|
|
|
|
|
by Mz
3192 days ago
|
|
That probably isn't literally true. If you come up with a solution that is worth more to them than the cost to them, people will find the money. And if it is literally true, then you look at uncoupling monetization from the end point user. There are a number of ways to do that. Historically, TV was supported by ads. Viewers bought TVs, but broadcast stations did not directly charge viewers for watching TV. Instead, they broadcast for free, but included ads. It is another layer of complication, but it isn't outright a charity model. Plenty of for profit businesses have a less direct monetization strategy than simply charging the end user for their use of it. |
|
Yes, that is true. Unfortunately, that essentially means competing with the things that cost them currently, and that's mostly rent and basic utilities, which are heavily regulated markets dominated by state-supported companies. You could sell to them, but then it's no longer "solve the problems of people around you" but solve the problems of huge corporations, which is quite different.
You're still right, it's just a discouraging prospect.
Plenty of for profit businesses have a less direct monetization strategy than simply charging the end user for their use of it.
That's also very true. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with ads, since I dislike the concept, but recognize that I and many others who couldn't afford online services have greatly benefited from the redistributive effects of ads. Still, I wouldn't use them as my revenue source.
Unfortunately, except for ads and a fremium model, I don't see many ways to do this decoupling.