Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylec | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, this has happened a number of times, enough that I'm wary of investing time and energy into using a service that appears to not have any means of making money. Last fall, I evaluated Posterous for my personal blog, but one of the reasons I ended up going with Squarespace instead is because it's a paid service:

http://kylecronin.me/blog/2012/3/13/my-thoughts-on-posterous...

View on HN

I don't think being a paid service makes it more likely that it will be around forever, but it is a good input to use when weighing and comparing different services. I would probably place as much emphasis on data portability and content license terms.

This is, off course, assuming you are comparing products that are like-for-like in features and that the product is good. Paying for a crap product won't save it.

Indeed. Google is a free service and Google Apps is a paid service, but I wouldn't expect significantly more longevity from the latter just because I'm paying them $x a year than I would from the loss-leader service.

I think it is a bad example because it is probably contributing less than 1% to Googles bottom line. Much easier to cut than if it were the primary revenue source for n individual company.

For exactly that reason it's a really good example of the point I was making: what you really need to know is whether a given product is strategic to its supplier. "Am I paying for it?" is one indicator that it may be, but it's not conclusive

Reply on news.ycombinator.com