Block all ads of all kinds. I do not want to watch advertizer os sponsor friendly creators. I want people talking to me honestly like they might off camera.
We must switch to micro transaction pay-per-view model like LBRY to eliminate all ads and ensure creators get paid better without having their integrity compromised by corpo sponsors.
First, it can be unproductively applied to any monetization system - you can always say that the temptation will still exist to double-dip.
Second, because it's ignoring the fact that if you want to get rid of ads, you have to replace them with something else.
And third, it's only partially true - microtransactions will make the ad problem better, because ad display by small creators is partially driven by the need to make a living. Once that living is met, the pressure to also display ads gets significantly reduced.
That's capitalism. The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't.
If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous counterexamples of companies doing the opposite.
That's an utterly meaningless statement. You haven't even defined "capitalism", let alone what it means for something to "be" capitalism. This is political dog-whistling, the opposite of any rational argument.
> The Uber app was a straightforward experience, until they started loading it up with ads and tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too, when previously they didn't.
This is intentionally deceptive and misleading. Uber is the only one of these that is actually correct, and it's a morally bankrupt company in the first place. Hulu and Netflix, on the other hand, have tiers that don't have ads, which is objectively not double-dipping.
> If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous counterexamples of companies doing the opposite.
First, no, that's false. There are many reasons why counterexamples would be rare or nonexistent - most obviously, because customers used to getting a free product tend to be extremely unhappy if you now tell them that they have to pay.
You also ignored every one of my points, which soundly rebutted your argument, and explained why it was bad - that your argument is utterly unrelated to microtransaction systems in particular, that you still have to have a alternative monetization system for when ads are removed, and that microtransactions will make the ad problem better.
Second, there are numerous counterexamples of companies that charge consumers directly without double-dipping - Google One, Dropbox, Remember the Milk, World of Warcraft, LegendKeeper, ChatGPT, most video games, Notion, Slack, etc.
Third, there are specific examples of companies moving away from ad-supported models to paid subscription models (without keeping ads), which is likely what you were trying to claim that "double-dipping" was: Medium, Evernote, and the New York Times, despite the aforementioned extreme aversion of consumers to starting to pay for something that they previously got for free.
That's really your best list?
- Google constnatly double dips. They were cuaght not too long ago scanning Drive folders for potential Gemini use. Slack just had this discussion as well.
- WOW charges subscriptions and for cosmetics in game. That's how more and more video games are trying to recoup costs. DLC, microtransactions, battle passes, NFTs, etc. You can avoid most of that if you're indie, but that's the AAA market.
- ChatGPT is in market capture mode right now in a very hot market. It's going to pull a google in 5-10 years if it's still dominant. I would bet my bottom dollar on that one.
>there are specific examples of companies moving away from ad-supported models to paid subscription models (without keeping ads)
And they are double dipping on their own services by selling to AI to train their data. It won't be ads for you today. It probably will be tomorrow. If the goal is to minimize annoyance, this is honestly worse than double charging.
We're doomed without a fundamental shift in how society consumes content.
There are dozens more that you can find easily with a quick search, and these alone support my point.
> Google constnatly double dips
Sure, maybe they're not the best choice. Let's use Apple instead.
> Gemini
> And they are double dipping on their own services by selling to AI to train their data
Other forms of double dipping than ads aren't on topic, relevant, or productive for this thread which was specifically about micro transactions not replacing ads because of double dipping. (yes, the problem is real - see later)
> WOW charges subscriptions and for cosmetics in game
Also off topic, but here I don't even see a problem. Unlike ads being involuntarily shoved down your throat, you're not compelled to buy cosmetics.
> It won't be ads for you today. It probably will be tomorrow
This is very speculative, and not supported by the hundreds of SaaS products that do not, even those that have been around for years.
> We're doomed without a fundamental shift in how society consumes content.
Like microtransactions?
Moreover, none of this addresses my points that if you get rid of ads (or user data harvesting), you still have to replace it with something else, and that utx will reduce the pressure to do these other things.
Sure, ultimately you'll need regulation to get rid of user data harvesting, and maybe ads too, but I'm confused as to why "double dipping" is being brought up as an argument against utx after those things are gone - they're almost orthogonal.