Hacker News Reader

Comment by realize | Hacker News Reader

Getting pretty tired of these "dear company, let me pay for your product instead of showing me ads" arguments. They show a lack of understanding of business models.

View on HN

I am not a business guy and don't need to understand what their model is. I understand my model - that I test network software and I don't want to trudge through amazon lookups in wireshark.

Not at all, I think they're insane to think their users will put up with ads. But the amount of revenue from people willing to pay is insignificant. Another way is needed.

What's important is to watch the money flow. The article makes a great point - If money goes like this:

  you -> developer

then the developer is only interested in making you happy, because you're the payer. However, if the relationship is like this:

  you -> advertising company -> developer

then the developer doesn't really care about you; you're just the means to an end, a vehicle to drive to the place with money. The developer and advertiser will build a business relationship, <cynical> and usually make sure their relationship with you maximizes shareholder (not your) value. </cynical>

I think it shows a clear understanding of business models. In an ad-supported service, the advertiser is the customer and the user is the product being sold.

But its more nuanced than that. Ubunut (or rather Canonical) is not just an ad-supported service. It has "real" enterprise support customers, it has OEM engineering services, certification services and other things that puts Ubuntu as at least part of the product, if not front and centre. In a multivariate business model like this, the pulls in each direction tend to even out for the betterment of the product as a whole (or pull it apart completely, but with Ubuntu that hasn't happened yet).

I think the simplistic view of Canonicals business model is the problem with the article.

Yes, for OEMs and enterprises enthusiasts are not product. They are testers. For Fedora it's almost official.

When you read The New York Times or WSJ or even Daring Fireball, do you feel like you're the product being sold?

Well, yes - particularly the WSJ, which flaunts its corporate sympathies, and DF, which wears its Apple admiration as a badge of honour.

So we should roll over and accept ads everywhere?

So you're saying companies are forced to accept "exclusive" clauses in ad contracts, where ad-viewers aren't allowed to have a method of paying to opt-out of viewing ads?

What? Since when has charging customers not been a business model?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com