[dax_]

Judging from the article, it seems that the only reason for this is to shut down regulators with this argument: "You want us to stop tracking users? Users already have that option, it's a subscription". So I believe the pricing is intentionally outrageous, it's not really meant as a reasonable choice.

[olalonde]

Doubtful. Facebook's mission is to maximize profits, not to maximize ads served. If they thought they could generate more profits by lowering priced subscriptions or even getting rid of the free, ad-supported tier, they would absolutely go for it. The inconvenient truth is that the only way to get a lot of users to pay for Facebook is through ads, because they won't pay for a subscription, no matter the price point. If the free tier disappeared, there would be a mass exodus of users from Facebook to a free, ad-supported, competitor.

[repelsteeltje]

On the other hand, if successful it would also mean a huge pivot for Meta to shift ad business to social media, something they barely have experience with.

Also, how would they prevent people posting ads from falling through the cracks?

[pkulak]

Yeah, I can't see that they are pulling in close to that number per month with ads.

[randomdata]

Price is determined by how much someone is willing to pay, not by how much you might have made if you had a different business model.

There is no magical formula in determining how much someone will pay beyond offering a price and see if anyone bites. It may turn out that $14 is too high and they will have to temper their expectations later. But maybe $14 will turn out to be just fine and people will be quite willing to spend that much.

If you are using Meta properties so frequently that you notice it has ads, it is likely that you can find more than $14 worth of value from your usage. If you can't even muster a paltry $14 worth of value from using it over the course of a month, why are you using it at all?