For ads check out Coil and the web monetization Api.
You pay $5 per month and it automatically pays the websites you visit via crypto.
Request for Startups
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: Request for Startups
#32Sure.
Give me money.
Re: Request for Startups
#33On ads: the fundamental problem with them is that most people don't realize that they are paying for digital content and free social services anyway, albeit indirectly, since the ad spendings are included in the prices of consumer products. Even if you use an ad blocker you pay for the ads you don't see anyway. In fact the more we use free social platforms and digital content, the more we pay for it from our pockets.…
>ad spendings are included in the prices of consumer products No ads and no price haggling are big reasons why Tesla is so popular.
Doubt.
Re: Request for Startups
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it need to be anonymous? To me it seems the public can't be persuaded that paying for something is better than getting it "for free" (with ads and tracking)
> "To me it seems the public can't be persuaded that paying for something is better than getting it "for free" (with ads and tracking)" This is even more true when the paid option is often a worse version of the "free" offering.
I pay for the New York times.
I still see adds at NYT, they still use trackers.
Thankfully, ublock solves this.
Re: Request for Startups
#35I posted this the other day on a the "What are you working on?" thread, but:
>> I'm making something I call "newsbetting" - you get an article stripped of title, author, or source information and you have to bet on whether the article is right or left wing based on the content.
>> It's definitely not ready for primetime, but my hope is that I can show 1) it can provide a viable business model for struggling news sources 2) it is possible to change the incentives around our news ecosystem to be less ad-driven and sensationalist. I have lots of other ideas, like integrating social media and cryptocurrencies and allowing betting on something other than political bias, but I have my work cut out for me as is. As I'm not really a developer, I'm using this idea mostly to learn
I think this newsbetting model for a small, select type of content provider offers an alternative to the ad-driven model this author is aggrieved by. My issue with subscription based models is that 1) once you've given something for "free" it is hard to take away and 2) it creates a divide between those who pay for good information/content and those who don't. This ends up exacerbating existing wealth and education inequalities.
Re: Request for Startups
#36On ads: the fundamental problem with them is that most people don't realize that they are paying for digital content and free social services anyway, albeit indirectly, since the ad spendings are included in the prices of consumer products. Even if you use an ad blocker you pay for the ads you don't see anyway. In fact the more we use free social platforms and digital content, the more we pay for it from our pockets.…
Possibly, but that strikes me as the path of most resistance. You are competing to create a more efficient market than one engineered by thousands of employees over a long period of time. I really doubt that one individual or even a handful of experts can create a mechanism design that's more efficient than what Goggle's developed for the better part of a decade and a half.
This is the issue with monopolies - They are the market.
Re: Request for Startups
#37I have trouble connecting the contents of this post to the title. The scopes of the problems are bigger than the scopes of individual startups. Eg. the ad based monetization model problem calls for a better model _for the entire industry_. That's not a problem a startup can solve. That's a monetization model. Similar for government problems. How could a startup solve that?
Agreed, most of these problems are so core and fundamental to human nature or societal infrastructure one could add "solve world peace" or "solve world hunger" to this list and it would fit right in. This isn't to say they shouldn't be attempted and many are trying, but I wouldn't make a "companies I wish existed" list with ideas so broad in scope.
Re: Request for Startups
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually I don’t agree with zero-sum argument, but your example seems to be equally wrong. Every widget you sell with advertisement is one widget sold less for competitor (or something totally else) Advertisement is not increasing the money consumer can spend totally. So basically you are trying to steal someoneelses share
> Every widget you sell with advertisement is one widget sold less for competitor (or something totally else) Not exactly. It's true that consumers sometimes make choices between competitors, like deciding to go to one fast food chain or another. But oftentimes consumers make a choice about how much money to spend vs save. If a consumer has $500 in discretionary funds, the consumer can decide to buy a simple, no-fril…
"Discretionary income is far higher than most people realize."
You just said that. Basically most of the people not saving money. Imagine if noone was saving money (or if it ignorable), this spending you get has to come from somewhere, so you need to cut something to spend on my widget.
When I said competitior, I didn't mean another widget maker, it can be anything else you are spending your money on. Even you can maybe skip eating lunch, so widget maker stealing from the restaurant.
There is no win-win in this actually.
Re: Request for Startups
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "To me it seems the public can't be persuaded that paying for something is better than getting it "for free" (with ads and tracking)" This is even more true when the paid option is often a worse version of the "free" offering.
I pay for the New York times. I still see adds at NYT, they still use trackers. Thankfully, ublock solves this.
I wrote them about that. You should too. Offer to pay more in exchange for fewer ads. Maybe they'll listen.
Re: Request for Startups
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every widget you sell with advertisement is one widget sold less for competitor (or something totally else) Not exactly. It's true that consumers sometimes make choices between competitors, like deciding to go to one fast food chain or another. But oftentimes consumers make a choice about how much money to spend vs save. If a consumer has $500 in discretionary funds, the consumer can decide to buy a simple, no-fril…
"Discretionary income is far higher than most people realize." You just said that. Basically most of the people not saving money. Imagine if noone was saving money (or if it ignorable), this spending you get has to come from somewhere, so you need to cut something to spend on my widget. When I said competitior, I didn't mean another widget maker, it can be anything else you are spending your money on. Even you can ma…
> Basically most of the people not saving money. Imagine if noone was saving money (or if it ignorable), this spending you get has to come from somewhere, so you need to cut something to spend on my widget.
Actually, savings are at an all-time high right now. People aren't spending because they're waiting for the pandemic to be over. It's true that the poor are living paycheck-to-paycheck, but that's generally true in normal times as well. In the pandemic, more people have become poor, but by no means has literally everyone become poor. Most people are still working, and the ones who are working, are saving.
Even in normal years, when the economy is good, there are always people saving.