undefined | Better HN

0 pointsWilliamEdward7y ago0 comments

I am in this predicament, and every one of these people are making up a blatant lie that they can't afford it. What they really mean is they are stubborn. They don't see money logically and clearly, where if they could they would realise their hidden costs far exceed $10 a month... Things like coffee, gas. They don't realise it racks up $10 $15 and $20 dollars behind the scenes. But theyre happy to pay for that... why? Because they don't have to see it go. They don't have to think about it. That's why people dont like subscriptions. Spotify is extremely affordable, for literally everyone who can afford an internet connection. People are lying about why they don't want to pay for it; I'm young and poor and to tell you the truth even i can afford it, I'm just way too stubborn.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

jshowa37y ago· 2 in thread

People don't want to pay for it because there are mechanisms in place that sustain these businesses outside of ads. Just think about how much VC money is dumped into these services that never or barely generate a profit and they're all free to use and have been for years. Twitter and Snapchat come to mind. Blocking ad blockers is incredibly annoying and is just an excuse for ad spamming. Let me tell you watching Youtube without ads is a dream compared to seeing a 4 second ad on every video start and then 5 mid roll ads. It's insane. Google Play on the other hand does 2 to 3 ads after several minutes of listening. And the ads are make 10 - 15 seconds long. That's proper ad play.

colemickens7y ago

>People don't want to pay for it because there are mechanisms in place that sustain these businesses outside of ads. Just think about how much VC money is dumped into these services that never or barely generate a profit and they're all free to use and have been for years.

Please correct me if this is disingenuous, but I feel like you basically just said you're used to having VCs subsidize your entertainment platforms and that you've extrapolated that entitlement into a justification for never paying for any entertainment acquired over the Internet.

At the very least, it seems obvious that it's unsustainable and likely that creative artists will be the first squeezed. Also, I don't think this explanation combat's the parent's observations about spending habits at all.

jshowa37y ago

It has worked for several years. So why not?

At the very least, it seems obvious that it's unsustainable and likely that creative artists will be the first squeezed.

It's unlikely this would ever happen. But mostly, I'd be fine with embedded ads if they were used responsibly. But, according to Wikipedia, Spotify was founded over 10 years ago. In 2017, it was reported that it was still not profitable despite its subscription models: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38930699. Last year it launched an IPO. So somehow, Spotify magically became profitable enough to launch an IPO or it lasted over 10 years from what looks like VC funding without being profitable and is still not profitable. That leaves only one question, how does such a business survive so long without profit and did VC's really care considering how popular the platform is.

Marsymars7y ago

> Spotify is extremely affordable, for literally everyone who can afford an internet connection.

Maybe everyone in the first world, but certainly not everyone who can afford an internet connection. Smart phone internet connectivity is still pretty ubiquitous in many areas where the typical smart phone is <$100 and the average income is an order of magnitude lower than the developed world.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse