I would pay for YouTube (and Facebook and other sites) if they were simply pay for the upkeep of the service and there was no tracking, ads, creepy stuff, or excessive profit taking. Just a solid service that let you share videos and nothing else (or just a social network and nothing else). Cost of running the service plus a reasonable profit for YouTube to invest in its future (cost + 20%, for instance).
With a few hundred million users paying, say $5/month, you should have no problem running a site like that. Especially since by paying users will have more of a sense of ownership and we’d likely get a more well behaved user base.
Of course, that’s not anywhere near the world we’ve created and now that the data collection/selling cat is out bag, I don’t see investors ever letting us go back. There’s just too much money to be made the current way.
(PS: if there are any investors reading this and interested in trying, DM me... Iet’s workshop this idea...:) )
I actually advocate a "business model" called Charity Share Brokerage that could accomplish your objectives. But it will never catch on, because it's only for recovering costs and therefore it can't compete with the aggressive bastards who are hoping to win the lottery. Greed is a fake problem because there's no solution. No amount of profit will make the greed become satisfied.
Yeah, some person has to win the lottery. But even more people have to lose. Far more losers than winners.
I would pay for YouTube (and Facebook and other sites) if they were simply pay for the upkeep of the service and there was no tracking, ads, creepy stuff, or excessive profit taking.
I feel the same way, but I got tired of explaining, "If I get a free magic pony, yes, otherwise no" and just switched to "no."
"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?"
- Post Brothers comics
Qualified Yes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would pay for YouTube (and Facebook and other sites) if they were simply pay for the upkeep of the service and there was no tracking, ads, creepy stuff, or excessive profit taking. Just a solid service that let you share videos and nothing else (or just a social network and nothing else). Cost of running the service plus a reasonable profit for YouTube to invest in its future (cost + 20%, for instance).
With a few hundred million users paying, say $5/month, you should have no problem running a site like that. Especially since by paying users will have more of a sense of ownership and we’d likely get a more well behaved user base.
Of course, that’s not anywhere near the world we’ve created and now that the data collection/selling cat is out bag, I don’t see investors ever letting us go back. There’s just too much money to be made the current way.
(PS: if there are any investors reading this and interested in trying, DM me... Iet’s workshop this idea... :) )
Cost recovery versus profit (Score:2)
I actually advocate a "business model" called Charity Share Brokerage that could accomplish your objectives. But it will never catch on, because it's only for recovering costs and therefore it can't compete with the aggressive bastards who are hoping to win the lottery. Greed is a fake problem because there's no solution. No amount of profit will make the greed become satisfied.
Yeah, some person has to win the lottery. But even more people have to lose. Far more losers than winners.
In my original submission
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay for YouTube (and Facebook and other sites) if they were simply pay for the upkeep of the service and there was no tracking, ads, creepy stuff, or excessive profit taking.
I feel the same way, but I got tired of explaining, "If I get a free magic pony, yes, otherwise no" and just switched to "no."