undefined | Better HN

0 pointsericd16y ago0 comments

But when a non-paywalled alternative comes about (see Google Law), it threatens to eat its lunch.

I think people view for-pay information brokerage as unfair, unless it comes with service. If it's something they know costs the other party 0 marginal cost to provide, people start resenting them, which causes the paywalled service to hurt doubly hard when a free alternative comes about - even if they follow to free, people might stay away out of spite.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

patio1116y ago· 1 in thread

I think people view for-pay information brokerage as unfair, unless it comes with service. If it's something they know costs the other party 0 marginal cost to provide, people start resenting them

I think you are projecting your own personal views, or possibly views which are non-negligible in your social circle of tech-rich cash-poor twenty something males, onto the population at large. Empirically, people will pay for LOTS of things that have zero marginal cost. A short list: airplane tickets, gym memberships, list of bankruptcy sales in Chicago (my dad is a real estate agent and has had stacks of this weekly publication for as long as I can remember -- that info is expensive and worth every penny), and WoW.

ericdOP16y ago

I may be, but I don't think most people think of those things you list as having 0 marginal cost, as they're tangible goods or services (although the listings one is a bit sketchy, I think a lot of people view being charged a lot for access to that sort of info as highway robbery, despite its very real value). The cost of information has been anchored at $0 repeatedly over the past decade, and we now use that reference point when deciding the monetary value of new info.

I think I was probably off the mark in my post. It's likely not the marginal cost they're considering, it's likely just that $0 is the new reference cost for info in many people's minds.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse