If you want the analogy to make sense, you have to specify a particular method of paying. At which point it becomes obvious that most places selling food let you use multiple alternatives. Websites usually don't give you a choice.
On the other hand, surprisingly few "ad-free" service tiers turn out to actually be ad-free, which tends to undermine the whole concept. It's extremely common to get various kinds of "special" promotions that don't go through the standard ad platform. Sites have been known to forget the premium option when A/B testing changes to ad placements. Multiple streaming services have ads on some shows even on their top "ad-free" tier (I think because the ad buy was with the original studio/network and is written into the show's distribution contract). Several marketing gurus have figured out ways to game social media networks to make "non-advertising" posts featuring their brands go viral (see e.g. the fad of "weird brand Twitter").
Yep, thanks Paramount Plus aka CBS All Access. I paid for ad-free, yet for some reason still see ads (previews/promotions for Paramount content). Fortunately I cancelled because their app would let me watch Star Trek Picard and Discovery, but it kept fluctuating colors from heavy green to purple. It only happened on the newer shows, not on the older Star Treks. My best guess is that the DRM thinks something weird might be going on, but it's just a plain Chromecast with Google TV. Making the user experience for paying customers suck is what leads to people going elsewhere...
Price thing: no one can afford to pay "a latte per month" for every site they visit.
Trust thing: the site is likely to still spy on you even if you're a paid subscriber. Even if they drop ads they'll send your data to google or some other analytics provider, at the least. They'll "accidentaly reset" your email preferences. Plus other shenanigans *.
Infrequency thing: I won't subscribe to $SOME_SITE just because it's linked on HN a couple times per year.
* friend of mine said he's tempted to subscribe to the economist online. I pointed out that they need to call or talk to a rep over live chat to cancel. Friend stopped mentioning subscribing to the economist.
I managed to subscribe at a really good annual rate vs. list through some online aggregator, where they pre-warn me of renewal and rate changes to let me cancel if I want. I don’t remember what it was without searching my email, so not shilling for them in any way, but there are methods.
That said, yeah-no one can reasonably afford the constant “I just want to read this one linked article twice a year on your local community news” turning into “subscribe for $120 a year after $1 for your first month”, and we really need some middle ground.
Unfortunately, people have an aversion-a hard aversion-to anything that’s not “zero” or “fixed”. I discovered it with Kagi, for example-despite whatever number of searches you find yourself actually running, having only “x per month” means you have to think about it, until you’re just like “pay the unlimited price and put the cost of thinking about it on them”.
Maybe with news the best way would be some kind of micro transaction, but all attempts so far have failed…
> Maybe with news the best way would be some kind of micro transaction, but all attempts so far have failed…
It's hard. I wouldn't pay a subscription to a micro transaction middle man, for example. Unless it would work like a music service, i.e. have everything available for one price, and not like a video service with their islands and attempts to differentiate.
But if they had everything, you'd end up with a gatekeeper that decides who can make money and who can't, and that ends up as censorship. If such a service ever comes up, i want to be able to pay for any site with it, including porn, right wing propaganda and left wing propaganda if i so choose. And that ain't going to happen.
Now suppose there would be competing services where you could pay 5 cents for an article read, and they'd bill you when you reach $10 or something for the transaction fees to make sense. That's okay, you pay per read, you can have accounts with several middle men because you pay per use.
But what do you pay for? One read? What if something comes up and you can't finish? Will you be able to save it for later reading or will that cost extra?
Perpetual access? With per-article access control that's going to be a major database after a while. Hard problem technically.
There is this thing called Zette: https://www.zette.ai/ - 30 cents per article on about hundred (so far) big newspapers. However it's not working for EU/Switzerland because data protection rules (what are they doing with your personal data???) and their FAQ site is broken, so I wouldn't even bother.
Fixed is great, it just needs to apply to a lot of sites.
Google was playing around with ad-replacement purchases, but they never made a version that does the same thing as youtube: pay X and all the google ads go away.
Frustratingly, even when you pay handsomely for subscriptions to major news providers, they still show ads (and quite a lot of them). A few are willing to sell you an ad-free subscription if you can establish a connection to the EU, but those seem to be thin on the ground.
I really and truly do wish this wasn't true, but it is. Part of this is because we've built an expectation that the only thing one needs to pay for to use services connected on the Internet is access, and once access is paid for, the problem is solved.
But that's not the case. Products cost money, and we've established a pattern of free to play to freemium for much of the most popular services. This could change, but it would take the major players to flip the script, and they've invested so much into ad systems that they'd be hard pressed to abandon it.
> The internet was just fine before it was turned into an ad delivery platform.
this is the comment I replied to. Apparently the old internet was fine, so what kind of "competition" are you looking for? Youtube gives you easy access to content you would have to spend hours trying to locate on "old" internet.
If you do not like their content, simply stop using their site. But it is immoral to pretend like it is OK to abuse their site, and deliberately hide their adviertisments that keep their site alive