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

Google Contributor

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: Google Contributor

#131

Post by smtddr »

jfoster wrote: post #129
egypturnash wrote: post #60

A fraction of $3/mo? From a company that abandons projects left and right? I'll stick to Patreon, thanks. I'm making about $800 on a productive month now despite there being a pretty small audience for comics about a lesbian robot with PKD problems. I set "no ads for anyone" as my goal for like $50/p, which was still making far more than I ever did from ad impressions. Most people only contribute a buck or so a page…

Exactly. This idea only needs to be moderately successful for a standalone company to stick with it. It needs to be hugely successful for Google to remain committed to it. I'd go as far as saying Google are negligent (or malicious) for trying it. They might kill any startup doing the same thing, and then they will inevitably shut this down.

Well to be fair, it does say "experiment". I read that as "We can terminate this thing at anytime and you should expect as much"

Re: Google Contributor

#133

Post by eropple »

bcolb wrote: post #80

Personally I prefer the Bitcoin version of this, autotip. It is a Chrome browser extension that automatically tips sites Bitcoin when you visit it. That way I essentially am just tipping sites that I want to visit as I visit them. You can also blacklist sites, set tip amounts, etc. https://priestc.github.io/Autotip/ On the development side implementation was very easy. All it takes is a meta tag with a bitcoin addres…

It's great that that works for you, but this works for normal people. Kind of a big difference.

Re: Google Contributor

#134

Post by fairblocker »

erjiu wrote: post #124
fairblocker wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just launched almost exactly what you describe. It is called FairBlocker. An ad blocker with a monthly subscription fee (of your choice), which we then split up among the sites where ads are blocked. We're looking for feedback from people who get the problem - what do you think? Feel free to email me directly if you want: zack@fairblocker.com

for fuck sake, STOP FUCKING ADVERTISING your companies. We know its startup boom and everyone want to hit big and become millionaire and say fuck off. I don't come to HN to repeatedly learn about your FUCKING STUPID companies in every reply. Go advertise somewhere else.

I understand the sentiment, but I do think that replying to people talking about exactly what my company does is an appropriate place to try and discuss what I'm working on. This is the only thread I've brought my product up in and did it because it is a discussion of the same concept.

Re: Google Contributor

#135

Post by bsbechtel »

nindalf wrote: post #109
bsbechtel wrote: post #77

On the surface this sounds great, but I also get the feeling this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. The billions of website that exist on the web should be proof of that.

Its a problem that doesn't exist, but will in a few years from now. Those billions of sites depend upon advertising revenue. As ad-blockers have become more popular, the rates that advertisers are willing to pay has fallen. Eventually we could see a majority of users block ads and sites would have to shut down for lack of revenue. This initiative can preempt that. Also remember the overused line "if you're not paying…

Fair points, although the fact that Google is offering this product makes your point about violating the privacy of users a bit moot (in this particular instance...not the solution in general).

Re: Google Contributor

#136

Post by eropple »

fairblocker wrote: post #134
erjiu wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for fuck sake, STOP FUCKING ADVERTISING your companies. We know its startup boom and everyone want to hit big and become millionaire and say fuck off. I don't come to HN to repeatedly learn about your FUCKING STUPID companies in every reply. Go advertise somewhere else.

I understand the sentiment, but I do think that replying to people talking about exactly what my company does is an appropriate place to try and discuss what I'm working on. This is the only thread I've brought my product up in and did it because it is a discussion of the same concept.

You're spamming, and I've flagged each of your posts.

Chill out.

Re: Google Contributor

#137

Post by stass »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #24
XiZhao wrote: post #3

Must Google do everything?

Yes, please. Because they seem to be one of the few companies who make things that don't suck .

That's subjective. I don't recall a single product from them that came after search and didn't suck. But the real problem with them is these solutions are being pushed down people throats whether they like it or not similar to what Microsoft was doing in the 90s. This is just another example.

Re: Google Contributor

#138

Post by jfoster »

smtddr wrote: post #131
jfoster wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This idea only needs to be moderately successful for a standalone company to stick with it. It needs to be hugely successful for Google to remain committed to it. I'd go as far as saying Google are negligent (or malicious) for trying it. They might kill any startup doing the same thing, and then they will inevitably shut this down.

Well to be fair, it does say "experiment". I read that as "We can terminate this thing at anytime and you should expect as much"

Sure, but what effect does that "experiment" have on the other companies that are dedicated to the idea? It doesn't matter what Google calls it. Google could crush those companies and still eventually consider this opportunity too small to be worth their while.

Re: Google Contributor

#139

Post by libraryatnight »

This might explain why imgur suddenly decided to make all accounts equal and refund my subscription fee.

As others have expressed, Google's tendency to abandon things means I don't take this very seriously and would rather see sites that want to use this model go with another company that's committed to the idea as a business.

Re: Google Contributor

#140

Post by saraid216 »

dpweb wrote: post #36

At the risk of being an unpopular opinion, advertising has been a huge boon in the growth of the Internet. I dislike the ad crazy "news" sites that bombard you and destroy the entire user-experience, but I would equate a not-too-intrusive advertisement as being not an obnoxious thing, and something that allows you to get something, not totally for free, but at the cost of a second of your attention. I'm sure popular…

I would prefer to look upon advertising as a stepping stone. We needed the advertising ecosystem when the Internet had a bunch of neat ideas and didn't really know how to monetize any of it. Now we're starting to get far more robust payments systems and a more solid understanding of how to offer value add in exchange for money.

Advertising was a huge boon while we transitioned from a wilderness state through a frontier phase, but we're past that now; I really hope that we progressively step down the advertising we do in favor of microtransactions of all kinds.

> About donations, I would look to the experience of those disappointed folks who hoped to recoup some costs waiting for donations.

As a counterpoint, there are definitely content creators on Patreon whose fans are donating enough on a regular basis for them to have a steady income. I haven't really looked through a large number of them, but the ones I pitch into have a pretty tidy monthly amount: not as much as I make as a programmer, but certainly a living.

Post reply on HN