← Back to context

Comment by WarmWash

11 hours ago

This take is prevalent but not really true.

You can subsidize the cost of a full subscription by having ads.

I know that society at large is mostly hopeless, but here on HN we generally have the mental firepower to comprehend "It's a sliding payment scale from no ads to all ads"

Edit: You guys are welcome to be upset by this, but if you think it's wrong, please correct me. Ideally without using the one counter example of cable TV in the 90's. Monopolies bring bad behaviors.

21 comments

WarmWash

Reply
smallmancontrov  11 hours ago

No, if a company gets enough leverage the top plan will demand both payment and ads. We've seen it before and we'll see it again.

  • WarmWash  11 hours ago

    Examples would be the best way to prove me wrong.

    Most (all?) streaming services offer an ad-free plan, and those are the most popular hybrid payment services by far.

    • cgriswald  9 hours ago

      I don’t know what you consider to be an advertisement but just off the top of my head:

      Many (most?) streaming services advertise their own shows and other content ahead of other content you elect to watch even on ad free subs.

      Hulu’s ad free subs have some shows that show unambiguous ads.

      Prime and others muddy their interfaces with others’ “channels” and content that you can subscribe to through their service. They also show other content you can purchase or rent through them that aren’t part of your package. These things are included in search, viewing UI lists, and banner ads.

    • dqv  6 hours ago

      Hulu: Disney+, Hulu Bundle Premium: For $19.99/month, eligible subscribers get Disney+ (No Ads)* and Hulu (No Ads)*.

      *Ads will be served in select live and linear content

      I won't be engaging in any mental gymnastics where there is some redefinition of "no ads" to mean "some ads".