Reddit CEO Says Paywalls are Coming Soon

[Rothman]

I just want any personal cost to me to be minimal in all cases.  Free is preferable.

[Scott5114]

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

You're not sending me enough $100 bills, that's what!

(this is a joke)

[Big John]

It should be illegal for Reddit to charge its users? What the hell is going wrong with this forum?

You're not sending me enough $100 bills, that's what!

(this is a joke)

What is he charging you $100 for?

[Scott5114]

Gosh its almost like if companies have revenue for a service, that service can improve.

It can't, though.

If a service produces revenue, then the purpose of that service becomes creating revenue. So those controlling become incentivized to do what produces the most revenue, even if that is to the detriment of those using the service.

Those controlling a service with no profit motive have no incentive to do such things. Instead the only thing to focus on is making the service better.

You can see this when you compare Windows and Linux. In the last few versions Microsoft has forced AI on people, introduced ads in the OS itself, and made it a pain in the ass to install non-Microsoft software, all of which is intended to make Microsoft more money. In Linux, uh...well, we got a more secure windowing system, which is mildly annoying if people haven't fixed their programs to work correctly with it. Otherwise it's about the same as it's always been.

Money makes things worse.

[SEWIGuy]

Gosh its almost like if companies have revenue for a service, that service can improve.

It can't, though.

If a service produces revenue, then the purpose of that service becomes creating revenue. So those controlling become incentivized to do what produces the most revenue, even if that is to the detriment of those using the service.

Those controlling a service with no profit motive have no incentive to do such things. Instead the only thing to focus on is making the service better.

You can see this when you compare Windows and Linux. In the last few versions Microsoft has forced AI on people, introduced ads in the OS itself, and made it a pain in the ass to install non-Microsoft software, all of which is intended to make Microsoft more money. In Linux, uh...well, we got a more secure windowing system, which is mildly annoying if people haven't fixed their programs to work correctly with it. Otherwise it's about the same as it's always been.

So your assertion is that, if a company charges money for a product, then it has no incentive to improve the product because the only incentive is now to make more money?

What if improving the product attracts more customers, and therefore increases revenue?

Both can happen.

[Scott5114]

Both can happen.

Why doesn't it, then?

[SEWIGuy]

Both can happen.

Why doesn't it, then?

Uh...it does. All the time.

[thspfc]

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

[kalvado]

Gosh its almost like if companies have revenue for a service, that service can improve.

It can't, though.

If a service produces revenue, then the purpose of that service becomes creating revenue. So those controlling become incentivized to do what produces the most revenue, even if that is to the detriment of those using the service.

Those controlling a service with no profit motive have no incentive to do such things. Instead the only thing to focus on is making the service better.

You can see this when you compare Windows and Linux. In the last few versions Microsoft has forced AI on people, introduced ads in the OS itself, and made it a pain in the ass to install non-Microsoft software, all of which is intended to make Microsoft more money. In Linux, uh...well, we got a more secure windowing system, which is mildly annoying if people haven't fixed their programs to work correctly with it. Otherwise it's about the same as it's always been.

So your assertion is that, if a company charges money for a product, then it has no incentive to improve the product because the only incentive is now to make more money?

What if improving the product attracts more customers, and therefore increases revenue?

Both can happen.

Whoever maintains reddit, or any other free or subsidized service, still has to make ends meet
I love comparing public transportation in this sense. In Calgary it was over $3 before covid, but it was convenient and usable system. In our similar sized city it's $1.50, mostly subsidized by the state - and usefulness of that isn't great... Somehow serving more people and making more money do align in Calgary.

[Max Rockatansky]

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And for Reddit the cat has been long out of the bag.  They are and have been a for profit company.

[formulanone]

If past performance is anything to go by, I doubt more than 5-10% of the user base would pay for Reddit, unless a very low price is set. The inverted pyramid structure states:

With any account model, 5-10% of the total number of registered users create 90% of the posts.

Let's say another 1-2% of the users might be interested enough to purchase, because they lurk more than post. But a large share of that initial group probably would quit if a major change occurred. It's not that personal to just leave due to its large size. There's loads of "burner accounts" in that figure too, for semi-anonymous questions.

So would 5-7% of active users be enough to float the expenses without alienating the rest? And many of them might lose interest after a few more months, perhaps not seeing the same value as before?

That's the big question and why suddenly charging for a free service doesn't always work so well. The hopes are that most will pay for it, but usually it's a small percentage overall.

[thspfc]

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And for Reddit the cat has been long out of the bag.  They are and have been a for profit company.

Adding to the absurdity, the user who holds that opinion is one who from his posts is clearly super into tech. Maybe he would learn something from one of these alternate ideal worlds people love to create. In a world where tech companies weren't allowed to make profit, he wouldn't even have an online platform like this to word vomit computer acronyms.

[vdeane]

I mean is Reddit not a publicly traded company?  The investors have the right to run it however they like, even it makes the product appreciably worse.

They have a great, but fragile asset. Question is how to make it to make it work without destroying the value. Paid premium features are one thing, dumping entire thing into AI training is another...

Isn't it more a case that Reddit is one of the last major forum-like websites left?  My thought is that the format isn't  mlong for this world anyways and won't need much of a push to completely tank.

That's part of the reason I'm so concerned.  I have no intention of switching to chat (Discord).

Your first paragraph makes no sense from a business perspective. No one is going to sign up for a subscribtion Reddit-type site when it launches because it has no value. The users, and the interaction between them, is what provides the value. Setting up the site....attracting users and the value they bring...and then figuring out how exactly to monetize it IS the business plan.

Any taking away of still-used functionality (or putting free functionality behind a paywall) or making the user experience worse is morally repugnant and, quite frankly, should not be legal at all.  I could see offering the service for free for a year or two and then charging, but such must be disclosed in advance so that people are not surprised (such would also prevent the world from changing in ways that would cause monetization to cause such problems for citizens).

Charging for something that used to be free should be illegal...because people are surprised?

I mean come on. Why do people want to use laws to outlaw things they don't like versus things that are actually detrimental to society?

No one is harmed in any material way if Reddit starts charging for their site. No one is defrauded or anything.

Reddit is practically an institution at this point.  It going behind a paywall would be a fundamental change in the way people use the internet.  Well, it certainly would be for me, anyways.  I'd have to get an account (which would increase my time commitment, since then I'd feel more obligated to keep up with things), and browsing without an account would be a thing of the past.  The tendency of Reddit mods to ban people at the drop of a hat would also be a bigger deal, since being able to browse without an account would be no more.  Where would I go?  Internet forums are practically dead outside of this one, and I don't know enough people who share my interests and tendency for deep discussion to keep me happy.  And I'd have to find something else to do with my time.

The world has built itself around a free Reddit.  Heck, just look at the number of people who end up appending "site:reddit.com" to the end of their searches to get more useful results.  I do it all the time.  It's pretty much required if you want advise or thoughts from regular people and not some watered-down corporate article that might not even be on what you really want.

Like it or not, people have built up an expectation of Reddit being free from more than a decade of history of it being so, with no indication that it would ever be otherwise.

Not to mention "morally repugnant." Which is strange, because I don't even think its unethical. Businesses do this all of the time.

For example, a local ice cream shop has a grand opening where it offers free samples. Is it then "morally repugnant" to charge for the ice cream later?

Businesses do a lot of things all the time that I don't like.  In theory, public businesses were supposed to be for the common good of society, and long ago (like the 50s or 60s) businesses used to care about being "good corporate citizens", not just making money.  It's time that we returned to that.

As for free samples, if something is labeled as such, it's just a sample.  It's not an expectation that it will always be free.  If you can't tell the difference between that and something that has been free for years with no indication of that changing, I don't know what to tell you.

Should this logic extend to landlords? If an area becomes more desirable or the landlord does thorough renovations, should they not be able to raise rent for subsequent signings? How does this cooperate with inflation in general?

Ever hear of the movement for Good Cause Eviction laws?  There are people who make those demands.  I don't 100% agree with them, but my disagreement is more concern that making it difficult to evict people might cause apartments to all become glorified slums, not because of any fundamental disagreement with their intended goals.

If past performance is anything to go by, I doubt more than 5-10% of the user base would pay for Reddit, unless a very low price is set. The inverted pyramid structure states:

With any account model, 5-10% of the total number of registered users create 90% of the posts.

Let's say another 1-2% of the users might be interested enough to purchase, because they lurk more than post. But a large share of that initial group probably would quit if a major change occurred. It's not that personal to just leave due to its large size. There's loads of "burner accounts" in that figure too, for semi-anonymous questions.

So would 5-7% of active users be enough to float the expenses without alienating the rest? And many of them might lose interest after a few more months, perhaps not seeing the same value as before?

That's the big question and why suddenly charging for a free service doesn't always work so well. The hopes are that most will pay for it, but usually it's a small percentage overall.

That's a concern as well.  Reddit already feels less active than it was before the blackout protests.  Judging by how Lemmy flopped, I'm guessing everyone went to Discord.  I know that's what happened to the subreddits for a couple online serials I follow (and their comment sections), one of which no longer exists at all.

[Scott5114]

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And yet it's been borne out by experience in my personal life. I don't buy software. Ever.

Saying that merely introducing a profit motive will improves the quality of a product is one of the most blatantly incorrect, brainwashed-American opinions I have ever heard in my life.

[Molandfreak]

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And for Reddit the cat has been long out of the bag.  They are and have been a for profit company.

Adding to the absurdity, the user who holds that opinion is one who from his posts is clearly super into tech. Maybe he would learn something from one of these alternate ideal worlds people love to create. In a world where tech companies weren't allowed to make profit, he wouldn't even have an online platform like this to word vomit computer acronyms.

Open source software doesn't exist now?

[Scott5114]

Open source software doesn't exist now?

I guess he thinks we paid for a copy of Simple Machines Forum...

[Max Rockatansky]

I feel as though Reddit is one of these things I'm told is important only on this forum.  I don't believe that I've encountered anyone in my regular life who has claimed to be a site user.  If they are users, it doesn't come up in conversation.  I guess that I don't really get who the platform is for?

I was surprised to see Reddit had $1.30 billion in revenue last year.  A $484 million net loss doesn't seem to be an indicator of a healthy business model.  I suspect this subscription idea is a move made out of desperation.

[thspfc]

Should this logic extend to landlords? If an area becomes more desirable or the landlord does thorough renovations, should they not be able to raise rent for subsequent signings? How does this cooperate with inflation in general?

Ever hear of the movement for Good Cause Eviction laws?  There are people who make those demands.  I don't 100% agree with them, but my disagreement is more concern that making it difficult to evict people might cause apartments to all become glorified slums, not because of any fundamental disagreement with their intended goals.

That doesn't answer the question.

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And yet it's been borne out by experience in my personal life. I don't buy software. Ever.

Saying that merely introducing a profit motive will improves the quality of a product is one of the most blatantly incorrect, brainwashed-American opinions I have ever heard in my life.

That's not what I said. I don't know how to be any clearer than I was. I really don't.

I was responding to your claim that profit incentives never lead to improvement of the quality of a product.

You have 3 options: 1) agree that's a ridiculous statement, 2) deny you ever said that and explain what you actually did say, or 3) explain to me why profit makes up ZERO of the motivation for a corporation to improve its product. Any response that is not one of those three options is a waste of time.

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And for Reddit the cat has been long out of the bag.  They are and have been a for profit company.

Adding to the absurdity, the user who holds that opinion is one who from his posts is clearly super into tech. Maybe he would learn something from one of these alternate ideal worlds people love to create. In a world where tech companies weren't allowed to make profit, he wouldn't even have an online platform like this to word vomit computer acronyms.

Open source software doesn't exist now?

I never said that. I don't know how my statement could have possibly implied that I am disregarding the existence of open source software. I don't know how you can reason that such open source software would exist in the first place in the absence of profit incentives. Please do explain how that would be the case.

[CtrlAltDel]

Open source software doesn't exist now?

I guess he thinks we paid for a copy of Simple Machines Forum...

Speaking of users demanding things for free, when are we going to get the green roadgeek layout back? 

[Molandfreak]

Should this logic extend to landlords? If an area becomes more desirable or the landlord does thorough renovations, should they not be able to raise rent for subsequent signings? How does this cooperate with inflation in general?

Ever hear of the movement for Good Cause Eviction laws?  There are people who make those demands.  I don't 100% agree with them, but my disagreement is more concern that making it difficult to evict people might cause apartments to all become glorified slums, not because of any fundamental disagreement with their intended goals.

That doesn't answer the question.

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And yet it's been borne out by experience in my personal life. I don't buy software. Ever.

Saying that merely introducing a profit motive will improves the quality of a product is one of the most blatantly incorrect, brainwashed-American opinions I have ever heard in my life.

That's not what I said. I don't know how to be any clearer than I was. I really don't.

I was responding to your claim that profit incentives never lead to improvement of the quality of a product.

You have 3 options: 1) agree that's a ridiculous statement, 2) deny you ever said that and explain what you actually did say, or 3) explain to me why profit makes up ZERO of the motivation for a corporation to improve its product. Any response that is not one of those three options is a waste of time.

Saying that profit - specifically, the potential to make more of it - will never improve the quality of a product (if that is indeed what you mean by "why doesn't it then?") is fucking NUTS. Like one of the worst, most blatantly incorrect opinions I have heard in my life.

And for Reddit the cat has been long out of the bag.  They are and have been a for profit company.

Adding to the absurdity, the user who holds that opinion is one who from his posts is clearly super into tech. Maybe he would learn something from one of these alternate ideal worlds people love to create. In a world where tech companies weren't allowed to make profit, he wouldn't even have an online platform like this to word vomit computer acronyms.

Open source software doesn't exist now?

I never said that. I don't know how my statement could have possibly implied that I am disregarding the existence of open source software. I don't know how you can reason that such open source software would exist in the first place in the absence of profit incentives. Please do explain how that would be the case.

I think the bolded text speaks for itself here.

[Scott5114]

I was responding to your claim that profit incentives never lead to improvement of the quality of a product.

It's theoretically possible. It's pretty damn hard to find many examples of it in real life post-2010, though, especially in the tech sector. These days it's all about forced obsolescence and vendor lock-in.

[Scott5114]

Speaking of users demanding things for free, when are we going to get the green roadgeek layout back? 

When I stop forgetting that I need to actually finish the damn thing... 

[jeffandnicole]

I'm going to guess that most people that want something to remain free forever has never operated a business.

If you want a current product to remain free and have the company only charge for the new product, guess what - the company can easily just take away the free product.  It'll reduce their expenses in the long run if they get rid of the freeloaders that won't move to the paid product.  What are you going to do...boycott a site you had no interest in visiting in the first place? (Similar fashion - people who say they'll boycott a store that doesn't even exist in their area. I don't think the company cares all that much, but thanks for the free advertising for mentioning the business anyway.)

[Scott5114]

I'm going to guess that most people that want something to remain free forever has never operated a business.

It can also be that people don't want some things operated as a business to begin with.

Nobody is clamoring for AARoads Inc. to make an IPO.

The apparent belief that absolutely everything must be a profit-oriented business, and the apparent tunnel vision some people have that precludes seeing possibilities outside of that, is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it's not a good one.

[SEWIGuy]

I'm going to guess that most people that want something to remain free forever has never operated a business.

It can also be that people don't want some things operated as a business to begin with.

Nobody is clamoring for AARoads Inc. to make an IPO.

The apparent belief that absolutely everything must be a profit-oriented business, and the apparent tunnel vision some people have that precludes seeing possibilities outside of that, is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it's not a good one.

It amazes me that you think this is a "relatively recent phenomenon."