TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Who's doing this to my internet?

366 pointsby vkbalmost 10 years ago

61 comments

Steuardalmost 10 years ago
I feel old. This article begins by pining for the good, old-fashioned &#x27;net of 2012. I know that I&#x27;m not the most attentive person on this topic, but honestly I don&#x27;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&#x27;t. Big companies do some cool things and some cruddy ones. Lean new browsers burst onto the scene and then gradually bloat. Advertisers find new ways to intrude into formerly pristine conversations. (The rise of clickbait sites isn&#x27;t even remotely as disruptive today as the rise of spam and sporge posts was to Usenet, just for instance.)<p>So I suppose my point is that I don&#x27;t see any reason to think that the sky is falling today. Yes, some beloved sites and valuable modes of interaction are changing. But it&#x27;s not the end of the internet: this has been going on since the beginning. We&#x27;ll adapt, as we always have, especially if folks who care about creating vibrant communities and rich flows of information keep finding ways to innovate.
评论 #9961181 未加载
评论 #9961313 未加载
评论 #9962584 未加载
评论 #9961504 未加载
评论 #9961418 未加载
icebrainingalmost 10 years ago
<i>Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I&#x27;d never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song</i><p>And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads instead of charging.
评论 #9961761 未加载
评论 #9961050 未加载
评论 #9961211 未加载
评论 #9961674 未加载
评论 #9961301 未加载
评论 #9961059 未加载
评论 #9962045 未加载
评论 #9961088 未加载
评论 #9961129 未加载
评论 #9961680 未加载
评论 #9964017 未加载
评论 #9961366 未加载
评论 #9961658 未加载
评论 #9961996 未加载
评论 #9961580 未加载
评论 #9962271 未加载
评论 #9961368 未加载
评论 #9961147 未加载
golergkaalmost 10 years ago
Users.<p>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.<p>You remember how in this whole Reddit debacle Pao said that &quot;most of users don&#x27;t really care about this scandal&quot; and got downvoted to hell? It could very well be true, but users who were constantly around subreddits that were involved in the drama couldn&#x27;t believe it. They are sure that evil corporate suits are out of touch with reality because they &quot;don&#x27;t even use their own service&quot; and consume the information in form of PowerPoint presentations. But those suits are very well in touch with reality — it is a couple of SQL queries away from them, actually. (And I see that &quot;managers&quot; are getting more and more literate in terms of analytics, by the way — SQL and R aren&#x27;t really that hard, and often you have much more user-friendly analytic services at your hands).<p>I&#x27;m not saying that big websites don&#x27;t do bullshit. Of course they do. But when they do something that users <i></i>actually<i></i> don&#x27;t like, users punish them in the most harsh way possible: with their wallets. Don&#x27;t you remember how internet used to be? The hundreds of popups, for example — turns out, users didn&#x27;t like it enough to install Firefox, so these guys went out of business. I could recall more examples like this, but this comment is already too wordy; you get the picture.<p>If you want to stop Buzzfeed, don&#x27;t click clickbait and shame (in a constructive way — without calling them idiots, but making them feel a little bit low-brow, basic manipulation isn&#x27;t that hard) your facebook friends for reposting such bullshit. And if you won&#x27;t succeed, you&#x27;ll just have to face the reality of being one in several billions.
评论 #9961628 未加载
评论 #9961448 未加载
评论 #9961843 未加载
评论 #9962429 未加载
评论 #9961917 未加载
ohitsdomalmost 10 years ago
Really enjoyed this post, but I think some of her thoughts point to the root of the problem.<p>&gt; I started by trying to buy each of them separately.<p>&gt; $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song<p>So she wanted to compensate each artist for the songs she loved, but only at an amount of her choosing? I&#x27;m assuming she was expecting 99 cents, so we&#x27;re essentially haggling over $0.50 here. This shows why the advertising model is so prevalent- people don&#x27;t want to pay for content, even if it&#x27;s a song that the person listens to 10 times a day.<p>That being said, the giving credit card info to an unknown domain is a real concern and I totally understand that. But it was mentioned second, after price, which feels more like justification for not being willing to pay $1.50 for a song.
评论 #9961081 未加载
评论 #9961896 未加载
评论 #9961651 未加载
jameshartalmost 10 years ago
That&#x27;s not your internet. That soundcloud content isn&#x27;t yours, and neither is Soundcloud. Reddit isn&#x27;t yours. Tumblr isn&#x27;t yours. Github, where that posting is hosted, isn&#x27;t yours either. This site, where you linked to the discussion because you don&#x27;t have a local comment facility, isn&#x27;t yours. And it&#x27;s not mine either, no matter how many comments I leave or votes I make or imaginary internet points I win or lose.<p>Your client, your internet connection, and a server you pay for, on a domain you own, with bandwidth you pay for. That&#x27;s your internet. You can use that however you want.<p>Nobody&#x27;s doing anything to your internet (well, notable exception for mobile carriers and anti-net-neutrality-campaigners). They&#x27;re doing things to their own internet.
jonstokesalmost 10 years ago
This article has made me realize that I&#x27;m about to start paying for sites to show me ads, and paying a lot. What do I mean?<p>We just bought a gorgeous 15+ acre property outside of Austin with all kinds of outdoorsy stuff that I like -- horse barn, stocked pond, creek, salt water pool, woods with bike trails, etc. I&#x27;ve convinced my wife, a city girl, that we should all (we have three small kids) move out there and just try it out. The big problem is that there is no wired internet service of any kind at that address.<p>Luckily, I have clear line of sight to a cluster of cell towers less than a mile away, so we get 5 bars of every carrier out there. I&#x27;ll be starting out on ATT&#x27;s ~$375&#x2F;month plan which is capped at 50GB&#x2F;month with $10 per GB(!!) overage charges.<p>This means that for the first time in my life, I&#x27;m actually considering installing ad blocking software on our machines, because I just don&#x27;t want to pay for tons and tons of ads. There are so. many. freaking. ads., and the web is so slow now. Those of us who actually pay for our bandwidth are getting screwed.<p>I&#x27;m happy to pay for your content. I&#x27;m not happy to pay for your ads. There has to be a better way.
评论 #9961700 未加载
icebrainingalmost 10 years ago
This timeline is a little skewed. Google+ started in 2011, way before Project Loom was announced. SOPA was introduced to the house in 2011 as well.<p>And none of this is new. Before SOPA and PIPA, the DMCA raised similar discussions. Ads have been degrading the experience at least since Tripod introduced popups. And the Tumblr arguments are almost the same as back when Geocities was bought - in fact, by the same company!
评论 #9962821 未加载
georgefrickalmost 10 years ago
So it all starts with some guy having the genius idea to &quot;rebrand&quot; the internet. Now it is &quot;The Cloud&quot;, a fancy term for &#x27;server&#x27;. Then all the late millenials fall for it. &quot;It&#x27;s cool, it&#x27;s in the cloud, I stream my &lt;everything&gt;&quot;. I thought it was fairly obvious that the cloud meant &#x27;turn the internet into TV stations&#x27;. Which is a mostly completed process at this point.<p>Now it&#x27;s the good ol&#x27; days of 2012 when there was still bait on the line. 2012? Companies have been trying to transform the internet for a long time, and users have been helping by refusing to:<p>a) pay for anything. b) create sites&#x2F;content the way we used to.<p>It wouldn&#x27;t kill you to order an album, drop it in a CD drive and rip it. My apologies for implying hard labor.<p>You want your MTV.
chasingalmost 10 years ago
&gt; &quot;Who is doing this to my internet?&quot;<p>We all are. It costs money to create, host, and distribute content. We&#x27;ve demonstrated our unwillingness to pay a proper amount for it. (For example: &quot;I would gladly buy it on MP3 for 99 cents... $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song...&quot;) And so companies that do this stuff have to get creative about making money. And advertising does the job.<p>The solution is to pay much more money for the content that you now get for free.
fit2rulealmost 10 years ago
This is why I think solutions like IPFS are the future:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ipfs.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ipfs.io&#x2F;</a><p>(tl;dr: go get github.com&#x2F;ipfs&#x2F;go-ipfs&#x2F;cmd&#x2F;ipfs)<p>Basically, the day will come when any single one of us will be able to serve our own content privately from our own machine without requiring a massive infrastructure investment, nor any kind of fancy participation in what is, essentially, branding on steroids (Internet of today), but rather all it will require to sell and control ones own art is to publish it yourself with cryptographic certainty that <i>there simply is no middle man any more</i>.<p>Its the third party that degrades all art - those who have to carry the stuff from place to place in order to pimp things for the artist. Get rid of this, and give the artist direct and completely control over where and when and to whom their art is delivered, and we produce the utopia that many of us artists wish we had. It is unbearable to have to go through a third party to get to the masses; to have direct contact is the ultimate goal..
评论 #9961486 未加载
norea-armozelalmost 10 years ago
I think the author doesn&#x27;t realize that what&#x27;s changed about the Internet isn&#x27;t the technology. It&#x27;s the people that changed. Today folks expect to get things for free with adverts. But now people don&#x27;t want the adverts either so they use uBlock (I know I do). So, what&#x27;s left for content and technology&#x2F;service creators to do?<p>I think micropayments would be a viable solution if a platform that&#x27;s fairly secure and non-intrusive was created (I don&#x27;t think Paypal or Bitcoin fit the bill). But the problem is that people today are rightly concerned about identity theft which can wind up draining their bank accounts or tanking their credit score. So, I&#x27;m not sure such a scheme would ever take off if companies like Sony can&#x27;t secure their own infrastructure.<p>Anyways, the author should realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Either you pay in advertisements and data mining your personal info or you pay up front. Honestly, I prefer to pay up front and as directly to the creators as possible.
评论 #9961451 未加载
mratzloffalmost 10 years ago
So, to be clear, you are a self-described &quot;music connoisseur&quot; who is unwilling to support the artists you claim to love at any point while their content is freely available, yet you claim that you would be willing to pay for a subscription model. Yet when you feel that content is at risk you are also unwilling to pay if access to their music is not instant and the cost is marginally more than nothing.<p>You are a net-negative fan. Your support does nothing for the artists and, until recently, costs SoundCloud money. When SoundCloud adjusts their business to account for users like yourself, you complain publicly with a shakily-supported premise that I believe is actually more a complaint about digital things having a cost.<p>When I like a band or an artist, I buy their albums on CD or MP3. There&#x27;s even an independent record store I like near my house, one of the last, and I frequently buy from there, because their existence enriches my life and the community. If an artist is on Bandcamp, I buy through Bandcamp and usually give more than the minimum because I know Bandcamp gets a cut and because I work in technology and have the money to do so.<p>If you don&#x27;t like the ads, buy the music and listen whenever you want. Don&#x27;t be a net-negative fan and then complain when you are treated as such.
ZenoArrowalmost 10 years ago
There are many ways to support content creators who distribute via the web, such as Flattr ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flattr.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flattr.com</a> ) and Google Contributor (as nandhp mentioned). Patreon is becoming popular too ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.patreon.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.patreon.com</a> ).<p>As for music, my personal favourite site is Bandcamp, aside from having an interesting mix of music I believe it has a model that&#x27;s good for artists and fans alike ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bandcamp.com</a> ).
Marazanalmost 10 years ago
Annoyed at &quot;Big Corporate&quot; taking over the internet, not willing to buy from small independent label&#x2F;store.<p>The lack of self awareness is outstanding. And astounding.
panicalmost 10 years ago
How can a web site survive without ads? You can charge a subscription fee, but many users who would tolerate ads will just leave when faced with a paywall. You can ask for donations. Or you can run the site as cheaply as possible and try to support it out of your own pocket.<p>Given these alternatives, it&#x27;s easy to see why people support their site with ads. So how can we make these alternatives more attractive? Or is there some other way for web sites to survive?
评论 #9961630 未加载
评论 #9961087 未加载
sirsukialmost 10 years ago
Something that has always bothered me about advertisements isn&#x27;t that companies are creating&#x2F;using them it was that <i>they actually work</i>! The reason ads are everywhere is because they make money, LOTS of money. In 2010 it was estimated by &quot;statista.com&quot; (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;statistics&#x2F;237797&#x2F;total-global-advertising-revenue&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;statistics&#x2F;237797&#x2F;total-global-adver...</a>) that the advertisement industry made 495 billion U.S. Dollars ranking it higher then Retail or Oil&#x2F;Gas according to outdated &quot;Wikipedia&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_largest_companies_by_r...</a>). So my point is the crux of the problem is more to do with our (global) society then it does the evil plot of an industry. The best weapon against ads is to stop making them profitable. Bad flash or obnoxious java applets <i>make money!</i> Having a stupid mascot walk across the page offering to help <i>makes money!</i> Forcing people to watch and listen to ads just to see the cute kitten play with yarn <i>makes money!</i> Why wouldn&#x27;t it be littered everywhere? Case in point: SPAM. That Viagra email poorly written and incorrectly translated actually makes the pharmaceutical companies money! Sad, real sad.
aidanhsalmost 10 years ago
This article is interesting because there seems to be an assumption that there is some ideal the web should strive towards (&quot;free exchange of information&quot;), when actually everyone is optimising for their local maxima.<p>Google wanted to challenge Facebook and had a huge userbases on lots of different platforms...you can see the reasoning which would lead them to add everyone to an umbrella google social network. The Verge saw a way to make money with relatively little investment on their part - a seductive offer. Soundcloud (presumably) found a business plan with a clear path to profit and evaluated it to be the best option.<p>In the end, all of these companies exist to make money. Those that do stick around to be criticised, those that fail are irrelevant! Buzzfeed is a great example because it&#x27;s so polarising - it&#x27;s criticised for having low quality content, and yet it&#x27;s extremely popular, a perfect example of something that people clearly do actively want to use. If you had an isolated choice reduce your userbase by 20% but increase profit by 10x, that&#x27;s an easy business decision to make.<p>I just find it difficult to make sweeping criticisms of these companies and the internet as a whole - these are independent evolutions, each of which can be criticised on their own demerits. Of course the internet will evolve to consist mostly of what the majority wants - this isn&#x27;t inherently good or bad.
dlualmost 10 years ago
You know how in the innovator&#x27;s dilemma, the point at which the new innovator gets a foothold is also the point where the old firm has peak profits? I think there&#x27;s a similar thing where the best time to user a particular service is when the service is least profitable.<p>That&#x27;s what the 2012 nostalgia sounds like to me. Back when Twitter was hosting revolutions, but still having issues with uptime (not to mention revenue). And Project Loon was alive, but mostly getting mocked by both Wall Street and charities&#x2F;nonprofits (With Bill Gates being the most visible).<p>I also suspect 2012-2014 was when SoundCloud had huge amounts of traffic and, without any way of making money, at its least profitable. I have no actual evidence of this.<p>Personally, Project Loon always sounded like some crazy way of getting more people to use Google than actual charity. Like some weird extrapolation from, &quot;the more people that use the Internet, the more money Google makes&quot; and &quot;Google&#x27;s reached market saturation in current markets, we need growth in developing countries&quot;<p><i></i>Going off memory for all this. Sorry if I get some details wrong about Innovators Dilemma, Twitter in 2012, Project Loon and such.
netcanalmost 10 years ago
This is somewhat tangental, but it&#x27;s tangental on a couple of points so I&#x27;ll bring it up anyway.<p>Would someone please fix &quot;podcasting,&quot; and maybe even RSS?<p>The first tangent is 2012 (or maybe 2007, I dunno time is a blur). RSS and XML were one of the Web 2.0 buzz. Blogs were exploding and there was a lot of novel writing of a type we didn&#x27;t have much of before. RSS, XML, semantic web and their friends were being brought up all the time (here too) in confusing contents. I didn&#x27;t really get it but I assumed other people did.<p>I think there was something wrong with the conceptual design of it.<p>Podcasting though, that was a nice little bastard of RSS and ipod. She had weird hair in weirder places, but.. I&#x27;m going to abandon this metaphor ..podcast content has been getting better and better.<p>It&#x27;s terrible to use though. It&#x27;s hard to find or share content. It&#x27;s hard to subscribe, even if you know the name of the show. All the podcatchers suck.<p>It has a lot os stuff going for it though. It&#x27;s genuinely &quot;web.&quot; Compared to youtube or any other centralized internet media. Anyone can host their own audio files and broadcast the feed. Apple, Sound cloud or whoever makes an app using podcast content can access all the content. They can filter, sensor and display it how they see fit. This could be great for competition, freedom of speech.<p>Why do all the apps suck? Why is it so hard to find content. If you&#x27;re below median technically, just getting from the show&#x27;s site to a feed in your app is a serious challenge. I suspect the protocol is partially to blame, but I don&#x27;t know.<p>Anyway, HN… fix it?
评论 #9965453 未加载
mironathetinalmost 10 years ago
&quot; There have to be business models that allow the creativity of sites like XKCD, Reddit, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, to flourish. &quot;<p>There, in the last sentence is the relevant insight. But, sadly, here the post stops.<p>I must admit, for me the most relevant information was google using the computers mike through chrome. I am shocked how far companies can go and do go. I think this finally ends the discussion about google being evil or not.
评论 #9961577 未加载
vkbalmost 10 years ago
There is a lot of focus and discussion around the $1.50 figure I mentioned, and perhaps I was wrong to include it in the post. The $1.50 is not the point. I would pay $1.50. I gladly pay for Pinboard, Newsblur, The New York Times, The Economist, The New Yorker, and many other online services that provide exponential value to me. And, as I mentioned in the post, I am more than happy to pay $10 a month for SoundCloud because I use it so much.<p>My point is that instead of even offering the option of a subscription, SoundCloud immediately went to ads that are annoying and hostile and started deleting music, forcing me to scramble to other options that are just as hostile (where hostile == &quot;first world problem&quot; of paying with a credit card to multiple unknown vendors) because music distribution online is broken.
评论 #9962065 未加载
RUG3Yalmost 10 years ago
I think the reality is that content is just not worth anything anymore. There is SO MUCH content out there. The internet has democratized content creation. Now that anyone can publish content, record an album, what have you, the value of content has dropped to nearly nothing. I don&#x27;t necessarily think this is a bad thing. I&#x27;m a musician and artist myself, and I think that many artists and musicians feel entitled to success. Essentially, art and music are worthless - they feed no one, they build no bridges. I see no problem with art and music being fragmented into groups of passionate hobbyists with day jobs that produce art for the love of art.
评论 #9963456 未加载
romanivalmost 10 years ago
There is a working business model that does not rely on ads: Kickstarter.<p>The problem with making everything subscription-based is that it changes the dynamic of the website. A lot.<p>An interesting experiment would be to allow people to pay not just for themselves, but for a few others as well. I.e. you&#x27;ve seen something good, you pay to get rid of ads for that item and it removes ads for N other people as well. Sure, there will be free-riders. That&#x27;s the point. I postulate that those free-riders would be the people would otherwise not use the platform at all.
gad2103almost 10 years ago
&gt; The New York Times (which I pay for), is making some money off its paywall, but still a lot more through digital advertising experiences, which mean it&#x27;s limited in what it can truly say.<p>disclaimer: I&#x27;m a dev at NYT. comment: As a dev at the Times in the Data Science and Engineering department, I am privy to all of our data, aware of our ad-services integrations and relationships with our advertisers, in contact with marketing and, most germane to the discussion, allowed to sit in on editorial decision-making discussions (sometimes). I can honestly say that this part of the OP&#x27;s post is very far from the reality of how decisions are made here. In fact, the newsroom, while increasingly aware of a controlled set of analytics, works almost completely without concern for the financial aspects of the company. Even if a reporter wants to see analytics regarding an article he&#x2F;she wrote, or a report on aggregated article performance, that information is only in the purview of an editor and, even then, limited to data that intentionally exclude information that might lead to &#x27;click-bait&#x27; articles. While this might change over time, I can assure you that it will be very very controlled and that the newsroom has stronger veto power than marketing and advertising. I have never witnessed a scenario where an article is pushed or pulled based on what an advertiser wants and I can&#x27;t fathom how that would happen. Hopefully, this will assuage the OP&#x27;s fears that the news we print is somehow at the whims of our advertisers.
brokencogalmost 10 years ago
Ad&#x27;s delivered via the Internet ... gee, let&#x27;s see some time around 1992 I guess I recall the first of them, they got obnoxious shortly after with pop-up&#x27;s and blinky text.<p>Which is too say nothing about today&#x27;s websites has offered anything really new since the first webpage did even before that.<p>Twitter Revolution? not about twitter, it&#x27;s about the millions who went into the streets (with and without twitter).<p>Cloud Sharing? In 1990 all my data was housed in the Cloud, my apps ran in the cloud and I was happy to have a slice of the VAX so I could send messages to my mate in the other computer room.<p>New Browser features! Yay! stuff it that the browser is already unsafe, slow and cumbersome - make it look Different and call it Better.<p>The point here is that the Web has always been the get rich scheme for half baked ideas ... as it ever was.<p>Nowhere ever has any Internet based service been free. Someone Somewhere has had to pay for all of it. The only thing &quot;new&quot; about what this author is pining about is for the Johnny Come Lately who entered the Internet, is they assume too much -- they assume they are entitled to a free service and shouldn&#x27;t have to be bothered about how it is provided. Just like they are IRL.
isaaaaahalmost 10 years ago
How about building your own platform? Your post is a clear indicator that there is a space left in the market for services that deliver your model, without all the marketing bullshit and bigdata hype. How about a google with a proper query interface (not just +,-,&quot;)? How about a social platform for organising parties, without farmville and like this and like that? How about a platform where i can buy whole seasons of game of thrones for download or stream as soon they get released? Or how a bout a twitter for 30 seconds voice messages, that cost you a dollar for every extra minute? There is lots of money to earn. Sure i might be stupid for sharing these ideas, but id rather have them become reality instead of suffering from this dumbing down of the internet to become the TV 2.0. Yes i am paranoid, and i think i have right to be, as a member of a political party that once had the goal to preserve the beneficial part of the internet, which has now become just another political party with most of its delegates being the usual representatives of the 48 laws of power.
评论 #9961436 未加载
crisnoblealmost 10 years ago
Meanwhile via <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.residentadvisor.net&#x2F;news.aspx?id=30610" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.residentadvisor.net&#x2F;news.aspx?id=30610</a><p>&quot;The streaming platform&#x27;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.&quot;
jblokalmost 10 years ago
I think the other business model is that of donations. The obvious example being Wikipedia, which has done incredibly well to not have ads or a subscription service and still be top 5&#x2F;10 most visited site on the planet (I don&#x27;t know what it&#x27;s exact &#x27;rank&#x27; is)
coldcodealmost 10 years ago
Until we have a system on the internet that everyone accepts that allows for a collection of a small fee to access things (posts, songs, photos, etc) ads will never go away. Of course no one will ever agree on such a system, or even worse it will be owned by a big for profit company.
forrestthewoodsalmost 10 years ago
I also like free things and don&#x27;t like it when they are taken away from me. The author had ample opportunity to pay for content but she didn&#x27;t and now we&#x27;re here.<p>So I guess the answer is &quot;she is&quot;. Vicki Boykis is doing this to her internet.
SolarUpNotealmost 10 years ago
If paywalls don&#x27;t work, and ads don&#x27;t work, some kind of metered-browsing would be a solution. It&#x27;s so far away from happening, it&#x27;s hardly worth discussing, but imagine this:<p>* let&#x27;s say soundcloud could charge $.0001 (or something) for every pageview (or play, or some other interaction that the website chooses)<p>* this fee is mostly transparent to the user, they&#x27;ve signed up once, and have access to all metered sites<p>* the user would deposit money in an account ahead of time to use for the metered sites<p>* the metering could be built-in to web browsers to display when you&#x27;re on a metered site using a standard graphic (like how the lock is a standard symbol for a secure connection)
评论 #9961889 未加载
评论 #9964101 未加载
eximiusalmost 10 years ago
There was a discussion... some time ago (maybe even a few years ago, actually), regarding a hypothetical web service where users deposited funds (say, a few dollars at a time) and enabled it on websites of their choosing.<p>When they loaded a website, it could check if the user had that installed and enabled for their website. If so, it would charge them a microtransaction (a few cents, etc) and not load ads. If they did not, it would load ads.<p>In this way, they paid services they used frequently as they used them and in increments they didn&#x27;t mind.<p>Of course, there is a lot of things undefined in this model about how it would be implemented, but it was an idea I still think has merit.
kenny-log_insalmost 10 years ago
I vehemently disagree with the authors taste in music, but she makes some good points. Soundcloud is just a platform though, and if you live by the sword of constantly available unlimited new content all the time then you kind of have to die by it, too. Content producers change styles to chase trends, tracks get taken down and everything changes when more money and popularity is involved. Enjoy free online content for what it is, but support a scene by buying releases&#x2F;merch, going to events and spreading the word - it wont implode just because soundcloud changes.
normlomanalmost 10 years ago
I agree with what&#x27;s been said here about payment. It is hypocritical that the author want&#x27;s ad free music, but won&#x27;t pay a buck and a half for a track. That said, the ad supported web still has problems, and I don&#x27;t see anyone trying to solve it. Subscriptions are great, but how do we get people like the author of this post to buy into them? What&#x27;s a fair way to charge subscriptions? How do you balance getting paid with keeping your content searchable? We shouldn&#x27;t stop looking for new business models.
dmschulmanalmost 10 years ago
Here&#x27;s a radical idea: pay for the services you love to use.<p>The author mentions she pays for an NYTimes subscription presumably because she gets a lot of value from their content. I pony up the same for a handful of websites and services that I choose to support. It&#x27;s certainly not a democracy but there is some logic to &quot;voting with your wallet&quot;.<p>I hate ads as much as the next person but one thing I hate even more is a great service or product going the way of the dodo because there&#x27;s no viable way to make something free forever.
评论 #9961335 未加载
评论 #9961276 未加载
msluyteralmost 10 years ago
There should be a name for this phenomenon. It appears that any service that attempts to remain un-gated eventually will be forced to run ads in order to stay afloat. The ads become more prevalent over time, until an equilibrium is reached. The service is now barely tolerable, with just a high enough content&#x2F;ad ratio to keep you around but not high enough that the experience is actually <i>pleasant.</i> Say, Pandora, for example. Call it &quot;the dismal equilibrium&quot; or something.
r3blalmost 10 years ago
I have deleted my Soundcloud account just yesterday.<p>I had some mashups (combinations of multiple songs into one) for years posted there and Soundcloud removed three of them in a single day. Although I don&#x27;t have a written permission to use them, I think that this is a creative process that falls into fair use as long as I&#x27;m not trying to make any profit with it. Unfortunately, Soundcloud disagrees.<p>I deleted my Soundcloud profile and every track from it. It was kind of a rage response, but it had to be done.
kjdal2001almost 10 years ago
I&#x27;m all for free and open internet, but that&#x27;s free as in speech. A lot of this is complaining about how her favorite stuff on the internet is too expensive or supported by an ad model. Kind of sucks I guess, but hardly a travesty. Its entirely possible that her favorite web services had unsustainable financials back in 2012 and they are in the process of figuring out how to build a revenue stream to keep themselves going.
Nano2radalmost 10 years ago
The monetization model not looking for paying customers; the aim is to get some money from everyone even those not willing to pay. Solution is to seek new sites and technologies even if they are not convenient and publicize. if possible start your own also support financially. If free sites are to exist without corporate control, expectation also have to be low.
Lazarealmost 10 years ago
An ambitious post with a sweeping conclusion. However, I have some concerns about the details being presented to support that conclusion. I can&#x27;t comment on much of what she says, but I do know quite a bit about Tumblr and Reddit. So when she says:<p>&gt; Tumblr is being reorganized and censored to make room for ads, including deleting accounts without any warning<p>That seems a bit odd. So let&#x27;s look at the links she provides: The first is to a story that notes that Tumblr has had ads for years, and speculates, with no real basis, that perhaps someday Yahoo might want to censor Tumblr, even though they&#x27;ve previously promised not to and are showing no signs of planning to start. And the second link about an account being deleted is no better; it&#x27;s also from 2 years ago, and basically boils down to &quot;one Tumblr user had their account deleted&quot;; long-time Tumblr users will be well aware that this has been Tumblr&#x27;s first (and usually only) solution to everything since day one.<p>A better summary of her links would be &quot;Tumblr is the same as it always was&quot;.<p>And her discussion of Reddit is little better; spinning an employment dispute about which very little is known into, again, some sign of major change. But I&#x27;ve been hanging around Reddit long enough to remember when people were fretting about Yishan Wong ruining the site. Then about Ellen Pao. Now we&#x27;re back to people worrying about Ohanian ruining the site, and now Yishan and &quot;Chairman Pao&quot;, as her critics loved to call her, have morphed from evil oppressors of free speech to now vanquished defenders of the founder&#x27;s original vision, which will now be lost as the founder&#x27;s return to restore their original vision. Or something, her metaphor[1] seemed more like an excuse to link paintings to me.<p>Either way, a dispute over the direction of the site&#x27;s AMA section, which seems to have led to an employee leaving, is pretty weak evidence of some massive sea change in the internet. Especially when you realize that most of what drove the protests was frustration among the moderators about poor moderation tools and poor support from administrators, which has been a source of contention for years. The core problem was a <i>lack</i> of change, if anything.<p>Plus, the actual <i>main</i> complaint seems to be that a service she loves is trying to find a way to make money. So when she&#x27;s frantically finding a way to get a copy of the songs she loves while compensating the artists:<p>&gt; I clicked on one song that I loved. It took me to Amazon, but the song wasn&#x27;t available on MP3, only on Audio CD or Vinyl. I immediately clicked away. I would gladly buy it on MP3 for 99 cents. But not wait for 2 days for a CD to ship. I guess I&#x27;ll listen on YouTube for now, an experience also now completely ruined by ads.<p>So she&#x27;s afraid that the song <i>may</i>, someday, get removed from Soundcloud, so she wants a copy of her own and to give the artist money, but she won&#x27;t wait 2 days for the CD?<p>&gt; Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a tiny third-party music distribution site I&#x27;d never heard of, and for $1.50. $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song, even a song you love<p>Right. She&#x27;ll gladly pay 99 cents, but she won&#x27;t pay $1.50. Nor wait for a CD to ship. It must be instant <i>and</i> under a dollar.<p>&gt; After these two songs, I gave up. I&#x27;ll just risk being on SoundCloud until the other songs get taken away, I guess.<p>Well, if the first two songs out of the &quot;over 100&quot; songs you have saved, and love so much you panic at the thought of not being able to listen again cost more than $1 or take more than 2 days to acquire...<p>...then sure, might as well give up and keep listening to anti-smoking ads.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.vickiboykis.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;reddit-was-amazing&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.vickiboykis.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;reddit-was-amazing&#x2F;</a><p>Edit: Author has clarified that it was less the $1.50 cost of the second song, and more the fact that she didn&#x27;t recognize the payment processor and was afraid of fraud. Not quite as odd as it seemed, although I don&#x27;t think it changes my point.
brandonmencalmost 10 years ago
There are ads on Soundcloud? I use it every day, and this is news to me because I use an ad blocker.<p>This also happened to me with YouTube - I didn&#x27;t realize they were displaying ads for _months_ until I watched a video on a friend&#x27;s computer.<p>Without an ad blocker, the web is basically unusable. I don&#x27;t know how people live without one.
scrabblealmost 10 years ago
This might be a better question for an Ask HN, but this post brings it up. How do you translate hits on a web page into dollars?<p>Is advertising the only way to make money from hits? There are plenty of sites that users will like and frequent, but would never drop pay for access. Is advertising a huge turn off for most users?
ericson578almost 10 years ago
I think the revolution that will allow unfettered exchange of ideas will be peer-to-peer microtransactions. Maybe some combination of bitcoin + tor + some yet to be created tech.<p>All of the corporate sites are going to devolve into corporate friendly zones soon enough.
serve_yayalmost 10 years ago
Until you really start thinking about the structural and economic reasons for these changes occurring, you&#x27;ll be stuck at &quot;but why?&quot; forever. It&#x27;s not much fun to think about, though.
anentropicalmost 10 years ago
to be honest, who gives a shit if you can&#x27;t listen to &quot;mixes&quot; on Soundcloud (for free, without ads...) any more<p>just find some real music and buy it
switzeralmost 10 years ago
You should thank USV for funding the companies (like Soundcloud) so that they can give you a few years of a free (e.g. money-losing) service.
jms703almost 10 years ago
We need to use the internet less and get outside.
Yhippaalmost 10 years ago
We&#x27;ve officially hit peak &quot;the Internet is terrible&quot;.<p>Whenever I see rants like this I immediately look for what the author&#x27;s solution is. In this case it&#x27;s &quot;why hasn&#x27;t someone come up with a solution yet?&quot;<p>I don&#x27;t know what the answer is. I will admit I do consume a lot of free (as in beer) content on the Internet all the time. When I realized BuzzFeed was just clickbait years ago I ... stopped going there. You have that option.
ilakshalmost 10 years ago
The society runs on money. Technology doesn&#x27;t need money, but we still do.
kskalmost 10 years ago
Someone should write an article - Who&#x27;s paying for my internet. :)
eleitlalmost 10 years ago
First world kid problems.
jamespoalmost 10 years ago
That&#x27;s the longest firstworldproblem I&#x27;ve ever read
sroerickalmost 10 years ago
youtube-dl lets you scrape songs from soundcloud.<p>Something like AlexandriaP2P cuts out the middleman from this equation.<p>(disclaimer: I&#x27;m an alpha tester for AlexandriaP2P)
k8ttealmost 10 years ago
grab soundcloud stream with youtube-dl,put in your itunes or spotify to sync to your phone. notice lack of ads, continue with life.
chishakualmost 10 years ago
How could one build a distributed Soundcloud?
Lazarealmost 10 years ago
Let&#x27;s imagine that someone started a &quot;free pizza service&quot;. Every single day, rain or shine, a pizza gets delivered to users of the site. For free! Pretty good, right?<p>But then the VC money starts to run low, and after a few experiments with printing ads on the box, the company announces the end of the service.<p>It would be easy for me to then write an outraged blog post. I might say stuff like &quot;who&#x27;s doing this to my free pizza service?&quot; I might plaintively suggest that there <i>has</i> to be a business model that allows free pizza to continue. I might even say that I&#x27;d pay a reasonable sum ($10&#x2F;month, perhaps?) in order to keep the daily pizzas flowing.<p>But, you know, there&#x27;s no right to free pizzas, it&#x27;s not <i>my</i> free pizza service, there is no business model that makes free pizza viable, and my willingness to pay clearly does not extend to the point of actually covering anyone&#x27;s costs.<p>Now, the author is talking about Soundcloud, not pizza. But I think the onus is on her to demonstrate that these examples are different.<p>&gt; There have to be business models that allow the creativity of sites like XKCD, Reddit, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, to flourish.<p>1) No there doesn&#x27;t &quot;have to be&quot;. Free pizza is awesome, but it doesn&#x27;t mean giving anyone who asks a daily free pizza is viable. Maybe SoundCloud&#x27;s old ad-free model is viable; maybe it isn&#x27;t. The answer doesn&#x27;t depend on how much you wish it was true though. If you want to talk about business models but you&#x27;re not going to talk about bandwidth costs and user growth and capex, you&#x27;re not being serious.<p>2) Also, XKCD seems to be flourishing pretty damn well. So is Tumblr and Reddit, despite the overly-publicised prophecies of doom people keep tossing around. (Sure guys, <i>this</i> time you&#x27;re all going to switch to Voat. No, I totally believe you.) The only one I don&#x27;t know about is SoundCloud, and I&#x27;m pretty sure they&#x27;d love to be &quot;failing&quot; the way Reddit is failing. But sure, maybe they really <i>can&#x27;t</i> make the numbers work. In which case, they&#x27;re going to go under, but that doesn&#x27;t tell us much about the internet, just about the economics of streaming media in a world where bandwidth is a scarce good.<p>What this article seems to be looking for is a solid example of people taking a profitable service that delighted users, and making it more profitable in a way that annoyed users. What it actually <i>has</i> is examples of people taking an unprofitable service and trying to find a way to make it viable so they can continue to serve users. The former would be a useful stepping off point to a discussion of greed and public services; the latter is not.
andrewmcwattersalmost 10 years ago
Oh shut up already.<p><i>We</i> are, because people like us don&#x27;t want to pay 99¢-$1.50 for songs that took time to compose, play, record, master, ship, and market, apps for mobile devices are quite <i>literally</i> a dime a dozen in app packs, games are at their lowest prices ever and the only sustainable model is DLC and subscriptions, and hundreds of petabytes of video storage are hosted by YouTube for no charge.<p>It&#x27;s 2015, grow up. Innovators need to make money. Maybe you&#x27;ll understand one day when you make something people want.
评论 #9961852 未加载
tacosalmost 10 years ago
2012? How about 1967, the year the 1-800 number was invented. The web is &quot;free&quot; because the other side is footing the bill.<p>Quick, review the Amazon S3 bandwidth pricing chart!<p>Now calculate how much bandwidth you&#x27;re using via the idiotic model of copying the same song you&#x27;re listening to ten times a day, ten times. Multiply that by ten hours or however long you&#x27;re sitting there with headphones on taking money out of Fred Wilson&#x27;s pocket while you pretend you&#x27;re coding the next great site that&#x27;s going to put money back into it.<p>Author states that SoundCloud is &quot;made up mostly of music connoisseurs who would gladly pay for service.&quot; Ha!<p>The sad reality of the music business is that there&#x27;s a very narrow age range when most people are &quot;really into music&quot; and it tends to correspond with a period of time when those people don&#x27;t have very much money to spend.<p>Now that I have money to spend, I simply do not have time to waddle through the anti-curated wasteland that is SoundCloud. Slap enough ads on it (especially ones that directly get in the way of trying to discover something to listen to) and you&#x27;ve guaranteed I won&#x27;t go there.
inversionOfalmost 10 years ago
Ah, the good old days of....2012. It&#x27;s tough to make it past the first few paragraphs.
Kenjialmost 10 years ago
<i>I panicked. I have over 100 songs saved in my favorites. I want all of them.</i><p>How naive, haha. If you love something on the internet, download it. Download EVERYTHING you love (well maybe not child porn, that&#x27;s illegal ;). There&#x27;s no other way. Your favourite links break, one by one, it&#x27;s only a matter of time. Download it to your HDD (space is dirt-cheap) and get a proper backup solution (RAID 1 is convenient vs. mechanical failures). You&#x27;ll never be bothered by ads and copyright takedowns again.
Buetolalmost 10 years ago
Basically, a basic income would solve this since people are doing it because they need money to survive.<p>Sometimes I think that money is corrupting everything and in the future it will be seen as an aberration.<p>Hard to tell.<p>EDIT: It&#x27;s not money directly than corrupts human to do not do the right things. It&#x27;s forcing people the earn money to survive.
评论 #9961126 未加载
评论 #9961026 未加载
评论 #9961023 未加载
评论 #9961032 未加载
评论 #9961234 未加载
评论 #9960984 未加载