't have to worry about upvoting things often, you just do what you always have done, and your preferences support creators accordingly.
It would also help with downvote-brigading if it cost something to vote it down.
One other self-serving post: that's the way valME.io works. [1]
[1] https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/nqqqs/why-does-it-cost...
[1] https://valme.io/c/gettingstarted/faq/nqqqs/why-does-it-cost...
Brave looks great, except it seems weird to make it a full fledged browser instead of simply a plugin
There is room in the market for another browser. One that is as good as Chrome but unencumbered by the conflicts of the advertising business.
That sounds like Firefox
Sounds like Firefox with Electolysis finished, all chrome extensions working on all platforms and Chrome devtools ported over.
ie. Firefox becoming more like Chrome
ie. Firefox becoming more like Chrome
Ignore the dev tools (Chrome's are worse than Firefox), but add hardware video decoding and hardware compositing
Ey! I should probably check it out then, thanks
My Firefox updates for the past few years have solely consisted of checking the dev wiki inconsistently and the issue tracker each time there was a Tor browser security issue - so I'm prob missing other stuff to
That said, I can't wait for Mozilla to come back. The world needs Firefox.
My Firefox updates for the past few years have solely consisted of checking the dev wiki inconsistently and the issue tracker each time there was a Tor browser security issue - so I'm prob missing other stuff to
That said, I can't wait for Mozilla to come back. The world needs Firefox.
Are browser plugins possible on mobile devices?
Firefox for Android allows many of the same addons as the desktop browser, such as uBlock, HTTPS Everywhere, or Self-Destructing Cookies.
Yea, after further inspection it appears to be higher friction than it needs to be
"The two companies were already working together on a project initially called Flattr Plus, where users can allocate a monthly payment to online publishers. The money is then distributed based on users’ engagement with different sites and articles."
Exactly this. I've been looking for this for a while, and was hoping this was the direction Medium was going to take when they changed direction.
I want my fixed monthly "internet content subscription" divided between things I read that month, with the option to veto things that turned out to be clickbait and to allocate more to articles that I found exceptionally valuable.
I want my fixed monthly "internet content subscription" divided between things I read that month, with the option to veto things that turned out to be clickbait and to allocate more to articles that I found exceptionally valuable.
As I've pointed out before, all the enthusiasm about micropayments is from people who want to collect micropayments. There's no demand from people who want to send micropayments.
There's a trend towards charging for timeliness. The movie industry would like an online model where streaming movies cost most shortly after release, then decline in price. This fits the "bargain bin at the video rental store" model.
This works for Bloomberg, but they think minutes where the movie industry thinks months. "Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg terminal". That's the whole pitch of their financial news-gathering operation. Pay $25K a year and get the info a few minutes sooner. It's worth it for traders.
There's a trend towards charging for timeliness. The movie industry would like an online model where streaming movies cost most shortly after release, then decline in price. This fits the "bargain bin at the video rental store" model.
This works for Bloomberg, but they think minutes where the movie industry thinks months. "Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg terminal". That's the whole pitch of their financial news-gathering operation. Pay $25K a year and get the info a few minutes sooner. It's worth it for traders.
I work in the games industry and you would be surprised how often we get feedback for games which don't have any micropayments and which cost full $50 price - "please make a way to unlock everything quickly for a fee". I don't know if it's because people are so used to it because of stupid free-to-play games on mobiles or what.
I use uBlock Origin, but I hope they can make something good of this. Flattr is a good idea, but it never gained critical mass. Patreon is fine for hobbyists with dedicated fans, but not really for websites you only visit every now and then. Someone will eventually figure out "Netflix for News/Webstuff" so I support anyone trying.
https://brave.com is another attempt at this. You can fill a 'wallet' and have Brave distribute it to publishers
EDIT: Brave also focuses on privacy and ad blocking. It's also already released.
EDIT: Brave also focuses on privacy and ad blocking. It's also already released.
Brave does a lot more than just that though - it's a full fledged browser built on Electron. On desktop I found it lacking, but on mobile it's an excellent option. A good compromise between the UI responsiveness of Chrome and the extensibility and privacy features of Firefox for Android.
I finally bit the bullet and downloaded it. It's a pretty seamless transition from using chrome. I'm really impressed.
Amazon is actually EXCELLENTLY positioned to build a cross-domain paywall, a distributed Spotify for the web. Bezos owns the Post and knows the space, they have tremendous mindshare among developers (so the actual paywall API would be trusted out of the gate, hell they could even throw around AWS discounts to incentivize the cost of integration), and they have a strong ability to negotiate: "no, you don't get your own terms because you think you're a big news site, you get paid at the same rates everyone else does, because we're the WalMart here and our word is law."
The only reason I can imagine they haven't done this already is that they're mired in endless bureaucratic debates about whether this should be bundled with Prime... -_-
The only reason I can imagine they haven't done this already is that they're mired in endless bureaucratic debates about whether this should be bundled with Prime... -_-
Bezos owning the Post is actually an argument against Amazon ever being successful at providing a portal for different news publishers. Would you entrust your business to a competitor? Of course not.
AdBlock is utterly useless these days. It doesn't block much. Some of the most astonishingly stupid ads from Taboola are let through as part of their "trusted" program.
Apparently when that happens with an "Acceptable Ad" you're supposed to report it so they can remove it from their whitelist: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#false-positives
The only beef I really have with the Acceptable Ads program is that, since it doesn't discriminate based on ad content, only ad format, occasionally it will let through an ad where the presentation isn't annoying, but the content is. (E.g. A small static image ad that wouldn't normally be obtrusive, except it features a picture of a half-naked woman and the type of clickbaity text you'd expect to see on the cover of a tabloid.)
The only beef I really have with the Acceptable Ads program is that, since it doesn't discriminate based on ad content, only ad format, occasionally it will let through an ad where the presentation isn't annoying, but the content is. (E.g. A small static image ad that wouldn't normally be obtrusive, except it features a picture of a half-naked woman and the type of clickbaity text you'd expect to see on the cover of a tabloid.)
Check out uBlock Origin. Ablock Plus doesn't have a lot of integrity.
I could see this being really good for them if they can get content creators interested independent of their own subscription options.
There are sites that I go to 2-4 times a month (e.g. the Guardian, Wired, The Atlantic) that I'd love to support, but I'm not motivated enough to subscribe to the more expensive ones at $70/year (Guardian), $52/year (Wired, $1/week for the website with adblocker and it's separate from their print+tablet subscriptions), etc. The Atlantic at $24/year is a much more palatable option.
I sometimes feel bad about not being able to support them with ad revenues, but these days I regard even the better ad networks as unmarked minefields.
There are sites that I go to 2-4 times a month (e.g. the Guardian, Wired, The Atlantic) that I'd love to support, but I'm not motivated enough to subscribe to the more expensive ones at $70/year (Guardian), $52/year (Wired, $1/week for the website with adblocker and it's separate from their print+tablet subscriptions), etc. The Atlantic at $24/year is a much more palatable option.
I sometimes feel bad about not being able to support them with ad revenues, but these days I regard even the better ad networks as unmarked minefields.
Exactly. I assume they are leaving a great deal of money on the table. But then again there are some smart people working in digital publishing, and presumably they have done the focus groups, etc. and found that readers aren't interested. But I also think if there was a secure, distributed payment infrastructure...
I like good investigative journalism and frustrated I can't pay to support it.
For instance, WSJ endlessly sticks paywall for recycled news.
Some journalists risk their lives for the sake of jouranlism.
https://magazine.atavist.com/he-always-had-a-dark-side
This was posted a while back on HN and we talked about how to support such journalists that take actual risks which needs to be rewarded.
For instance, WSJ endlessly sticks paywall for recycled news.
Some journalists risk their lives for the sake of jouranlism.
https://magazine.atavist.com/he-always-had-a-dark-side
This was posted a while back on HN and we talked about how to support such journalists that take actual risks which needs to be rewarded.
You can support amazing independent organizations like the Center for Investigative Reporting. They accept donations in any amount.
How about the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (Panama Papers)?
https://donate.icij.org/ or https://www.gofundme.com/icijorg2017
https://donate.icij.org/ or https://www.gofundme.com/icijorg2017
The real problem with the panama papers incident is that it's not clear whether people on that list have done wrong or anything interesting.
Clearly, it was a way to hide away ill gotten cash for some people but it also has legitimate usage. I disagree the way it attempts to paint anyone who's name shows up in the panama papers as a criminal.
Lastly, I want to pay for journalism that weaves together a highly interesting and entertaining story. I think part of the talent is not just telling the facts but weaving a good story that invokes emotional response.
Panama papers did not meet those criteria so it's not as interesting as that paul le roux story.
Clearly, it was a way to hide away ill gotten cash for some people but it also has legitimate usage. I disagree the way it attempts to paint anyone who's name shows up in the panama papers as a criminal.
Lastly, I want to pay for journalism that weaves together a highly interesting and entertaining story. I think part of the talent is not just telling the facts but weaving a good story that invokes emotional response.
Panama papers did not meet those criteria so it's not as interesting as that paul le roux story.
[deleted]
Notice everyone is suggesting uBlock Origin. Please Please be careful installing uBlock
https://www.reddit.com/r/ublock/comments/32mos6/ublock_vs_ub...
You should be installing "uBlock origin".
You should be installing "uBlock origin".
Wow this is BAD this is soooo bad. The company behind Adblock Plus is very evil.
- "Acceptable Ads" aka extortion money enabled ads enabled by default.
- Their CEO made money with scamming sites.
- They used to have a url correction "feature" that added Amazon reflinks to your urls without asking.
- They lied back in the days about that companies can buy themselves onto the acceptable ads list. They claimed it was community decided, that everyone can get on it if the have no annoying ads. Then researchers found out Google payed them 10000€ already and stuff.
- They are connected to various German Media companies that are pushing fake news with their ads on it ...
Fattr on the other Hand was made by this awesome guy form the pirate bay who has a great vision for the web. The two now fit together at all if you ask me.
I switched to a Addon Fork (True Adblock or something) that had the "Acceptable Ads" removed very early on. Then swiched to uBlock origin. So much better in EVERY way. Guy who does it does not even want (last I checked) donations, no BS company that wants to make money, is dishonest ... behind it. Technical faster, much better UI, better list of filters easy checkable on one giant page the way it should be. Can praise it enough. Seriously if you are reading this install uBlock Origin NOW!
- "Acceptable Ads" aka extortion money enabled ads enabled by default.
- Their CEO made money with scamming sites.
- They used to have a url correction "feature" that added Amazon reflinks to your urls without asking.
- They lied back in the days about that companies can buy themselves onto the acceptable ads list. They claimed it was community decided, that everyone can get on it if the have no annoying ads. Then researchers found out Google payed them 10000€ already and stuff.
- They are connected to various German Media companies that are pushing fake news with their ads on it ...
Fattr on the other Hand was made by this awesome guy form the pirate bay who has a great vision for the web. The two now fit together at all if you ask me.
I switched to a Addon Fork (True Adblock or something) that had the "Acceptable Ads" removed very early on. Then swiched to uBlock origin. So much better in EVERY way. Guy who does it does not even want (last I checked) donations, no BS company that wants to make money, is dishonest ... behind it. Technical faster, much better UI, better list of filters easy checkable on one giant page the way it should be. Can praise it enough. Seriously if you are reading this install uBlock Origin NOW!
I have heard about Flattr a few times over the years and the idea sounds great in theory. Personally though I have never met someone who has actually used it, nor have I come across a place I frequent to use it.
Would love to hear from other's about their experience with it.
Would love to hear from other's about their experience with it.
I've used it until about a year ago. In theory it's pretty good, but it never reached critical mass. Sites were not using it, because it didn't pay off and users weren't using it because you didn't have enough sites. Most things I used it for was blogs, quite a few of the ones I had in my RSS reader have/had flattr, and I supported them that way
Flattr was midly popular, then Patreon ate their cake.
Not really a fan of both, as pretty much any hobby project that tried to monetize with Patreon lost its soul. If something is free and suddenly they want money for it, even if there are free alternatives that usually doesn't work. To each their own, some probably like it. I avoid reoccurring monthly costs, where possible and prefer one time costs or just good old advertisement.
Not really a fan of both, as pretty much any hobby project that tried to monetize with Patreon lost its soul. If something is free and suddenly they want money for it, even if there are free alternatives that usually doesn't work. To each their own, some probably like it. I avoid reoccurring monthly costs, where possible and prefer one time costs or just good old advertisement.
I cannot agree with the idea that something wanting to pay the bills has "lost its soul".
For sure. I know a lot of Twitch streamers, and that is a full-time goddamn job. Wanting to be able to pay rent off of something that a lot of people like (and some of the streamers I know are north of 10,000 viewers when they're on, so while they're not huge they're not small either) is not a big ask. Yeah, there are alternatives--but if you like what you're watching and you're not hurting for cash, throw a buck a month in the hat.
I find Patreon funded content to be far less soulless than advertising funded content. (This comment brought to you by Audible).
I believe that's a risk and some projects have probably not managed it well. For what it's worth, I've been happy with the half-dozen or so projects I support on Patreon, so it's certainly not a universal failing. I think it's important for the creators to phrase it as supporting a work that is already free, rather than as charging for providing a service.
Years ago when I tried to use it, the default currency was the Euro. As an American, doing the currency exchange on their website added friction to the transaction.
I like the idea of micropayments to support content.
But I wasn't able to get Flattr to accept my credit card. Wasn't sure if it was because they are Sweden-based and I am in the US, as I didn't keep trying.
But I wasn't able to get Flattr to accept my credit card. Wasn't sure if it was because they are Sweden-based and I am in the US, as I didn't keep trying.
I agree, I think this is a possible next maturation of content creation. People don't like advertisements, it is difficult to generally monetize online content otherwise from my understanding.
It reminds me of a similar theme in the music industry, record labels make most money, artists make little.
Whoever can solve this problem for the masses of content creators is surely bound to make lots of money.
It reminds me of a similar theme in the music industry, record labels make most money, artists make little.
Whoever can solve this problem for the masses of content creators is surely bound to make lots of money.
The changes to Adblock Plus remind me of the changes to uTorrent over the years. Both did one thing well in the beginning, and slowly feature creeped (and added "features" undesirable to users) in a pursuit of grander ambitions.
The only question with micro payments is privacy. Otherwise it is no different from the current situation where majority of people are constantly logged in to Facebook or Google.
Having a fixed identity is not desirable from multiple perspectives. It allows others to create a personal bubble around you and feed you with controlled information.
When users can not be uniquely identified then Internet compares to the radio where you can be sure that every listener will receive the same information as you do. This means that users can not be individually deceived.
Having a fixed identity is not desirable from multiple perspectives. It allows others to create a personal bubble around you and feed you with controlled information.
When users can not be uniquely identified then Internet compares to the radio where you can be sure that every listener will receive the same information as you do. This means that users can not be individually deceived.
I do like the idea of micropayments for content. But doing so under the auspices of an ad-blocking tool or any client-side tool smells too much like a protection/extortion racket. This should be handled by the publishers themselves.
This actually gave me a bad taste until I read your comment, now I'm wondering if that exact situation might be a positive. Maybe it's a plus if they can say "We're hiding your ads, but here's an alternative" rather than simply "We're hiding your ads", full-stop.
The question is does the alternative provide privacy or replaces it with another tracking tool.
The record industry was incapable of doing that, it had to be imposed by outside companies. The TV/Movie industry is incapable of doing that, it has been imposed by Netflix/Amazon e.t.c. I don't think large publishers are any more capable of building their own micropayments system than either of the other industries I cited, they've certainly had long enough to try.
Offtopic, but "etc." isn't an acronym or initialism so shouldn't have periods after each letter. It is an abbreviation for "et cetera".
Fun fact: historically it could also be rendered &c., because, after all, the ampersand is itself just a ligature for "et".
Fun fact: historically it could also be rendered &c., because, after all, the ampersand is itself just a ligature for "et".
You're right, I really don't know where I picked that up from, but I think I've been doing it for a long time now, don't think I can break the habit.
Maybe they're saying that the Elite Tauren Chieftain imposed it? :-D
But those are both examples of subscriptions businesses - which the publishers already do.
Where in the article does it say that Flattr is going to be integrated into the AdBlock software?
Good luck to them.
I can only hope they manage to get people into paying for content and finally giving us alternatives to the terrible Ad based business model
I can only hope they manage to get people into paying for content and finally giving us alternatives to the terrible Ad based business model
I see a lot of people plugging uBlock Origin here. I am curious, has anyone gone through their code to make sure they are on the up and up. Look, I'm not saying that they are as scummy as ABP, all I am asking is if anyone knows, to some degree of sureness, that they are not also doing these scummy things too. The pressure on uBO must be pretty high.
uBlock Origin is written by gorhill, a user of much respect. I can't say I've heard of anyone auditing its source code, but you may find reading his comments interesting to make a better guess as to its legitimacy https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gorhill He seems pretty cool to me. And you can peruse the issues in the repo https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock I'm pretty sure you can't delete issues, so if someone found something and reported it you should be able to find it.
Thank you!
Glad to hear that Peter Sunde, Flattr's co-founder, has been able to move on with his life and have some success elsewhere after the Pirate Bay fiasco. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sunde#The_Pirate_Bay_tri...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sunde#The_Pirate_Bay_tri...
Micropayment tipping and subscriptions seem like features that should be part of the browser with standardized DOM APIs. Mozilla considered a website subscription feature back in 2014 called "Subscribe2Web".
https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/
https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/
The tip jar has to be the laziest of all the business models out there.
And yet how many of us waiters, waitresses, bartenders, baristas, cashiers, valets, etc have paid the bills because of the gratitude of others. It can work, especially when combined with social pressure to do so.
It works, but neither party likes it. If tipping can be avoided, it will be. Ex: UBER
I hate that Uber does not allow you to tip. I have had drivers who deserve way more than what they give them, and then I've had some drivers who deserve to have their licenses revoked. When I learned that Lyft allows you to specify a tip, I switched in an instant. Never missed Uber.
I wanted to switch to Lyft but stuck with Uber when I found out that Lyft has a tip option. It's not that they aren't great or deserve more money, it's just that I don't want to be a party to their employment arrangement. I really dislike tipping and would prefer that the product be priced correctly to begin with. I still do so as social protocol dictates, but eliminating the exchange of money entirely is probably the most valuable thing Uber provides for me.
> I really dislike tipping and would prefer that the product be priced correctly to begin with.
I disagree with this in part -- I will agree with you that most of these people deserve to be paid more regardless, but I disagree in the sense that they all be paid uniformly. Better service should get a better tip. If that's priced in, I have no choice in the matter, I am paying the same price for subpar or lackluster service. This would make me change services as a whole rather than just chalk it up to I had a bad driver. Allowing me to tip based on the level of service I receive is a form of recourse for the customer in the event of a terrible experience. It's also an incentive to the driver to perform better.
I disagree with this in part -- I will agree with you that most of these people deserve to be paid more regardless, but I disagree in the sense that they all be paid uniformly. Better service should get a better tip. If that's priced in, I have no choice in the matter, I am paying the same price for subpar or lackluster service. This would make me change services as a whole rather than just chalk it up to I had a bad driver. Allowing me to tip based on the level of service I receive is a form of recourse for the customer in the event of a terrible experience. It's also an incentive to the driver to perform better.
I've had no problem with any uber driver taking a small cash tip. $1-3 is always appreciated by them.
Right, but then you have to have cash.
Uber made tipping even more awkward by not allowing it in app but allowing drivers to harass people for tips.
I feel like it's being abused now. For instance, I always tip but felt betrayed when another waiter charged tip without even asking, and I was eating alone. I stopped going there.
Where does putting a paywall in front of your content fall on your laziness ranking?
Not at all. Asking money for your work isn't lazy. It's how the entire rest of the world works. It's how you're able to afford the ability to comment on this website.
Very low.
Paywalls are absolutely fair game to me. I have been a long time subscriber of giantbomb.com and wish more makers go that route.
Paywalls are absolutely fair game to me. I have been a long time subscriber of giantbomb.com and wish more makers go that route.
We tried something similar. Automatic adblocker with monthly subscription - block ads and distribute money by time spent per domain. Then bundle it as a simple "content" add-on on your ISP plan.
Issue was getting either publishers or ISPs to pay attention - even though the math came out to it being more profitable for both in most situations.
Issue was getting either publishers or ISPs to pay attention - even though the math came out to it being more profitable for both in most situations.
People are still using Adblock Plus? uBlock is the superior option because I can trust them not to sell out like ADP did.
It is not entirely clear how they will measure engagement and divide the budget among publishers. And how much is similar to Medium's new strategy?
I prefer the strategy of Patreon and the new strategy of Spotify. Receive new content first when you pay something.
They need to arm against Braves BAT and uBlock Origin.
But it seems to me that BAT is the future.
But it seems to me that BAT is the future.
There wher some scandals about them, no? Poor flattr.
it means paid ads are coming back !!
-This is why the unlimited Netflix / Spotify model is so good. Sure, the content owners could get more revenue from the heaviest consumers with a pay-per-click model, but only at the expense of all the sparse users would rather just pay a monthly fee than have to think "is this click worth it?" every time they want to consume additional content.
-I'll predict that within the next few years, the major publishers will come together and form their own subscription company with a revenue share similar to Spotify. Not sure why it's taking so long, but that day can't come soon enough for me. Why are the publishers letting AdBlock Plus and other potential startups start a business that they could own?
Here's my thought process:
-People read tons of different publications.
-Publications generally prefer subscription fees to ad revenue
-People don't want to deal with micropayments
-People don't want to pay for (or manage) multiple subscriptions
-Giving away your product for free (purposely or with weak paywalls) and asking for donations is probably not a long term sustainable strategy.
If the WaPo had 1 $25 subscriber and the WSJ had 1 $25 subscriber, the total industry revenue is $50, but each consumer only gets half the content (although much of the daily news content is roughly identical). If the WSJ and WaPo shared subscribers, the consumers would get double the content while the industry costs would stay the same. When consumers see additional value for their subscription dollars, they are more likely to sign up, increasing the number of potential customers. The industry will lose the revenue of the big spenders, who subscribe to both WaPo and WSJ... but I don't think many of those are digital subscriptions, and I think that's likely to be offset by the torrent of new customers.