• cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why would you conclude that a subscription based model makes them immune from corrupt financial incentives? Quite the opposite. That’s my whole point.

    • Zeoic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      There is a bit of a difference. Google wants you using it as much as humanly possible for ad impressions. With a subscription they need to make the product just good enough that you keep paying, but use it as little as possible. If you use the full extent of your subscription, they will make less money than if you just use it a little bit but keep paying.

    • cabbage@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well, yeah, they’re run by a corporation, which I guess means they need to show infinite growth to return value to stockholders. If so they can keep growing on subscriptions for a while, but eventually they’ll turn on their customers. So fair enough.

      I think that’s part of my problem with them honestly. They seem to always want to grow and do more, but I would rather have seen them focus on search and make the subscription more affordable. But as they need growth I guess that’s not possible.

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “If you’re not paying, you are the product”

      Nobody offers services for free, the money has to come from somewhere