
Who's doing this to my internet? - vkb
http://veekaybee.github.io/who-is-doing-this-to-my-internet/
======
Steuard
I feel old. This article begins by pining for the good, old-fashioned 'net of
2012. I know that I'm not the most attentive person on this topic, but
honestly I don'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'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't even remotely as disruptive today as the rise of spam
and sporge posts was to Usenet, just for instance.)

So I suppose my point is that I don'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's not the end of the internet: this has been going on since
the beginning. We'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.

~~~
binxbolling
You're right, author has rose-colored glasses. I almost thought it was a joke
at first—2012 as the good ol' days? The internet ruined in the last three
years? Come on.

~~~
madaxe_again
"Septembering" should be the term for this phenomenon.

~~~
JupiterMoon
I would have thought that that would be over by now. Surely all of America is
online by now already?

~~~
acoard
Eternal September doesn't have to do with new users to the internet, but new
participants within a community.

It's essentially the problem of digital immigration (which is much easier to
do than physical immigration).

~~~
JupiterMoon
I would argue that new users on a forum that have already used other forums
will be easier to integrate than those who have never been online before. And
those that have used multiple forums will be easier still as they will be used
to the idea that different communities have different rules.

------
icebraining
_Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a
tiny third-party music distribution site I 'd never heard of, and for $1.50.
$1.50 is a lot to pay for a song_

And then OP wonders why everyone is making free services plastered with ads
instead of charging.

~~~
vkb
Everyone is chiming in on this point, so I don't think I wrote it clearly
enough. I would be willing to pay $1.50 for a song if it were through a known
party, like Amazon Payments or PayPal. I've bought lots of music through
Amazon. I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website. Additionally, my
expectations as a consumer have been set to pay 99 cents per track, so to me,
in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems like it's too much, even though to the
artist it might not be. The other issue I didn't touch on is DRM. Do I get the
MP3 to keep forever if I pay? Most times, no.

~~~
sillygeese
> _I 'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website._

$1.50 isn't much of a risk you know, even if you don't know the website. You'd
_probably_ even get the song!

Also, if a song is on Audio CD, it's probably on iTunes too.

> _in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems like it 's too much_

This makes no sense. If you're a true music lover, a great song will give you
countless hours of _enjoyment_ and appreciation. Do you seriously think $1.50
is too much for that?

Compare to paying $10 for a movie ticket. You get 2 hours of entertainment,
the movie might suck, and you don't get much from watching it again. That's
_massively_ worse value than $1.50 for a great song you can listen to over and
over again.

I would _gladly_ pay $1000 for Prince's Purple Rain, if there was no other way
to get it.

~~~
alistairSH
I don't think it's a problem with $1.50 in absolute terms. It's $1.50 compared
to $0.99 from other vendors. Artists have set the expectation that songs are
worth $0.99 by selling them for that amount elsewhere.

FWIW, I don't buy a lot of music - I use free Pandora and put up with the ads.

~~~
sillygeese
> _I don 't think it's a problem with $1.50 in absolute terms. It's $1.50
> compared to $0.99 from other vendors._

Yes, but if you only have the $1.50 option for buying a song you supposedly
_love_ , it simply makes no sense to refuse because other places sell _other
songs_ for $0.99, especially considering the _massive_ value for a measly
amount of money you get either way.

~~~
grotsnot
Even when people would be strictly better off accepting a deal, they refuse it
if they feel it is unfair:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game)

------
golergka
Users.

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.

You remember how in this whole Reddit debacle Pao said that "most of users
don't really care about this scandal" 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't believe it. They are sure that evil corporate
suits are out of touch with reality because they "don't even use their own
service" 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 "managers" are getting more
and more literate in terms of analytics, by the way — SQL and R aren't really
that hard, and often you have much more user-friendly analytic services at
your hands).

I'm not saying that big websites don't do bullshit. Of course they do. But
when they do something that users __actually __don 't like, users punish them
in the most harsh way possible: with their wallets. Don't you remember how
internet used to be? The hundreds of popups, for example — turns out, users
didn'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.

If you want to stop Buzzfeed, don'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't that hard) your facebook friends for
reposting such bullshit. And if you won't succeed, you'll just have to face
the reality of being one in several billions.

~~~
davedx
> 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.

That's because content providers make it fucking impossible to buy their
content a lot of the time!

I've been looking into this here (the Netherlands) for the last 12 months or
so. It is so incredibly hard to go into a pay-per-view movie service, whether
that's a cable TV video store, Netflix, Apple TV or what-the-fuck-ever-else,
search for a fairly popular movie you like that came out in the last 5-10
years, and actually BE ABLE TO BUY IT.

Content providers are almost entirely at fault here. (I know this as I'm
currently working at a cable TV company). They insist on negotiating
individual contracts for restricted selections of (movie, series, whatever)
content with each streaming/VOD provider individually. They will happily let
customers buy an SD movie but charge them again, 2x, for a HD movie. They
throw up all kinds of hurdles when it comes to recording TV in the cloud -- it
is LEGALLY DIFFICULT to just store one copy of a recording for multiple
customers.

The list goes on and on, it will drive you crazy if you have to deal with it.

> 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 "managers" are getting
> more and more literate in terms of analytics, by the way — SQL and R aren't
> really that hard, and often you have much more user-friendly analytic
> services at your hands).

Those suits are in touch with reality indeed -- they see that this business
model has worked and continues to work, despite The Pirate Bay. They just need
a large enough army of lawyers to maintain their dominance, both over
distributors and customers (via lawsuits and website takedowns).

Don't blame the users for the clusterfuck digital content distribution is. It
is the content providers who are to blame. They screw the artists, the
distributors, the end users, as hard as they can, for as long as they can.

~~~
hussong
Thank you for the explanation! At this point, I've given up on streaming
services to watch movies. It's actually so much easier for me to just walk a
couple blocks down to the video store and rent the Bluray...

~~~
golergka
There's also a particular P2P technology that can help you.

------
ohitsdom
Really enjoyed this post, but I think some of her thoughts point to the root
of the problem.

> I started by trying to buy each of them separately.

> $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song

So she wanted to compensate each artist for the songs she loved, but only at
an amount of her choosing? I'm assuming she was expecting 99 cents, so we're
essentially haggling over $0.50 here. This shows why the advertising model is
so prevalent- people don't want to pay for content, even if it's a song that
the person listens to 10 times a day.

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.

~~~
mcv
The credit card situation is a completely separate concern, but a very big
one. I still don't understand why there's no better international online
payment method. There's a great Dutch online payment method, but that's only
used by Dutch sites and a few really big ones (like Steam) that can afford to
implement national payment systems.

Why that system hasn't been implemented on a larger scale, I still don't know.

~~~
icebraining
My bank offers free Virtual Credit Cards with a configurable limit. I've heard
that some US banks (BofA?) do as well. That limits the exposure to the amount
of the payment. And you can still chargeback.

~~~
mcv
Sounds useful if you can make one credit card for each payment. But you first
need to configure that before you can actually pay. What we need (and what
Netherland has) is something that just works right away where you really only
authorize that one payment without exposing any vulnerable information, using
the security of your own bank.

~~~
icebraining
At least here, you can make a CC for each payment. It's a simple form: input
max amount, click continue, get CC number.

Here in Portugal we also have the kind of payments you're talking about, but
it's not particularly easier than the VCC system.

------
jameshart
That's not your internet. That soundcloud content isn't yours, and neither is
Soundcloud. Reddit isn't yours. Tumblr isn't yours. Github, where that posting
is hosted, isn't yours either. This site, where you linked to the discussion
because you don't have a local comment facility, isn't yours. And it's not
mine either, no matter how many comments I leave or votes I make or imaginary
internet points I win or lose.

Your client, your internet connection, and a server you pay for, on a domain
you own, with bandwidth you pay for. That's your internet. You can use that
however you want.

Nobody's doing anything to your internet (well, notable exception for mobile
carriers and anti-net-neutrality-campaigners). They're doing things to their
own internet.

------
jonstokes
This article has made me realize that I'm about to start paying for sites to
show me ads, and paying a lot. What do I mean?

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'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.

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'll be starting out
on ATT's ~$375/month plan which is capped at 50GB/month with $10 per GB(!!)
overage charges.

This means that for the first time in my life, I'm actually considering
installing ad blocking software on our machines, because I just don'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.

I'm happy to pay for your content. I'm not happy to pay for your ads. There
has to be a better way.

~~~
mratzloff
> _I 'm happy to pay for your content. I'm not happy to pay for your ads.
> There has to be a better way._

Sorry, there's not. The vast majority of people are cheapskates.

------
icebraining
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.

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!

~~~
krick
Probably 2012 is the year when OP got the Internet connection or something…

------
georgefrick
So it all starts with some guy having the genius idea to "rebrand" the
internet. Now it is "The Cloud", a fancy term for 'server'. Then all the late
millenials fall for it. "It's cool, it's in the cloud, I stream my
<everything>". I thought it was fairly obvious that the cloud meant 'turn the
internet into TV stations'. Which is a mostly completed process at this point.

Now it's the good ol' 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:

a) pay for anything. b) create sites/content the way we used to.

It wouldn't kill you to order an album, drop it in a CD drive and rip it. My
apologies for implying hard labor.

You want your MTV.

------
chasing
> "Who is doing this to my internet?"

We all are. It costs money to create, host, and distribute content. We've
demonstrated our unwillingness to pay a proper amount for it. (For example: "I
would gladly buy it on MP3 for 99 cents... $1.50 is a lot to pay for a
song...") And so companies that do this stuff have to get creative about
making money. And advertising does the job.

The solution is to pay much more money for the content that you now get for
free.

------
fit2rule
This is why I think solutions like IPFS are the future:

[http://ipfs.io/](http://ipfs.io/)

(tl;dr: go get github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/cmd/ipfs)

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 _there simply is no middle man any more_.

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..

~~~
icebraining
You can already set up a website using a "website builder" which hosts it for
a couple of bucks and doesn't force any branding on it. A site on Squarespace
costs $8/m and gives you unlimited storage and bandwidth to distribute your
music; for $18 more, you get to use the ecommerce part to sell your stuff.

If artists aren't doing this already, which is much less intrusive than
Soundcloud/iTunes/etc, what makes you think they'll be hosting their own IPFS
sites?

~~~
fit2rule
Because you said server, and the solution is serverless. $8/month is still
$8/month. I'd rather that anyone who was interested in my artistry just come
and get it from me, directly. Remember the aim is to eradicate the middle man
entirely. You have not done this in your position.

~~~
icebraining
Well, _your_ aim is to eradicate the middle man. What I'm missing is a reason
to believe that artists generally share your aim.

~~~
fit2rule
Artists don't get paid, piracy or no-piracy. The middlemen get the majority of
the profits in the MPAA-protected mafia industry.

Putting tools in the hands of artists that provide them with the ability to
contact many, many fans, and be assured of that relationship without
interference by a 3rd party, is quite a valuable goal. Thankfully I'm not the
only one with that aim.

~~~
icebraining
Like I said, artists could already bypass the MPAA-protected industry and get
a much larger share of the profits and direct contact with the fans by setting
up a site as I mentioned before.

If they don't even do that, I think it's unrealistic to assume they'll start
using IPFS and host their own stuff.

------
norea-armozel
I think the author doesn't realize that what's changed about the Internet
isn't the technology. It's the people that changed. Today folks expect to get
things for free with adverts. But now people don't want the adverts either so
they use uBlock (I know I do). So, what's left for content and
technology/service creators to do?

I think micropayments would be a viable solution if a platform that's fairly
secure and non-intrusive was created (I don'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'm not sure such a scheme would ever take off if companies
like Sony can't secure their own infrastructure.

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.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Except we tried micropayments about a bazillion times and they have
universally failed. People don't want yet another monthly bill, which is what
micropayments would be. You'd "subscribe" to various sites and services and it
would eat at your bitcoin or whatever that you would need to replenish
monthly.

Ads aren't as terrible as the average INTJ male makes them out to be. They're
trivial to block as well. The OP's post is just one long angry rant. I'm not
even sure what the take away here is other than how monetization works on the
modern web (internet is not only the web!!). Everything about this screams,
"The mainstream doesn't care about my marginalized interests and opinions!"

If anything, the mainstream has it pretty good. I pay something like 1/10th
for Google Music what I spent at the record store annually. As a music lover,
being able to tap into 30m songs trivially is pretty amazing. Geeks used to
write love letters to a future with a "universal jukebox" and here we are, yet
no one is happy! Old fashioned ideas of "collecting" albums and such are
bizarre to me. The people into that always seemed to do it for some kinda of
social gravitas so they could show off their "taste." I just like the music. I
don't need to own it, I just need access to it.

Hell, it even makes radio stations based on my library or by artist, or even
by song if I choose. This completely invalidates whatever questionable value
radio stations provide today. What a waste of bandwidth all these FM/AM
stations are. Retiring them and selling that spectrum off for better LTE makes
sense to me. The old ways aren't always good, in fact, a lot of the old ways
were shit. They're old compromises and dinosaur tech that's overstayed their
welcome. Lets not pine too badly for the past. It was shit for the most part.
As a person in his 40s, I think we have it better than ever.

~~~
norea-armozel
Honestly, I don't think the new services are a problem. They fill a niche in
the market. Streaming services are for folks who don't want to manage their
own media (physical or digital). Those folks prefer ownership of access over
ownership of media itself. In itself it's fine as something to supplement a
media library. But I don't believe most people realize that once access to the
media is lost due to economic reasons (loss of job, service company goes
bankrupt, and etc) that it's lost forever. Well as much as forever means in
such a situation since you have to rebuild your entire playlist as it's not a
standardized format from streaming service to streaming service (and I'm
willing to bet it never will become standardized in any capacity). Either way,
you pay a price. I still stand by my view that up front cost (direct
ownership) is better than cost applied over time (ownership of access).

~~~
drzaiusapelord
This is a minor hassle compared to the fairly significant cost savings. When I
was a teen/early 20s I'd spend something like $50-100 per record store visit.
I'd go at least quarterly, buy music at concerts, etc. I'd easily spend $500
or more annually in 1990s/early 2000's money. Discs were $12-15 for a very
long time, singles were economically stupid, and dealing with crap like
scratched discs or skipping in the car was the norm. Now, I'm paying $120
annually, in 2015 dollars, and every single song of that 30m library is
available on my phone, which seamlessly connects to my car and other devices.
I can also listen via the under-rated google music web player.

I don't know any young person without Google Music or Spotify. They're popular
for a reason and not because we don't understand economics.

~~~
norea-armozel
>This is a minor hassle compared to the fairly significant cost savings.

The costs will always be equivalent as you pay with the not-so-major-hassle of
losing access to the streaming service for some reason. It's a fact of life
that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you lose access, that is a cost
in terms of time. However you may perceive it doesn't discount its existence.

>When I was a teen/early 20s I'd spend something like $50-100 per record store
visit.

Today the price of a digital album barely breaks 15 USD. And in terms of
inflation adjusted dollars, you and I were paying closer to 20 dollars
(today's dollars) per album (I'm assuming 1990s era prices). As such, in many
ways today's 20 somethings are getting a windfall in terms of digital
purchases (DRM-free).

> Now, I'm paying $120 annually, in 2015 dollars, and every single song of
> that 30m library is available on my phone, which seamlessly connects to my
> car and other devices. I can also listen via the under-rated google music
> web player.

Which are held contingent on the fact that music labels can re-negotiate terms
of access to their catalogs. If tomorrow any one of them decide to cut off the
streaming services, then where's the music you had in the playlist? Clearly,
this isn't likely to occur but it's not impossible nor is it theoretical.
Netflix often rotates film and TV series through their streaming library.
Music streaming isn't exempt from this same problem once music labels begin to
assert their dominant position.

>I don't know any young person without Google Music or Spotify. They're
popular for a reason and not because we don't understand economics.

I think you're confused as to what I'm pointing out which is that people are
valuing access over ownership. This isn't a lack of any understanding of
economics, it's just preference of consumers. I think the sooner you
understand that all preferences are equal in the market the sooner you'll come
to grasp my points.

------
mratzloff
So, to be clear, you are a self-described "music connoisseur" 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.

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.

When I like a band or an artist, I buy their albums on CD or MP3. There'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.

If you don't like the ads, buy the music and listen whenever you want. Don't
be a net-negative fan and then complain when you are treated as such.

------
ZenoArrow
There are many ways to support content creators who distribute via the web,
such as Flattr ( [https://flattr.com](https://flattr.com) ) and Google
Contributor (as nandhp mentioned). Patreon is becoming popular too (
[https://www.patreon.com](https://www.patreon.com) ).

As for music, my personal favourite site is Bandcamp, aside from having an
interesting mix of music I believe it has a model that's good for artists and
fans alike ( [https://bandcamp.com](https://bandcamp.com) ).

------
Marazan
Annoyed at "Big Corporate" taking over the internet, not willing to buy from
small independent label/store.

The lack of self awareness is outstanding. And astounding.

------
panic
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.

Given these alternatives, it'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?

~~~
nandhp
It would be really exciting to have something like Google Contributor go
mainstream:
[https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/](https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/)

Basically, solving this problem by allow users to set up a prepaid fund with
Google and have them deduct website ad revenue from there instead of showing
me an ad -- and have it work everywhere Google ads are displayed.

------
sirsuki
Something that has always bothered me about advertisements isn't that
companies are creating/using them it was that _they actually work_! The reason
ads are everywhere is because they make money, LOTS of money. In 2010 it was
estimated by "statista.com" ([http://www.statista.com/statistics/237797/total-
global-adver...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/237797/total-global-
advertising-revenue/)) that the advertisement industry made 495 billion U.S.
Dollars ranking it higher then Retail or Oil/Gas according to outdated
"Wikipedia"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue)).
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 _make money!_
Having a stupid mascot walk across the page offering to help _makes money!_
Forcing people to watch and listen to ads just to see the cute kitten play
with yarn _makes money!_ Why wouldn'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.

------
aidanhs
This article is interesting because there seems to be an assumption that there
is some ideal the web should strive towards ("free exchange of information"),
when actually everyone is optimising for their local maxima.

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.

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's so polarising - it's criticised for having low quality
content, and yet it'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's an easy business
decision to make.

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't inherently good or bad.

------
dlu
You know how in the innovator'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's a similar thing where the best time to user a particular service is
when the service is least profitable.

That'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/nonprofits (With Bill Gates being the most visible).

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.

Personally, Project Loon always sounded like some crazy way of getting more
people to use Google than actual charity. Like some weird extrapolation from,
"the more people that use the Internet, the more money Google makes" and
"Google's reached market saturation in current markets, we need growth in
developing countries"

 __Going off memory for all this. Sorry if I get some details wrong about
Innovators Dilemma, Twitter in 2012, Project Loon and such.

------
netcan
This is somewhat tangental, but it's tangental on a couple of points so I'll
bring it up anyway.

Would someone please fix "podcasting," and maybe even RSS?

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'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't really get it but I assumed other people did.

I think there was something wrong with the conceptual design of it.

Podcasting though, that was a nice little bastard of RSS and ipod. She had
weird hair in weirder places, but.. I'm going to abandon this metaphor
..podcast content has been getting better and better.

It's terrible to use though. It's hard to find or share content. It's hard to
subscribe, even if you know the name of the show. All the podcatchers suck.

It has a lot os stuff going for it though. It's genuinely "web." 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.

Why do all the apps suck? Why is it so hard to find content. If you're below
median technically, just getting from the show's site to a feed in your app is
a serious challenge. I suspect the protocol is partially to blame, but I don't
know.

Anyway, HN… fix it?

~~~
sk8ingdom
I used to be a really large fan of RSS because it fulfilled the dream of
bringing hand-picked content to the user, in one place. Why go to all the
separate websites? Why have an app for EACH new agency. I can search, sort,
see when articles were published, all from the comfort of a single web page or
desktop client! RSS even seemed to have pretty wide adoption. That orange
button was everywhere! My non-techie friends even used Google Reader circa
2006-2008.

However, my love of RSS is really just a historic relic of becoming interested
in computers between 2001 and 2005. Before that was Usenet and other
technologies I'm probably unaware of. RSS has since been replaced by Facebook,
Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Google Plus, etc. Someone needs to pay the bills and
it's a lot easier to monetize when you keep users in your walled gardens and
control what they see. These newer technologies are also MUCH easier to use
for the average consumer and have the net-benefit of being "social" which is
likely beneficial for the ad conglomerates.

Companies who create (or curate or distribute) content are fundamentally at
odds with their users. Users want relevant, high quality, add-free content,
but most are not willing to pay for it. If they do, they expect a fine-tuned
user experience or physical product (a magazine or Amazon Kindle for example).
Even paid subscription magazines (NewScientist, Time, etc.) have ads to help
keep their pricing competitive and increase quarterly profits for investors.
Hell, even my Kindle (which I PAID for) came with ads. Granted, Amazon gave me
the ability to remove them for $20. But, that gives you an idea of how
valuable ads are. I never understood why more websites didn't just include ads
in their RSS feeds. Easier to filter out? Less control since the user isn't
visiting the site?

I'd be MORE than willing to pay for RSS or NNTP feeds of high quality content.
To me, there is no better user experience than reading format-free text and
images in Gnus, but I imagine I'm in the minority. Average consumers (my
parents, non-tech friends, etc.) are more than willing to visit cnn.com in
their browsers or dedicated phone app. Most people simply don't care enough. I
feel like I'm constantly trying to chase the conversation of the topics I'm
interested in by stringing together mostly-incompatible technologies and work
flows.

I'd really just like the ability to read, annotate, comment on, share, and
discuss media with people who are also interested.

------
mironathetin
" There have to be business models that allow the creativity of sites like
XKCD, Reddit, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, to flourish. "

There, in the last sentence is the relevant insight. But, sadly, here the post
stops.

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.

~~~
trevorstrohman
The "OK Google" voice feature for Chrome is opt-in, not enabled by default.
[https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922#c...](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922#c6)

------
vkb
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.

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 == "first world problem" of paying with a credit card
to multiple unknown vendors) because music distribution online is broken.

~~~
chasing
I understand what you're saying, and I agree: I pay for many services online
and I'd be happy to pay for more if it meant the services I enjoy would get
even better. Or wouldn't lose their souls to advertising.

But your $10/mo and my $10/mo aren't enough. It seems like the web-o-verse has
spent the last twenty years desperately attempting to figure out how to charge
money in a way that enough people will shell out the necessary cash. For the
most part, it's been a failure. Most people seem uninterested in paying
directly for digital content.

Any service built upon user-generated content -- like SoundCloud -- has an
even worse path. If you charge from the start, you put up a huge barrier that
will prevent people from ever using your service. But if you start changing
after you've gathered up steam and have an active community, people will feel
betrayed -- like you were just baiting them into using your service so you
could pull the old switcheroo and force them to pay to access the community
they built.

------
RUG3Y
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't necessarily think this is a
bad thing. I'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.

~~~
logicfiction
I'm also a passionate hobbyist when it comes to music, but I can't disagree
more.

Worth is not solely measure in terms of material gains like food and bridges.
Art and music have massive amounts of cultural and entertainment worth. Sure
one probably requires their basic needs to be met along Maslow's hierarchy to
have their life enriched by art. But I believe it's well established the
impact and relevance art has.

The problem with music being fragmented into groups of passionate hobbyists
with day jobs is that you cannot reliably create high-quality art this way. A
lot of the luxuries afforded to hobbyists, particularly in music these days,
are gained from riding on the shoulders of the professionals who are
innovating and driving the industry forward. Not to mention only a certain
subset of day-jobber professions can actually afford to produce quality art or
music (instruments, equipment, and/or professional services).

~~~
RUG3Y
I hear what you're saying. By worth, I didn't mean value - but I wasn't clear.
I think art has much value, but as a commodity in the marketplace, holds very
little worth. I agree that making quality art in one's spare time is
challenging. I think this guarantees that the work being completed is a labor
of love that the artist truly cares about. In an ideal world, the best work
would receive the greatest reward. Unfortunately, much of the best and most
creative works are already coming from outside of the music industry. Before
gaining recognition, these artists are essentially passionate hobbyists.

------
romaniv
There is a working business model that does not rely on ads: Kickstarter.

The problem with making everything subscription-based is that it changes the
dynamic of the website. A lot.

An interesting experiment would be to allow people to pay not just for
themselves, but for a few others as well. I.e. you'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's the point. I postulate that
those free-riders would be the people would otherwise not use the platform at
all.

------
gad2103
> 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's limited in what it can truly say.

disclaimer: I'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'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/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 'click-bait'
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't fathom how
that would happen. Hopefully, this will assuage the OP's fears that the news
we print is somehow at the whims of our advertisers.

------
brokencog
Ad's delivered via the Internet ... gee, let's see some time around 1992 I
guess I recall the first of them, they got obnoxious shortly after with pop-
up's and blinky text.

Which is too say nothing about today's websites has offered anything really
new since the first webpage did even before that.

Twitter Revolution? not about twitter, it's about the millions who went into
the streets (with and without twitter).

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.

New Browser features! Yay! stuff it that the browser is already unsafe, slow
and cumbersome - make it look Different and call it Better.

The point here is that the Web has always been the get rich scheme for half
baked ideas ... as it ever was.

Nowhere ever has any Internet based service been free. Someone Somewhere has
had to pay for all of it. The only thing "new" 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't have to be bothered about how it is provided. Just like they are
IRL.

------
isaaaaah
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 +,-,")? 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.

~~~
georgefrick
I have been greatly attracted to the idea of creating a better search engine.
But people aren't generally searching for websites anymore, they're searching
for content. There is a certain need for the service provided by google/ddg;
and I'd be looking to provide more of an internet yellow pages so that you
don't always have google funneling you back to a handful of large sites. It's
hard to commit to a project like that, but I do think the idea (and your
others), have merit.

------
crisnoble
Meanwhile via
[http://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=30610](http://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=30610)

"The streaming platform'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."

------
jblok
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 5/10 most visited site on the planet (I
don't know what it's exact 'rank' is)

------
coldcode
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.

------
forrestthewoods
I also like free things and don't like it when they are taken away from me.
The author had ample opportunity to pay for content but she didn't and now
we're here.

So I guess the answer is "she is". Vicki Boykis is doing this to her internet.

------
SolarUpNote
If paywalls don't work, and ads don't work, some kind of metered-browsing
would be a solution. It's so far away from happening, it's hardly worth
discussing, but imagine this:

* let's say soundcloud could charge $.0001 (or something) for every pageview (or play, or some other interaction that the website chooses)

* this fee is mostly transparent to the user, they've signed up once, and have access to all metered sites

* the user would deposit money in an account ahead of time to use for the metered sites

* the metering could be built-in to web browsers to display when you're on a metered site using a standard graphic (like how the lock is a standard symbol for a secure connection)

~~~
delroth
What you're describing is very close to
[https://contributor.google.com/](https://contributor.google.com/) where you
can pay to replace ads with content of your choice. For the content publisher
this is a completely transparent operation.

------
eximius
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.

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.

In this way, they paid services they used frequently as they used them and in
increments they didn't mind.

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_ins
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/merch, going to events and spreading the word - it wont implode just
because soundcloud changes.

------
normloman
I agree with what's been said here about payment. It is hypocritical that the
author want's ad free music, but won't pay a buck and a half for a track. That
said, the ad supported web still has problems, and I don'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's a fair way to charge subscriptions? How
do you balance getting paid with keeping your content searchable? We shouldn't
stop looking for new business models.

------
dmschulman
Here's a radical idea: pay for the services you love to use.

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's certainly not a
democracy but there is some logic to "voting with your wallet".

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's no viable
way to make something free forever.

~~~
CrLf
"Here's a radical idea: pay for the services you love to use."

Here's another radical idea: trying to understand why people are unwilling to
pay.

To me it's pretty obvious. People don't value those things they're supposed to
"love" enough to pay for them. They don't actually "love" them, they're just
induced necessities. If the whole Internet was turned into a pay-it-or-leave-
it model, I wouldn't be surprised if most people just left it.

However, it this rare to see someone considering this possibility. It's much
easier to discard users as being "cheap" or "freeloaders" than to think the
all-so-important content on the Internet is just an extra on people's lives.

The article does make the point that other types of monetization besides ads
or paywalls should be pursued.

~~~
jamespo
Often those other types of monetization boil down to someone else paying for
it in one way or another.

~~~
CrLf
Or you pay for it yourself but without the decision to specifically pay for
_that_ content. I guess one heavy point of friction is having to decide to pay
for something and not doing it because you either think it isn't worth it or
the decision itself isn't worth it.

Bundling subscriptions and sharing revenue could be a way to do it. Not sure
how that can be materialized in practice, though.

------
msluyter
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/ad ratio to keep you around but not high enough that the experience is
actually _pleasant._ Say, Pandora, for example. Call it "the dismal
equilibrium" or something.

------
r3bl
I have deleted my Soundcloud account just yesterday.

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'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'm not trying to make any profit with it.
Unfortunately, Soundcloud disagrees.

I deleted my Soundcloud profile and every track from it. It was kind of a rage
response, but it had to be done.

------
kjdal2001
I'm all for free and open internet, but that'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.

------
Nano2rad
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.

------
Lazare
An ambitious post with a sweeping conclusion. However, I have some concerns
about the details being presented to support that conclusion. I can't comment
on much of what she says, but I do know quite a bit about Tumblr and Reddit.
So when she says:

> Tumblr is being reorganized and censored to make room for ads, including
> deleting accounts without any warning

That seems a bit odd. So let'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'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's also from 2 years ago, and basically boils down to "one Tumblr user had
their account deleted"; long-time Tumblr users will be well aware that this
has been Tumblr's first (and usually only) solution to everything since day
one.

A better summary of her links would be "Tumblr is the same as it always was".

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'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're
back to people worrying about Ohanian ruining the site, and now Yishan and
"Chairman Pao", as her critics loved to call her, have morphed from evil
oppressors of free speech to now vanquished defenders of the founder's
original vision, which will now be lost as the founder's return to restore
their original vision. Or something, her metaphor[1] seemed more like an
excuse to link paintings to me.

Either way, a dispute over the direction of the site'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 _lack_ of change, if anything.

Plus, the actual _main_ complaint seems to be that a service she loves is
trying to find a way to make money. So when she's frantically finding a way to
get a copy of the songs she loves while compensating the artists:

> I clicked on one song that I loved. It took me to Amazon, but the song
> wasn'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'll listen on YouTube for now, an experience also now
> completely ruined by ads.

So she's afraid that the song _may_ , someday, get removed from Soundcloud, so
she wants a copy of her own and to give the artist money, but she won't wait 2
days for the CD?

> Another song I loved by an artist I loved was available for sale, but on a
> tiny third-party music distribution site I'd never heard of, and for $1.50.
> $1.50 is a lot to pay for a song, even a song you love

Right. She'll gladly pay 99 cents, but she won't pay $1.50. Nor wait for a CD
to ship. It must be instant _and_ under a dollar.

> After these two songs, I gave up. I'll just risk being on SoundCloud until
> the other songs get taken away, I guess.

Well, if the first two songs out of the "over 100" 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...

...then sure, might as well give up and keep listening to anti-smoking ads.

[1]: [http://blog.vickiboykis.com/2015/06/reddit-was-
amazing/](http://blog.vickiboykis.com/2015/06/reddit-was-amazing/)

Edit: Author has clarified that it was less the $1.50 cost of the second song,
and more the fact that she didn't recognize the payment processor and was
afraid of fraud. Not quite as odd as it seemed, although I don't think it
changes my point.

------
brandonmenc
There are ads on Soundcloud? I use it every day, and this is news to me
because I use an ad blocker.

This also happened to me with YouTube - I didn't realize they were displaying
ads for _months_ until I watched a video on a friend's computer.

Without an ad blocker, the web is basically unusable. I don't know how people
live without one.

------
scrabble
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?

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?

------
ericson578
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.

All of the corporate sites are going to devolve into corporate friendly zones
soon enough.

------
serve_yay
Until you really start thinking about the structural and economic reasons for
these changes occurring, you'll be stuck at "but why?" forever. It's not much
fun to think about, though.

------
anentropic
to be honest, who gives a shit if you can't listen to "mixes" on Soundcloud
(for free, without ads...) any more

just find some real music and buy it

------
switzer
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.

------
jms703
We need to use the internet less and get outside.

------
Yhippa
We've officially hit peak "the Internet is terrible".

Whenever I see rants like this I immediately look for what the author's
solution is. In this case it's "why hasn't someone come up with a solution
yet?"

I don'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.

------
ilaksh
The society runs on money. Technology doesn't need money, but we still do.

------
ksk
Someone should write an article - Who's paying for my internet. :)

------
eleitl
First world kid problems.

------
jamespo
That's the longest firstworldproblem I've ever read

------
sroerick
youtube-dl lets you scrape songs from soundcloud.

Something like AlexandriaP2P cuts out the middleman from this equation.

(disclaimer: I'm an alpha tester for AlexandriaP2P)

------
k8tte
grab soundcloud stream with youtube-dl,put in your itunes or spotify to sync
to your phone. notice lack of ads, continue with life.

------
chishaku
How could one build a distributed Soundcloud?

------
Lazare
Let's imagine that someone started a "free pizza service". Every single day,
rain or shine, a pizza gets delivered to users of the site. For free! Pretty
good, right?

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.

It would be easy for me to then write an outraged blog post. I might say stuff
like "who's doing this to my free pizza service?" I might plaintively suggest
that there _has_ to be a business model that allows free pizza to continue. I
might even say that I'd pay a reasonable sum ($10/month, perhaps?) in order to
keep the daily pizzas flowing.

But, you know, there's no right to free pizzas, it's not _my_ 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's costs.

Now, the author is talking about Soundcloud, not pizza. But I think the onus
is on her to demonstrate that these examples are different.

> There have to be business models that allow the creativity of sites like
> XKCD, Reddit, SoundCloud, and Tumblr, to flourish.

1) No there doesn't "have to be". Free pizza is awesome, but it doesn't mean
giving anyone who asks a daily free pizza is viable. Maybe SoundCloud's old
ad-free model is viable; maybe it isn't. The answer doesn't depend on how much
you wish it was true though. If you want to talk about business models but
you're not going to talk about bandwidth costs and user growth and capex,
you're not being serious.

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, _this_ time you're all going to switch to Voat. No, I
totally believe you.) The only one I don't know about is SoundCloud, and I'm
pretty sure they'd love to be "failing" the way Reddit is failing. But sure,
maybe they really _can 't_ make the numbers work. In which case, they're going
to go under, but that doesn't tell us much about the internet, just about the
economics of streaming media in a world where bandwidth is a scarce good.

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 _has_ 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.

------
andrewmcwatters
Oh shut up already.

 _We_ are, because people like us don'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 _literally_ 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.

It's 2015, grow up. Innovators need to make money. Maybe you'll understand one
day when you make something people want.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Maybe we have too much expectation that you can make money directly doing
creative works? People talk about entitlement of users, but this should work
both way - when building a small app you shouldn't feel entitled to make a lot
of money off it. That people may not want to buy your offerings at the price
you want them to buy is the basic feature of a free market.

On the other hand, I believe we need to have a serious conversation about
business models. Things like spamming with ads, massive tracking and
micropayments should not be encouraged. Ponzi schemes are profitable too, and
so is slave labour, and there are various forms of these and other business
models that are legal but still shunned by the society. And just like those,
chunking up your games into million paid DLCs, abusing gullible parents or
turning the entire Internet into an ad cesspoool should not be things a self-
respecting, moral person would consider doing.

------
tacos
2012? How about 1967, the year the 1-800 number was invented. The web is
"free" because the other side is footing the bill.

Quick, review the Amazon S3 bandwidth pricing chart!

Now calculate how much bandwidth you're using via the idiotic model of copying
the same song you're listening to ten times a day, ten times. Multiply that by
ten hours or however long you're sitting there with headphones on taking money
out of Fred Wilson's pocket while you pretend you're coding the next great
site that's going to put money back into it.

Author states that SoundCloud is "made up mostly of music connoisseurs who
would gladly pay for service." Ha!

The sad reality of the music business is that there's a very narrow age range
when most people are "really into music" and it tends to correspond with a
period of time when those people don't have very much money to spend.

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've guaranteed I won't go there.

------
inversionOf
Ah, the good old days of....2012. It's tough to make it past the first few
paragraphs.

------
Kenji
_I panicked. I have over 100 songs saved in my favorites. I want all of them._

How naive, haha. If you love something on the internet, download it. Download
EVERYTHING you love (well maybe not child porn, that's illegal ;). There's no
other way. Your favourite links break, one by one, it'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'll never be bothered by
ads and copyright takedowns again.

------
Buetol
Basically, a basic income would solve this since people are doing it because
they need money to survive.

Sometimes I think that money is corrupting everything and in the future it
will be seen as an aberration.

Hard to tell.

EDIT: It's not money directly than corrupts human to do not do the right
things. It's forcing people the earn money to survive.

~~~
sokoloff
I don't think this is being done for survival; I think it's being done because
it can be done and it's asymmetrically lucrative.

Petty theft of a jar of peanut butter may well be solved by a basic income.
Ad-free internet business models will not be created by a basic income.

~~~
panic
Sure, but with a basic income, it would be easier to run a site like
SoundCloud without ads. You could switch to an alternative site once
SoundCloud started pushing ads.

