←back to thread

157 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
donatj ◴[] No.44373354[source]
I was pondering this earlier today while manually prepending archive.is to a pay walled link on my Android phone for the umpteenth time today.

The micro-transaction proposals everyone cried about in the early 2000's would have been so much better than this.

The odds of me paying for a subscription for some tiny local newspaper on the other side of the country are literally nil, but I'd be far more willing toss you a penny or two to read the content of a single article.

replies(22): >>44373377 #>>44373411 #>>44373449 #>>44373489 #>>44373594 #>>44373636 #>>44374265 #>>44374282 #>>44374689 #>>44374692 #>>44374902 #>>44375133 #>>44375268 #>>44375289 #>>44375313 #>>44375470 #>>44375539 #>>44375540 #>>44375709 #>>44375759 #>>44376265 #>>44376876 #
arrowsmith ◴[] No.44375289[source]
> The micro-transaction proposals everyone cried about in the early 2000's would have been so much better than this.

Would it? As you point out, this idea has been floating around for at least twenty years, and there have been several attempts to implement it, but it's never come even remotely close to taking off.

If it was really such a good idea, it would surely be with us by now. "Better" for who?

replies(2): >>44375410 #>>44375741 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.44375741[source]
There have always been two main things preventing this from happening.

The first is that you can't use credit cards for it because their fees are in the nature of "2.9% + $0.30" and it's the $0.30 that annihilates your ability to do $0.05 transactions.

And the second is that people don't like to associate their identity with every little thing they do, so anything that requires them to is friction and any friction on top of a $0.05 transaction is fatal, but then all the payment systems require that. This one's the crazy irony because the alternative to it is ads, and then people complain about the intrusiveness of that because it tries to track them anyway, whereas what we want is the ability to pay for something with a trivial amount of money instead of being tracked.

replies(1): >>44378324 #
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44378324[source]
Let me take it one step further though.

Many people, even having viewed ads, never really paid anything into the system. They just ignore the ads regardless of how perfectly tailored they are. Maybe we can say something about sub conscious influence or the like, but on the surface the internet is just a huge free playground for them.

Or perhaps they bought products from ads, but it was just stuff they were looking to buy anyway. So they effectively get "free internet" just for buying a school laptop or power tool set.

The downside to the ad model is all the privacy invasion, but being real for a second, the privacy invasion so far is scary because of hypothetical threats, not realized ones.

For the vast majority of people who are tracked to hell and back, their is zero perceptible impact on their day to day life, while they get a bunch of free stuff for it.

This is why the ad model will be near impossible to kill.

replies(3): >>44378633 #>>44379333 #>>44383352 #
1. furyofantares ◴[] No.44379333{3}[source]
We ALL pay for ads, even if we don't consume them. Advertising is a huge, huge cost to companies and is reflected in prices. And it's a barrier to entry for competitors.

You have to account for the massive amount of money google and the rest of the advertising industry makes. It's NOT companies lighting money on fire irrationally, and it does have to be paid for.

So it feels free because we all pay for it already. There's no agency. Adding micropayments or ad-free premium services aren't alternatives, they are an additional cost.