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

Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

ossa-ma.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 552 posts

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#481

Post by vagrantJin »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #163
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #6

I think ads will inevitably roll out across all tiers, even the expensive paid ones. Ad revenue isn't uniformly distributed across users, but rather heavily skewed towards the wealthiest users, exactly the users most able to purchase an ad-free experience. The users paying $20 or $200/month for premium tiers of ChatGPT are precisely the ones you don't want to exclude from generating ad revenue. Google realized this a…

>Google realized this a long time ago; there is no ad-free paid version of Google Search. Google actually experimented with this about a decade ago (I know, I was one of the suckers who paid), but it got canned because why the fuck would you pay google when u-bloc is free? Companies absolutely will offer ad-free experiences. Google has youtube premium, which even compensates creators with half your sub as well. Evenl…

I know its well meaning, but 14 dollars US a month is not cheap globally. The people who do block are probably not the group google wants to advertise to anyway.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#482

Post by vanviegen »

mancerayder wrote: post #44
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #6

I think ads will inevitably roll out across all tiers, even the expensive paid ones. Ad revenue isn't uniformly distributed across users, but rather heavily skewed towards the wealthiest users, exactly the users most able to purchase an ad-free experience. The users paying $20 or $200/month for premium tiers of ChatGPT are precisely the ones you don't want to exclude from generating ad revenue. Google realized this a…

This kills me, and you're right - there's no escaping the ads even with a sub. Take online journalism as an example. We're already being double-billed. Expensive subscription news like WSJ, Bloomberg and it's been a while but even FT require ad blockers even if you're subscribed.. If you're not subscribed you don't even see the ads because you can't see the full article. It's wild that we've normalized this. There's…

Doing actual journalism is expensive and not many people are still willing to pay to read the news. These companies are definitely not printing money. That's why billionaires can buy them on the cheap. Not for the expected profit, but for the influence it brings them.

If you can, please support serious journalism with your subscription dollars!

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#483

Post by utopiah »

dyauspitr wrote: post #452
yoyohello13 wrote: post #187

The ad based business model is the most destructive technology of the new millennium. The whole point of advertising, to make people feel unsatisfied with their current life. The current state of the world makes perfect sense when you think of the last 20 years we've been cultivating fear, and dissatisfaction among the populace. All in the hopes of selling 0.1% more widgets.

Ads are what capitalism runs on. It would be next to impossible for a new business to get off the ground without ads.

Guess I didn't take the same econ classes, I thought providing value to the customer was what capitalism ran on. I go to the butcher next door without having seen a single ad about it. They just sell a "better" product (according to my own criteria) than the supermarkets around.

If tomorrow (please take a second to imagine) that ads were banned and it worked (effectively 0 ads anywhere) I would still read journals that review new boardgames, I would still need products to fix my bike, etc.

It's value that makes capitalism run, not ads.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#484

Post by utopiah »

aniviacat wrote: post #385
littlecranky67 wrote: post #319

Ads will be no longer a buisness model in 3-5 years when simple, locally run models that do nothing besides blocking ads become available. Twitter, Facebook etc. already get past most modern adblockers, but the AI extension will be able to filter them. In-text advertising must be marked as advertisment in most countries, and even if it isn't, local AI will filter this probably out. So a free ChatGPT service with in-t…

Alternatively, DRM for websites will start being a thing and remove any possibility of blocking ads.

There are already DRM for Websites e.g. several audio and video streaming services.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#486

Post by utopiah »

yalogin wrote: post #462

OpenAI has to be in panic mode, because google is stealing its market. Google for the big apple slice. Anthropic’s got the coding market mindshare. OpenAI has a decent chatbot share but I am sure it’s a declining business. They have fully squeezed everything out of the trump alignment, not sure there is much left there either. Also musk is probably going to get the federal government llm service money. They have to g…

> throwing shit at the wall with Johnny Ive and hardware.

Damn, I already forgot about that. You'd think a company who has the smartest people on Earth building a "product" that is "intelligence" would be able to... you know, make something out of it. Somehow despite ALL that, despite all the press too, they can't ship? Something does not add up, it's as if, and I know I'm going to sound like a crazy person, they were just... a normal company! /s

> I was initially rooting for OpenAI hoping it can challenge google and Apple. However they showed to being unscrupulous and seem to have a moral compass at the same level as meta.

OK ok well this is weird to me, I didn't think I'd be the one to defend Meta here ... but Meta at least never hid it's intention : it was a for-profit VC backed startup which only goal was to make money from day 1. OpenAI though started as a non-profit, collected goodwill from everyone to get the best talent because it's 1 thing, what made it special : it's mission WAS safety. Then they did 1 thing that actually got popular, GPT2, thanks to some pretty damn good marketing "Oh no, it's too risky to release!... but ok OK here it is anyway, but like don't destroy the World please." then exclusive partnership, etc, etc. Meta was "We want money." so at least they didn't lie about it.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#487

Post by bsjaux628 »

p_v_doom wrote: post #479
csense wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising spend being too high is a symptom of a supply glut. Too many products in the marketplace, not enough consumers to buy them. In a different world where there are higher wages, more people would have more spending power. Then companies wouldn't have to spend as many dollars on advertising, which they could split between higher wages, higher margins and lower prices. Alas, the short-term single-firm directio…

> the real cause of nobody being able to afford anything is rent extractors. Employers/Owners are essentially rent extractors to workers. Its even worse IMO. They buy some of your time to do stuff for them. They also lend you the tools and materials to do your job. And they own whatever you produce. If you are selling your one hour for 100 bucks to produce ten linen coats worth 100 bucks each, you get a 100, everythi…

Yes, because the employer just happened to be the first one to find the fully built and equipped coat factory and he declared himself the boss. He in no way shape or form had to risk his capital to set up a successful business, so he should be living from scraps

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#488

Post by carlosjobim »

gruez wrote: post #291
sdenton4 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how we had a major boom in middle-class wealth int he US post WW2. If you are only selling coconuts, a single raw material, yes, you will run into supply constraints such that prices go up. But that isn't how economics works. Your zero-sum economics example is only applicable in short-term scenarios: over the longer term, new industries develop to solve persistent problems that people are willing to pay to so…

>This is how we had a major boom in middle-class wealth int he US post WW2. The fact that Europe got bombed no doubt helped too, same with the elites being concerned that communism was on the rise and giving workers a better deal in an effort to stave that off. >Your zero-sum economics example is only applicable in short-term scenarios: over the longer term, new industries develop to solve persistent problems that pe…

>This is how we had a major boom in middle-class wealth int he US post WW2.

>The fact that Europe got bombed no doubt helped too

Europe also had a massive boom in middle-class wealth post WW2. I don't understand how this myth continues to live on, when the evidence against it is total.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#489

Post by b112 »

8organicbits wrote: post #126
Quarrelsome wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The users paying $20 or $200/month for premium tiers of ChatGPT are precisely the ones you don't want to exclude from generating ad revenue. but they're already paying you. While I appreciate the greed can be there, surely they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. There's many people who would pay who find advertising toxic and they have such huge volumes at free level that they'd be able to make a lot off a low i…

The stats I see for Facebook are $70 per US/Canadian user in ad revenue. I'm not sure how much people would be willing to pay for an ad free Facebook, but it must be below $70 on average. And as the parent comment said, the users who would pay that are likely worth much more than the average user to the advertisers. For the users who refuse to see ads, they'd either use a different platform or run an ad blocker (espe…

But what if Facebook removed all tracking/promotion/ad code?

It would have a far, far smaller codebase, and only need 10% of the engineers and resources(servers, ram, databases, etc) it has now.

Re: Predicting OpenAI's ad strategy

#490

Post by YetAnotherNick »

> Mate come on. OpenAI is not dying, they're not running out of money. Yes, they're creating possibly the craziest circular economy and defying every economics law

You are starting with wrong assumption and contradicting yourself. Circular economy couldn't last forever once we start looking at the profit. They need money outside the funding to justify the funding.

You can't both say they are not earning at all and they are being greedy.

Post reply on HN