←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.234s | source
Show context
mrtksn ◴[] No.44289633[source]
Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?

I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as content gets curated by those who extract money by giving us the "free" services.

It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.

replies(32): >>44289645 #>>44289703 #>>44289718 #>>44289745 #>>44289761 #>>44289772 #>>44289802 #>>44290036 #>>44293255 #>>44293334 #>>44293379 #>>44294057 #>>44294163 #>>44294406 #>>44294408 #>>44294581 #>>44294594 #>>44294635 #>>44295476 #>>44295719 #>>44295781 #>>44295934 #>>44296021 #>>44296753 #>>44297076 #>>44297147 #>>44297258 #>>44297386 #>>44297435 #>>44297650 #>>44300018 #>>44301446 #
filoleg ◴[] No.44289745[source]
I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach.

The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many people in the “a fee instead of ads” crowd consumes YT for hours a day, but so far I’ve only met one person (not counting myself) who actually pays for YT Premium.

And yes, a major chunk of the people I talked about this with were FAANG engineers, so it isn’t like they cannot afford it. But it felt like they were more interested in complaining about the ad-funded-services landscape and muse on their stances around it, as opposed to actually putting their money where their mouth is.

All I can say is, I am not paying for YT Premium out of some ideological standpoint or love for Google (not even close). It has genuinely been just worth it for me many times over in the exact practical ways I was expecting it to.

replies(24): >>44289829 #>>44289995 #>>44290997 #>>44291006 #>>44293221 #>>44293235 #>>44293238 #>>44293263 #>>44293271 #>>44293277 #>>44293316 #>>44293328 #>>44293370 #>>44293395 #>>44293551 #>>44293830 #>>44294002 #>>44294048 #>>44294167 #>>44295364 #>>44295699 #>>44296209 #>>44296473 #>>44308245 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.44289995[source]
> I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk.

That's because micropayments are still fucking annoying to do on both sides of any transaction:

- credit cards: cheap-ish at scale (2-5%), but users don't want to give random apps their CC details and integrating with Stripe/Paypal/whatever has the cost of UX flow break due to account details and 2FA compliance bullshit. In addition, every service paid-for by CC has the problem that only people with a CC can pay for it (so people in countries like Europe where "classic" bank accounts prevail are out of luck, and so are people in countries deemed too poor and/or fraud-affiliated are locked out entirely), and you gotta deal with tax and other regulatory compliance around handling payments as well. Oh and people will try to use your service to validate stolen payment credentials because a 1$ charge (especially for a well known service like Whatsapp) is most likely to be ignored by the accountholder even if fraudulent in nature, which in turn will lead to issues with chargebacks or, worst case, getting dropped entirely by the payment processor.

- in-app purchases: expensive (30% cut for the platform provider), serious headache to do when a significant chunk of the user base doesn't run phones with properly licensed Google Play Store (e.g. Huawei who aren't allowed to embed Play Store on their phones)

- bank transfer: possible, but restricted to the economic zones where there's enough customer base to justify the expenses of setting up a local company with a bank account (i.e. US, EU, India, possibly China), and transaction fees from the banks may end up being >>50% of the transaction's face value at such low amounts

- crxptxcurrency: even more of a hassle for customers to acquire, questionable legality / KYC issues, no realtime authorization due to mandatory waiting time for mining to confirm transactions

- pay by phone bill, premium numbers: possible, but need bureaucracy in each country, fraud / "my kid did it" complaints will run rampant, premium number calls are by default blocked in most if not all modern phone contracts ever since the early '00s and "dialer" fraud malware, difficult to associate with customer's phone number in the backend

In the end, if you truly want to capture a global audience with microtransaction payments, be prepared to deal with a loooooooooooooooooot of bullshit just to get started.

Long story short, we desperately need a global government effort to standardize payments at low fees. There's absolutely zero reason why banks and other intermediaries should be allowed to skim off more than 5% of any kind of transaction. ZERO.

replies(1): >>44292376 #
UnreachableCode ◴[] No.44292376[source]
Europe isn't a country. And we have credit cards here.
replies(1): >>44293306 #
dgfitz ◴[] No.44293306[source]
Wow. Way to flippantly shit on the paragraphs of explanation they gave of their own free time.

Europe though, yeah they’re killing it.

replies(2): >>44294041 #>>44296917 #
wheybags ◴[] No.44294041[source]
Why should anyone appreciate paragraphs of text from someone who thinks Europeans can't use payment cards? What reason would I have to presume the content of said paragraphs is better informed, given they have trivially disprovable rubbish up front?
replies(2): >>44296338 #>>44296340 #
frm88 ◴[] No.44296340[source]
You might want to have a look at the usage stats of payment cards (here specifically credit cards) globally. You would realise that usage is low in Europe, compared to the US. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/people_with_credit.... Most payments are done with regular banking and/or bank specific cards. The latter are not accepted by online platforms, the former has indeed transfer fees in many countries. The grandparents explanations are valid.
replies(3): >>44296822 #>>44296905 #>>44298167 #
wheybags ◴[] No.44298167[source]
I've lived in the EU my entire life, in three different countries. I have visited and have friends in many more countries. Literally everybody I know has either a visa or mastercard debit card. Yes, people dont use credit cards specifically, they use debit cards, but it literally does not matter, the infrastructure is the same. Seeing ignorant Americans talk about Europe online like it's some backwater that doesn't even have card payment, is frankly offensive.
replies(1): >>44300670 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.44300670[source]
German here. As I've written in another comment in the thread [1], Europe as a whole has markedly lower adoption for the international credit/debit cards than the US, as most countries have had their own schemes for decades (e.g. Germany's Girocard) so there was no need in practice to get one of the international ones. For vacation, we were used to going to money exchanges anyway so there was no need to get a bank card that worked outside of one's primary country.

And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.

And on the bank side, here in Europe we also don't really have that "debt holders can just sell off defaulted debts" thing, so banks can't offload the risk of defaults to someone else. And if that's not enough, we also got very strict laws on who can get approved for a credit card and for which limits - stuff like 20 year olds with 20, 30k of credit card debt are truly rare unless the parents of said young people are rich enough to back such a massive CC limit.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44296338

replies(1): >>44308716 #
1. account42 ◴[] No.44308716[source]
> For vacation, we were used to going to money exchanges anyway so there was no need to get a bank card that worked outside of one's primary country.

Strong disagree, being able to withdraw cash at corner stores or pay with cards directly beats having to guess how much cash you need to exchange beforehand. And a number German banks have offered free credit or debit cards for decades.

> And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.

True but that doesn't affect their usefulness as payment methods - EU customers can largely pay with "credit" cards just fine.