alt Hacker NewsI don't know who is downvoting this.
When users are given the choice between Ad-supported free, Ad-subsidized lower payment, and No-ads full payment. Ad-supported free dominates by far, with ad subsidized second, and full payment last.
Consumers consistently vote for the ad-model, even if it means they become the product being sold.
Replies
Consumers will always value convenience over any actual added value. If you make one button 'Enter (with ads)' and one button 'Enter (no ads)' but with a field on it which you must write one sentence about what lobsters look like, you will get a majority clicking the with ads button. The problem isn't with ads or payment, the problem is the friction of entering payment details for every site you visit. They are measuring the wrong thing.
There's substantial friction for making such a purchase. A scheme sort of like flattr, where you would top up your account with a fixed 5-10$ monthly, and then simply hit a button to pay the website and unlock the content, would have much more user adoption.
In some social media circles it's basically a meme that anybody paying for YouTube Premium is a sucker.
HN is a huge echo chamber of opinions of highly-compensated tech workers, and it seems most of their friends are also tech workers. They don't realize how cheap a lot of the general public is.
Maybe what'll happen is Google or Meta will use their control over the end user experience to show ads and provide free ad-supported access to sites that require micropayments, covering the cost themselves, and anyone running an agent will just pay the micropayments.
The other option is everything just keeps moving more and more into these walled gardens like Instagram where everyone uses the mobile app and watches ads, because the web versions of those apps just keep getting worse and worse by comparison.