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

Who's doing this to my internet?

veekaybee.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 306 posts

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#221

Post by Buetol »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #167
Buetol wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The connection is in the "why". Why do website switch to an ad-based revenue model ? (and so, against their initial will). Because the people running it needs money. If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads.

I still don't get this line of thinking. Most basic income levels are just above poverty level. And, so, if a web page is run by someone making a basic income and showing no ads, that person will only ever stay at that level. They would still need to show ads or something to make more money. They are already doing this. I just don't see this as a valid argument for basic income. It is fodder for basic income opponent…

If the basic income is at a comfortable level, then most people won't look to make more money, I think, but improve the things they have.

And this is the whole debate I think, are people hungry for the money even with a comfortable income or with a sufficient income they are not gonna look to earn more ?

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#222

Post by Buetol »

kjdal2001 wrote: post #155
Buetol wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The connection is in the "why". Why do website switch to an ad-based revenue model ? (and so, against their initial will). Because the people running it needs money. If you have a basic income, it's easier for people to run websites for free without ads.

I would guess that the cost of running the business is higher than their personal expenses. Whatever the benefits of basic income, the idea isn't to subsidize a business.

The operating cost of running a website today is cheap enough to not even worry about it IMHO (5$/month for a basic server)

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#223

Post by nine_k »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #210
pi-err wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it says that there's an untapped opportunity for low friction, micro-transactions instead of "ads" or full-fledged purchases on unknown websites. It's clear by now that ads are for lazy. If your plan is to monetize your site with ads, today just like 10 years ago, you lost. Edit: surprised by the negativity on her reaction for _hacker_news. She's rebuffed by the $ and time investment for a single song ("unknown we…

I swear I remember some bank or company generating single-use credit card numbers specifically for this kind of concern. Did it fizzle out due to lack of use, or improved security on the banks' part, or am I just another victim of the Mandela/Berenstain effect?

You can still buy virtual Visa cards from various vendors: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=virtual+visa+card

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#224

Post by acoard »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #192
madaxe_again wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Septembering" should be the term for this phenomenon.

I would have thought that that would be over by now. Surely all of America is online by now already?

Eternal September doesn't have to do with new users to the internet, but new participants within a community.

It's essentially the problem of digital immigration (which is much easier to do than physical immigration).

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#225

Post by crisnoble »

Meanwhile via http://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=30610

"The streaming platform's plan for monetization has been the subject of industry-wide speculation for months, particularly after Sony started pulling its tracks from SoundCloud. A leaked contract last month hinted at a new tiered listening system, and now SoundCloud chief technology officer Eric Wahlforss has confirmed plans to launch a paid subscription service later on in 2015, according to Tech Times. Details are scarce, but the first tier would allow listeners to explore SoundCloud ad-free and download a limited number of files, while the second tier would provide unfettered access to the entire catalogue."

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#226

Post by rickg17 »

alistairSH wrote: post #98
sillygeese wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website. $1.50 isn't much of a risk you know, even if you don't know the website. You'd probably even get the song! Also, if a song is on Audio CD, it's probably on iTunes too. > in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems like it's too much This makes no sense. If you're a true music lover, a great song will give you countless hours of enjoyment and appreciation. Do you serious…

I don't think it's a problem with $1.50 in absolute terms. It's $1.50 compared to $0.99 from other vendors. Artists have set the expectation that songs are worth $0.99 by selling them for that amount elsewhere. FWIW, I don't buy a lot of music - I use free Pandora and put up with the ads.

But it seems to be too much for her. To quote "$1.50 is a lot to pay for a song, even a song you love..."

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#227

Post by nine_k »

CHY872 wrote: post #187
72deluxe wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if people give thought to the length of time it takes to learn an instrument, play it well, learn the recording process, record it well, learn the mixing process, mix it well, learn the mastering process, master it well etc. if they are willing to dismiss $1.50 as expensive for a song. In comparison, how much is a cup of coffee or a portion of chips (for us UK types)? How much is a trip to the cinema? It sho…

I don't think you can honestly rationalise it like that. You could similarly rationalise selling an iPad for $2,000 by 'We have a bajillion engineers, who all went to top schools after decades of non-stop education, who worked 80 hour weeks to refine every single component of this, who tested 100 different chamfers for this edge, who polished it, who ...' The price of something should absolutely be dictated by how mu…

I always thought that the initial 99¢ per song in iTunes was partly influenced by the fact that people usually give $1 bills to street musicians (at least so they do here in NYC).

If you can pay 100¢ for a 3-4 minutes of street performance, can't you pay 99¢ (or less) for 3-4 minutes of a high-quality recording which you can listen to as much as you like?

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#228

Post by logicfiction »

XorNot wrote: post #132
sudoherethere wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is simply because most people have their credit card info saved in Amazon already. And people are lazy. And yeah I would be reluctant to use my credit card on a shady looking website but I don't even think twice about using my card at shady looking businesses. For example, just last week, I bought tacos from a taco stand inside gas station. Was site shady looking or just unknown? For me as long as site has valid…

Digital compared to physical is no comparison at all. A physical shop incurs physical consequences - like people knowing where you are, where your address is, and being able to say "it was over there". EDIT: And credit cards still require you to reasonably show the charges are fraudulent, which means hey, you get to report it. And now you're out a credit card, so you also need to change it on all the places you need…

Anecdotally, I got my credit card frauded 3 times over the span of 4 months a couple years back. I started reviewing sites I'd purchased with online wondering where my details might have been leaking out. Lo and behold, a local store nearby had their POS systems hacked. It took a quorum of local people on reddit to identify that it was this store in particular. My point is physical locations are just as insecure as websites and in fact it's usually a lot less obvious than remembering that sketchy website you bought an MP3 from and never going back.

In all cases it was also my credit card company that called me to let me know I was the victim of fraud on my card. Is it really the case that people need to hawk their accounts? I haven't had that experience for years now.

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#229

Post by jolan »

Steuard wrote: post #31

I feel old. This article begins by pining for the good, old-fashioned 'net of 2012. I know that I'm not the most attentive person on this topic, but honestly I don't feel like the big picture has changed much in years. Services like Twitter started up, grew wildly, and then looked for some way to make money for pretty much that whole time. Social networks sprout up; some make it, some don't. Big companies do some coo…

Just reeks of being a whiny niche webfotainment consumer.

> I've really loved listening to SoundCloud over the past couple years since mainstream radio sucks, for the same reasons that mainstream TV used to (needing to target the lowest common denominator so as to not upset advertisers.)

Boohoo, now my favorite sites are going mainstream since I spend hours on their sites/consuming their bandwidth and they need to cover costs.

Alexa time on site:

facebook: 21:23 reddit: 18:30 youtube: 17:52 tumblr: 12:46 twitter: 7:41 soundcloud: 4:24

That's an hour and a half of a person's day.

> There have to be business models that allow the creativity of sites like XKCD, Reddit, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, to flourish. There has to be a way to save the walled garden of bland banality that the internet is becoming.

But you're still going to these sites despite the banality.

> Who's doing this to my internet?

You are.

> But most importantly, who will solve it?

Consider nominating yourself.

Re: Who's doing this to my internet?

#230

Post by golergka »

rndmize wrote: post #217
golergka wrote: post #52

Users. Users always talk that they would love to pay. The problem is, they never do. They blog and write on forums about what they would like to see, but the things they write are always very, very different from what they actually do, according to the data. You remember how in this whole Reddit debacle Pao said that "most of users don't really care about this scandal" and got downvoted to hell? It could very well be…

I'd consider myself a lurker most of the time and I tend to express myself more through actions than posting on the web. In this case, I already do pay - I have a subscription to DI.fm, and was actively looking for something similar on Soundcloud when they rolled out the ads. Unfortunately, as there isn't anything, I've simply started using Soundcloud less in favor of DI. This isn't the first time I've been frustrate…

I'm more familiar with Soundcloud from the publishing side: I seldom listen, but that's the primary place where I share my music.

The point is, SC isn't built as a service that provides a sound library. Just compare how easy it is to publish a track on iTunes and on SC: there's this huge button in the top that calls you to upload something. iTunes is a shop, it's got everything (actually, it doesn't have a lot of tracks, but you can replace it with Beatport or Juno, doesn't really matter). Soundcloud, on the other hand, is more oriented toward releasing what's here and now. I've hidden and deleted my own tracks a lot of times: sometimes they were WIPs that I didn't want to release anyway, sometimes I decided to remove the track from public access so I can release it on a label later, and sometimes I just decided that a track sucks and should be ashamed of it.

Could it be that these tracks were hidden because of similar reasons? Or, may be, they were uploaded by users who didn't have the rights to these tracks in the first place?

Post reply on HN