> I'm supposed to believe that the cost to Twitter to deliver ad-free and tracking-free text streams is higher than the cost for Netflix/Google to stream unlimited HD video to all of my devices on demand.
The price is not based on the cost to provide the service, it’s based on the current or potential revenue they can bring in via ads. A company won’t switch revenue models if it means a 50% reduction in revenue.
> The price is not based on the cost to provide the service, it’s based on the current or potential revenue they can bring in via ads
Eh, technically it's based on what the market will bear, but your comment also kind of demonstrates my point.
You can extrapolate out from what you've said to explain why the ads are not going away. Because if you can make $X with a paid service, and $X + $Y from ads, a company will do that. My point is, it's a mistake to think about "what would the Internet cost without ads." The sites will do whatever they can to make the most money possible, they are not going to leave ads and user tracking off of the table just because you gave them money. That would be throwing away revenue.
The framing of "this keeps the Internet free" is incorrect, the Internet will cost as much as is it can get away with costing, and the ads will just be another part of that equation. If the users tolerate the ads, then they'll get ads, regardless of what else the service is doing.
The price is not based on the cost to provide the service, it’s based on the current or potential revenue they can bring in via ads. A company won’t switch revenue models if it means a 50% reduction in revenue.