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

Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#21

Post by graue »

simula67 wrote: post #19
graue wrote: post #15

I think this is actually an argument for open protocols. If Google put this clause in the terms of service for Gmail, you could switch to Yahoo! Mail, or you could switch to Fastmail.fm, or whatever else. But when it's a proprietary social network, you can't switch (in practice), because all your friends and followees are on Instagram - not the other thing that you switch to. When services interoperate using open, de…

Just to play devil's advocate, open protocols, standards etc are hard to arrive at when there are competing business interests [1][2]. Also centralized systems make for less complexity. For example, despite having a standard for almost all major programming languages like C,C++ et al, if you want to compile your program using multiple compilers you have to put in some hours. [1] http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch17s02.…

This is true. Also, a dictatorship is much simpler than a democracy, and easier to bring about.

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#22

Post by wting »

graue wrote: post #15

I think this is actually an argument for open protocols. If Google put this clause in the terms of service for Gmail, you could switch to Yahoo! Mail, or you could switch to Fastmail.fm, or whatever else. But when it's a proprietary social network, you can't switch (in practice), because all your friends and followees are on Instagram - not the other thing that you switch to. When services interoperate using open, de…

I think you mean control of your data, rather than open protocols. For example, you can still access your Gmail via IMAP.

It would be great if users could have a decentralized store of the private data, and merely gave websites or applications access to the data. Unfortunately this is a privacy geek's pipe dream, as data hosting costs and complexity would result in low adoption rates (e.g. setting up your own OAuth server).

On a side note, this is a another area where Google+ falls behind Facebook. Facebook is a platform for other apps. Sometimes this results in stuff like Zynga spam, but there are good use cases such as allowing Twitter / Instagram apps to post in more than one location. Vic Gundotra has stated in interviews that Google wants a single conversation thread rather than have it fractured across different platforms, but that strategy is an all or nothing approach and they're late to the social networking game.

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#23

Post by simula67 »

graue wrote: post #21
simula67 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devil's advocate, open protocols, standards etc are hard to arrive at when there are competing business interests [1][2]. Also centralized systems make for less complexity. For example, despite having a standard for almost all major programming languages like C,C++ et al, if you want to compile your program using multiple compilers you have to put in some hours. [1] http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch17s02.…

This is true. Also, a dictatorship is much simpler than a democracy, and easier to bring about.

Worst argument in the world [ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst... ]

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#24

Post by graue »

simula67 wrote: post #23
graue wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. Also, a dictatorship is much simpler than a democracy, and easier to bring about.

Worst argument in the world [ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst... ]

I'm not going for emotional reaction at all. Compared to a dictatorship, a democracy is more complex, harder to bring about, and yet has real benefits for the public, which, to some, justifies the effort. And all of that is also true of open protocols, compared to monopolies. Whatever your feelings, the analogy holds.

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#25

Post by graue »

wting wrote: post #22
graue wrote: post #15

I think this is actually an argument for open protocols. If Google put this clause in the terms of service for Gmail, you could switch to Yahoo! Mail, or you could switch to Fastmail.fm, or whatever else. But when it's a proprietary social network, you can't switch (in practice), because all your friends and followees are on Instagram - not the other thing that you switch to. When services interoperate using open, de…

I think you mean control of your data, rather than open protocols. For example, you can still access your Gmail via IMAP. It would be great if users could have a decentralized store of the private data, and merely gave websites or applications access to the data. Unfortunately this is a privacy geek's pipe dream, as data hosting costs and complexity would result in low adoption rates (e.g. setting up your own OAuth s…

> ...users could have a decentralized store of the private data, and merely gave websites or applications access to the data.

I have to ask, are you familiar with Tent? (https://tent.io) You just described exactly what they are setting out to do (and on a basic, somewhat limited level, already do).

I agree the effort faces serious challenges, but as I hoped to illustrate with my email analogy, it doesn't require every user to set up their own server to benefit. You could choose between keeping your data with a hypothetical GTent, or Yahoo! Tent, or Fasttent.fm, whichever one had the best policies, ad-supported or, if you prefer, paid.

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#26

Post by SoftwareMaven »

jacktoole1 wrote: post #3

While I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, the hypothetical monetization numbers in the last paragraph are just ridiculous. Getting 20% of a free userbase to pay anything is extremely high. ~0.2% to 2% sounds like a more likely number, based on my admittedly cursory knowledge of monetization of apps. $5 a month also sounds a bit high for essentially a photo-sharing service, a yearly charge of ~$20 sound…

I completely agree. But it would sure be nice if there was an option that said "Terms of Service A is free; Terms of Service B is $X/month". Then I could make the decision about whether the service/privacy/cost tradeoff is important enough for me to shell out either cash or privacy. This is especially true at points like this, when a service is trying to "go to the next level" in terms of revenue.

Use the free stuff to get people hooked, then let people decide how to pay for their habit. If you can make $25/year off of me through my private info, let me decide if I want to pay $25/year for your service (which is, quite literally, pocket change). As it is, I'll just stop using your service (like I'm going to stop using Instagram).

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#27

Post by [deleted] »

graue wrote: post #15

I think this is actually an argument for open protocols. If Google put this clause in the terms of service for Gmail, you could switch to Yahoo! Mail, or you could switch to Fastmail.fm, or whatever else. But when it's a proprietary social network, you can't switch (in practice), because all your friends and followees are on Instagram - not the other thing that you switch to. When services interoperate using open, de…

[deleted]

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#28

Post by akr »

wting wrote: post #22
graue wrote: post #15

I think this is actually an argument for open protocols. If Google put this clause in the terms of service for Gmail, you could switch to Yahoo! Mail, or you could switch to Fastmail.fm, or whatever else. But when it's a proprietary social network, you can't switch (in practice), because all your friends and followees are on Instagram - not the other thing that you switch to. When services interoperate using open, de…

I think you mean control of your data, rather than open protocols. For example, you can still access your Gmail via IMAP. It would be great if users could have a decentralized store of the private data, and merely gave websites or applications access to the data. Unfortunately this is a privacy geek's pipe dream, as data hosting costs and complexity would result in low adoption rates (e.g. setting up your own OAuth s…

Sounds like something that should be possible with http://unhosted.org/

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#29

Post by simula67 »

graue wrote: post #24
simula67 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worst argument in the world [ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst... ]

I'm not going for emotional reaction at all. Compared to a dictatorship, a democracy is more complex, harder to bring about, and yet has real benefits for the public, which, to some, justifies the effort. And all of that is also true of open protocols, compared to monopolies. Whatever your feelings, the analogy holds.

My point was that dismissing centralized services by equating with dictatorship was useless. In a true dictatorship, the dictator rules over by means of force, and has no commitment to subjects other than to keep the fear going. Equating that with a capitalist centralized service such as Facebook, twitter etc is not accurate since for them the product is the attention of their users and it is in their best interests to keep the users happy.

Now that is naively optimistic and considering that the people running these organizations are rational. I for one will happily switch to a decentralized version for a service as personal as Facebook ( so long as my friends are on it ). My intention was to balance the argument since it is very easy to take your comment and interpret it as de-centralized is the "total awesomeness".

Clearly, you have strong feelings about this, as you are working on tent. So my question is, have you asked yourself if there are cases where centralization is better ?

Re: Why You Should Want to Pay for Software, Instagram Edition

#30

Post by sounds »

rgbrenner wrote: post #17
sounds wrote: post #4

The Atlantic is being deliberately misleading here. Pay for Software? I think they should have said, "Why You Should Pay for Internet Service." That is, unless there's a way for you to download Instagram's entire service as a package and install it on your own infrastructure (not likely), you aren't ever going to pay them for "software." If you pay them, it will be a subscription to their service. I think the real cu…

Google was not even close to being the first to give away services. Hotmail and Yahoo mail were around before Google even existed. And that's just the first two that came to mind.

That's not what I said, of course. Google doesn't just "give away services:"

They release all kinds of useful free services. They then actively support the misconception that all online services should be free – this helps them because consumers then make the error of assuming that this is reasonable; meanwhile, Google benefits as consumers turn a blind eye to their data mining, advertising, etc.

In other words, Google was the first to really push what could be done in free services. Sure, HTTP was a "free service" before Google ever existed – but that's not my point. Search engines existed before, but Google took a first step by placing the search results first – instead of the flashing banner ads.

Post reply on HN