Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We should just let the market sort it out. If people don’t want to pay as much as a website needs to be run, they should just not use the website, it can go out of business if necessary, and space can be opened up for a more efficient service provider.

I mean we’re basically allowing for an information asymmetry here, right? Which messes with supply and demand. Economists should be pissed.




Isn't is already sorted out? Current model full of ads is the best for business.


The juiciest model is to make content that people go nuts for, like sports, then charge $100/mo for access to it, then run ads on top of that, i.e. what Comcast / Hulu do. You want the sports, so you have no choice but to pay what they demand and watch all the awful ads. They won't sell the rights to anyone because it's such a cash cow, and they know they don't even need to offer an ad-free experience, because the whole thing is just a gimmick to shove ads and marketing down throats in the first place.


The suppliers and the demanders can’t agree on an efficient price if the demanders don’t know what the price is.


And while they haggle over the price of the megaphone, the rest of us who are about to be deafened don’t even factor into a market-based pricing.


A monopolist is charging rent.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: