[j_col]

If they are using it to advertise to you, then it isn't "free" in my book.

[msvan]

Open source shouldn't be considered free either. People put in countless man hours working on open source projects, and giving something back in return should be common etiquette.

My point is, you always pay for something. In the case of Chrome, surely you don't believe that Google has no self-interest in building Chrome?

[j_col]

> Open source shouldn't be considered free either. People put in countless man hours working on open source projects, and giving something back in return should be common etiquette.

I have an open source project. I don't advertise on it. I give it away freely and happily, knowing I gain no revenue from it.

> My point is, you always pay for something. In the case of Chrome, surely you don't believe that Google has no self-interest in building Chrome?

It's clear that they have a self interest.

[petercooper]

Though by that measure, HN isn't "free."

[j_col]

HN is a website. Chrome is a browser. Not sure I get the comparison?

[EwanToo]

What's wrong with the comparison?

Both are services (Chrome's a lot more than use an executable, does sync'd data, etc), that you don't exchange money with in return for functionality.

[j_col]

A web browser allows access to all websites (broad reach). HN is just one website on the web (narrow reach). Pretty clear to me why this is a bad comparison, just interested to know why the OP thought otherwise.

[anglebracket]

I don't see what reach has to do with making HN "free" and Chrome "not free" if they both use space in their interfaces to deliver advertisements. Arguably, Chrome would be more "free" since HN displays its advertisements more prominently than Chrome's and they masquerade as user-generated content. Is there more to your metric?

[j_col]

I never claimed that HN was free. I simply said that comparing it to Chrome was invalid.

[KaoruAoiShiho]

They're both communication tools.