Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 533 posts

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#241

Post by tgma »

sdthjbvuiiijbb wrote: post #236
bigmadshoe wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America. So Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.

You've missed the point of the comment that you've replied to. There's a well known adverse selection effect because the people who would pay for no ads are exactly the people who you most want to be able to serve ads to: people with lots of disposable income, and people who are power users who see the most ads. As a result the actual amount that they would need to charge for an ad-free version is higher than the ave…

I also think the figure GP quoted are not US, but lumped together with depressed "developed" economies. US numbers should be a multiple of that.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#242

Post by tencentshill »

apsurd wrote: post #79
pj_mukh wrote: post #11

I would pay $49.99/mo for an unlimited plan that brings me only my friends' status updates (not their hyper-political likes and comments), just their life updates. Daily stories are great too. But JUST that, no influencers, no ads. I realize Meta's data shows that our user revealed preferences tells them that we like all the dopamine hijacking garbage but that's like saying "Well users like drugs, so we gave them mor…

I don't believe for a second you'd pay $50 per month! Yeah you'd do it to prove a point. 6 months later, no way in hell.

Meta "average revenue per person" around $50 per year. Absolutely reasonable to replace with a subscription.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680125...

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#244

Post by compounding_it »

A new paid social media network with high privacy settings would defeat meta products quite easily. From what I understand, it costs around 27$ a year per user for Meta to run the business. At 5$ per month with limitations on size of your profile (like number of pictures), it would be quite easy to run a social media of this sort. This kinda of social media is what eventually everyone will move towards (and currently want). Small social circles, extremely private, and connections and discovery in very limited ways that allow you to maintain privacy and your 'inner' circle.

Social media is here to stay, unfortunately. Meta, LinkedIn, X, I wouldn't invest in the long term.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#245

Post by bigmadshoe »

sdthjbvuiiijbb wrote: post #236
bigmadshoe wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America. So Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.

You've missed the point of the comment that you've replied to. There's a well known adverse selection effect because the people who would pay for no ads are exactly the people who you most want to be able to serve ads to: people with lots of disposable income, and people who are power users who see the most ads. As a result the actual amount that they would need to charge for an ad-free version is higher than the ave…

Fair point. I think it depends on the person. I know plenty of people without much disposable income who still pay for several subscriptions.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#246

Post by yalogin »

compounding_it wrote: post #244

A new paid social media network with high privacy settings would defeat meta products quite easily. From what I understand, it costs around 27$ a year per user for Meta to run the business. At 5$ per month with limitations on size of your profile (like number of pictures), it would be quite easy to run a social media of this sort. This kinda of social media is what eventually everyone will move towards (and currently…

What exactly are privacy expectations of a social media app/network? Has that been quantified?

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#248

Post by qwerpy »

sethops1 wrote: post #176
darth_avocado wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id pay money to not see ads. Like YouTube premium. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. Can’t believe they rolled out all these different plans and left out the one thing a lot of people would buy.

I paid for YouTube Premium until they started showing me ads for YouTube TV (and maybe YouTube Red at the time?). Cancelled and got into DNS adblocking.

Of all of the sites/apps that are immune to DNS adblocking, I thought YouTube was at the top of the list. Not that DNS adblocking isn’t a good thing, but I’d think Google & meta would make sure they couldn’t be defeated so easily.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#249

Post by rtpg »

adjejmxbdjdn wrote: post #220
qqtt wrote: post #98

I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues. How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers. By having material subscription reve…

> By having material subscription revenue coming in for things outside the advertising space, the product managers can justify investing in features that otherwise would be passed up due to lack of revenue potential from advertising. You’re a Meta decision maker presented with 3 options. Which one do you pick? (remember, you’re not you…you’re a Meta decision maker trying to justify a trillion dollar valuation). - Pos…

to put a finer point on this: I pay for certain newspapers (well, digital subscriptions).

Still plenty of ads in the articles!

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#250

Post by compounding_it »

yalogin wrote: post #246
compounding_it wrote: post #244

A new paid social media network with high privacy settings would defeat meta products quite easily. From what I understand, it costs around 27$ a year per user for Meta to run the business. At 5$ per month with limitations on size of your profile (like number of pictures), it would be quite easy to run a social media of this sort. This kinda of social media is what eventually everyone will move towards (and currently…

What exactly are privacy expectations of a social media app/network? Has that been quantified?

No data collection for any other reason than security practices, and for reasons that pertain to public security (not necessarily legal). A 30 day retention policy would be more than enough. Without discovery, public profiles, advertising and usages targeted towards you engaging more with the platform, the data collection and telemetry becomes quite unnecessary.

If you are paying for the usage (mostly server and development costs), your data need not be used for anything other than actually improving the product and security.

Currently the data is purely to extract profits and keep you hooked. This is what they have made you believe social media is about. Its not. You aren't hooked on iMessage and FaceTime scrolling reels and wasting hours. It's actually used to connect with people.

Post reply on HN