[hpatel]

Divorcing ability to pay doesn't necessarily have to mean nobody pays.

We are already beginning to see the early stages of such a system. All freemium services are in essence an example of such a system and therefore by extension most startups.

Gmail satisfies the demand of millions of customers for an email service but doesn't ask them to pay. This doesn't mean gmail doesn't make gains.

Currently, the primary funder of such services are ad and brand agencies.

What if we lived in a world where any individual could basically play the role that ad/brand agencies play in supporting freemium services today?

[anamax]

> All freemium services are in essence an example of such a system

No, they aren't. They exist because sufficient people pay.

> and therefore by extension most startups.

Do you really think that a significant number of startups are freemium?

> Currently, the primary funder of such services are ad and brand agencies.

Not at all. They're funded by "heavy users" - see dropbox.

Ad supported is not freemium.

[hpatel]

You are right. I was describing free - not freemium. Though, technically even freemium is an example of where a large number of people don't pay in the direct exchange. The monetization model divorces payment from the direct beneficiary - that's the key takeaway.

[anamax]

> The monetization model divorces payment from the direct beneficiary - that's the key takeaway.

No. Freemium divorces payment from SOME direct beneficiaries.

However, the total cost, and then some, is paid by other direct beneficiaries. Is your scheme any different?

Note that freemium doesn't always work. For example, a freemium automobile company is unlikely to work. Advertising supported "free to end user" automobiles won't work either.

So, how does your proposed model work? Be sure to explain when it works and when it doesn't. (If you claim that it works for every product/service, you're wrong.)