> It’s obvious why the likes of Facebook and Google don't charge for their products: It costs nearly nothing to transmit...
That's not why. They don't charge because it's not lucrative to do so. Charging - however small - would change expectations on SLA, privacy, security, etc.
Most importantly, as everyone on HN knows, they can't charge for access to their platform because the platform isn't the product. You and I are the product.
Finally, Bloomberg should be more careful with their word choice. They are prestigious enough to know that __nothing__ is free. There is always a cost(s) involved. The transaction might not call for an exchange of financial wampum but that does not make it free.
>Finally, Bloomberg should be more careful with their word
choice. They are prestigious enough to know that
__nothing__ is free. There is always a cost(s) involved.
The transaction might not call for an exchange of financial
wampum but that does not make it free.
I read the article. It is a synopsis of a paper.
The word "free" does not appear in the article,
and to my reading the author does not imply "free".
That's not why. They don't charge because it's not lucrative to do so. Charging - however small - would change expectations on SLA, privacy, security, etc.
Most importantly, as everyone on HN knows, they can't charge for access to their platform because the platform isn't the product. You and I are the product.
Finally, Bloomberg should be more careful with their word choice. They are prestigious enough to know that __nothing__ is free. There is always a cost(s) involved. The transaction might not call for an exchange of financial wampum but that does not make it free.