←back to thread

113 points recifs | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
roenxi ◴[] No.40715398[source]
> So, say you want to create a new web standard...

This and the following image have a misguided understanding of the market. We know how this situation plays out because we ran exactly that experiment in the 2000s with Firefox and IE6. Those market share numbers are contingent on Google doing the best possible job as curators insofar as the userbase can tell.

If there are browser features that users want (like tabs) or web standards that enable Cool New Stuff (like modern JS) then users will go out of their way to install browsers that support them. Firefox got all the way to around 20-30% of the market before MS's control of the web collapsed and we entered the current era.

The "problem" that competitors of Google face is that Google is a rather competent steward of web standards. Their browser engine is hard to compete with because it is very good, their web standards are hard to compete with because they are largely appropriate.

Although I stand by a prediction I have that the next wave will be when a Brave-like model takes hold and the price of browsing the web drops from free to negative. With crypto we are surely getting to spitting distance of advertisers paying users directly to look at ads instead of paying Google to organise the web such that users look at ads.

replies(7): >>40715587 #>>40716652 #>>40718236 #>>40718320 #>>40718506 #>>40719351 #>>40723413 #
Hasu ◴[] No.40718236[source]
> With crypto we are surely getting to spitting distance of advertisers paying users directly to look at ads instead of paying Google to organise the web such that users look at ads.

Who would take that deal? Getting paid $.02 in some cryptocurrency to look at an ad? So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised? Why would I ever agree to that? It's a bad deal for me. Why would the ad agency do that? It's a bad deal for them versus paying for captive eyeballs.

replies(2): >>40718971 #>>40722592 #
roenxi ◴[] No.40722592[source]
> Why would I ever agree to that?

You're already looking at the ad. $0.02 > $0.00, so the situation is a strict improvement.

replies(1): >>40728869 #
1. Hasu ◴[] No.40728869[source]
No, it isn't. I use AdBlock and generally when I allow ads it's because I have no other way to pay someone who made something I appreciate.

I am happy to pay money to remove ads, but it would take a lot more money paid to me to add them in! Certainly not an amount that would be worth advertisers to pay me.

replies(1): >>40733957 #
2. roenxi ◴[] No.40733957[source]
Well, ok then this feature isn't for you. But you have an extra option if you want to make $0.02.

But in practice we know there is large group of people working to fund the internet, and I reckon the fair split might turn out to be that all of them (ad viewer, ad placer and content provider) get a slice instead of just the last 2. Think of it as the ad viewer's subsidy for supporting people who use ad blockers.