Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

they won’t as long as you are paying $200+/month


Bold to assume they won't try to double-dip and profit from you in more than one way. Cable TV got ads, subscription newspapers got ads (and advertorials). Just because it's not free doesn't mean you aren't the product.


In that moment you cancel your subscription. Why does this argument come up again and again? The past, present, and future are not the same thing. You should especially notice that when having a meal.


Cable never claimed to be ad-free; it's an old wives tale.


If they can make an extra $20 from adverts on to they will.

Sky TV makes 10 times as much from subscription as adverts but spends 30% of the time showing you adverts. London underground revenue is a similar ratio - for every £9 tickets they make £1 in adverts. If I go to the cinema they spend 20 minutes showing adverts to people who spent £50 on tickets and popcorn.

Companies shave very little incentive not to make things shit with adverts. The measurable cost to them is tiny, the cost to the rest of the world is massive. Odeon won’t attribute lost revenue from my reduced visits to their adverts, but will measure the 50p or whatever they get.


How did that work for cable and satellite TV and streaming services and and and




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

Search: