91–100 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about news? Like everyone wants news but no one wants to pay for it.
The problem with news is that even if you pay they will still try to manipulate you.
Software is weird because it is expected that should be free (as in beer) for most consumers while while being for profit and giving high salaries to its workers. I struggle to think of any other privately owned sector of the economy that works that way.
What about news? Like everyone wants news but no one wants to pay for it.
Or you could spend 5 minutes in TamperMonkey and replace the button with a working one. 10 minutes if you want to hide the other upselling interface elements. I pretty often make little fixes to websites I use. It's quite satisfying.
Sometimes I hear people say that to succeed in our economy you need to offer the best product for the lowest price--or rather, the right balance between the two. But so often in my career and in general, I have seen the most successful companies doing extra work to make their product worse. It's both obvious and subtle how bad this is; if the people who implemented this feature had instead spent their time doing noth…
> This is a testament to the health of our free markets. no, it's not. it's a statement that applies to a monopoly. And software is a monopoly - because each piece of software is unique enough, that there's no replacement possible.
This is absurd, I do agree with this framing... but rather than trash the company in the comments I'm curious about what people think. Would ads be better? If JSFiddle were your project, what would you do to provide yourself a salary? I think we've discovered that the "buy me a coffee" strategy is just that, enough to generate a little bonus income... but is it simply unreasonable to expect that a project on the web…
the fundamental answer is that you cannot, because this site does not produce sufficient value for the cost to provide that salary (without resorting to ads i meant).
And in fact, the majority of sites are of this nature. The value provided simply does not support the continued cost of maintenance and operations.
> have our lifestyles become unsustainable?
i would argue yes. People have come to expect their cost to get rounded down (to zero), because the value they derived from the site is also rounded down to zero (in their minds). It's also a fact that it is impossible for a real, cost effective microtransctions platform to exist on the net, unless it's a full walled garden (and this directly contradicts the open web).
Both of these facts means the inevitable destiny of external monetization (such as ads, or "enshitification" to force subscription), or exiting/selling out to someone else who would.
It's a miracle so many sites, and products, have held out due to sheer obstinance of their creator to push thru. It's altruistic, but like fighting the tide, eventually they get worn down.
There are so many of these sandbox sites. Has a clear best option emerged?
1. A clear best option has emerged.
2. The owners thought they should monetize it.
3. Paid sidebar collapsing.
4. ...a new clear best option has emerged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a testament to the health of our free markets. no, it's not. it's a statement that applies to a monopoly. And software is a monopoly - because each piece of software is unique enough, that there's no replacement possible.
If there are monopolies everywhere, and a lack of competition (which is the definition of a monopoly), how does that not reflect on the health of the free market and competition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hitchiker's Guide already had a rant about useless jobs like telephone sanitisers and hairdressers. While I don't necessarily agree with hairdressers being useless, I feel like much of the economy is selling stuff no one really needs to solve problems no one really has in order to justify one's employment, and that share is increasing as automation scales the useful things with proportionately less effort. That's…
No one needs hairdressers? How do you figure?
All jobs fulfill something desirable for someone, but they aren't necessarily needed.
Software is weird because it is expected that should be free (as in beer) for most consumers while while being for profit and giving high salaries to its workers. I struggle to think of any other privately owned sector of the economy that works that way.
.
run ads, ask for donations, include genuinely premium features for a fee? anything other than restricting basic functionality.
so, collapsing the sidebar is a genuine premium feature isnt it? It's not restricting the basic functionality, and you dont need to collapse it to have the site do what it needs.
And for those who would donate, they get a psychological benefit of paying for a feature!