Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«944 »
  • Locked thread
Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~

Hilalry is 45


duTrieux. posted:

somewhere ted nelson is sobbing in a bathtub

i found one of the proposals

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for January 25, 1998:
The Case For Micropayments
Ultimately, those who pay for something control it. Currently, most websites that don't sell things are funded by advertising. Thus, they will be controlled by advertisers and will become less and less useful to the users. A veritable arms race has already started with more and more annoying advertisements that intrude on the user's attention in an attempt to survive ever-declining click-through rates.

Annoying ads are ultimately self-defeating since people will avoid sites that do not give them a positive user experience. The Web is a user-driven phenomenon, where people go online for a purpose. Quite often, that purpose will be to buy something, so there is a great future for commercial sites that sell or support products and services. Traditional products can be charged to credit cards, but many Internet services will require incremental payments rather than large one-time payments.

I predict that most sites that are not financed through traditional product sales will move to micropayments in less than two years. Users should be willing to pay, say, one cent per Web page in return for getting quality content and an optimal user experience with less intrusive ads. Once users pay for the pages, then they get to be the site's customers, and the site will design to satisfy the users' needs and not the advertisers' needs.

Some analysts say that users don't want to be "nickeled and dimed" while they are online. In fact, the problem is being dimed; not being nickeled. Unfortunately, some sites that currently charge for content do so at a level of a dollar or more per page. Such pricing is obviously unpleasant and will only be acceptable for highly value-added content that users can predict in advance that they will benefit significantly from buying. Regular articles (like this column) cannot be that expensive.

Long-distance telephone calls and electricity are both metered services. Many people do feel a tension while they are on the phone, at least while making an international or other expensive call. At the same time, very few people worry about powering a lightbulb, even though doing so costs a few cents per hour. Electricity charges mainly serve to make people turn off the lights when they go to bed. The difference is clearly in the level of pricing:

less than a cent per minute and people use as much as they need (electricity)
10 cents per minute, and people ration their usage a little (long distance phone calls)
40 cents per minute, and people ration their usage a lot (international calls)

On the Web, users should not worry about a cent per page. If a page is not worth a cent, then you should not download it in the first place. Even as the Web grows in importance in the future, most people will probably access less than 100 non-free pages per day (in June 1998, heavy users visited an average of 46 pages per day). Most users will have $10-$30 in monthly service charges for Web content.

During working hours, it is easy to calculate the value of a user's time. If we assume that various overhead costs are about the same as a person's salary, then somebody making $35,000 per year costs their company a cent per second. In other words, every time you access a Web page, it costs your company ten cents just for having you sit and wait while it downloads (assuming that the page design obeys the 10-second response time limit). Add time to actually read the page, and we are looking at a cost of 25 cents to a dollar every time an employee accesses a Web page (with proportionally larger costs for highly-paid staff). In this context, paying a cent (or a few cents) for the content is nothing if it ensures higher-quality pages.

Simply waiting for a typical banner ad to download costs about 3 cents in lost employee time, so that could be a possible value of ad-free pages. Of course, much Web access occurs during off-duty hours where people's time is harder to value. But if people value their free time at a third of their working time, then even leisure browsers should be willing to pay a cent to avoid an ad.
Subscription Fees Fence You In
Acknowledging that Web advertising is not a sufficient business model, several famous websites have announced that they will start charging subscription fees later in 1998. Unfortunately, subscriptions are not a good idea on the Web.

The main problem with subscription fees is that they provide a single choice: between paying nothing (thus getting nothing) and paying a large fee (thus getting everything). Faced with this decision, most users will chose to pay nothing and will go to other sites. It is rare that you will know in advance that you will use a site enough to justify a large fee and the time to register. Thus, most people will only subscribe to very few sites: the Web will be split up into disconnected "docu-islands" and users will be prevented from roaming over the full docuverse.

Micropayments lower the threshold and do not require a big decision before users get their initial benefits: thus users will be encouraged to view more pages and spend more. Of course, there will almost certainly be discount schemes for frequent users of a site such that nobody would end up paying more than they would under a subscription plan. It would also be reasonable to make repeat viewing of the same page by the same user virtually free since doing so would discourage pirate copying.

Subscriptions work in the physical world because people can sample single issues of publications through newsstand purchases before they have to decide on a subscription. Also, limitations on the physical distribution of printed materials make the magazine or newspaper a reasonable unit of packaging: it would be too difficult to assemble a daily reading list of twenty articles from ten different magazines and ten newspapers. On the Web, it is no problem at all to browse the best pages from many different sites, following recommendations, search engine hits, and cross-references.

Subscriptions break the basic principles of the Web: the linking of information and user-controlled navigation. Charging subscriptions is like building a city wall: you keep people out. Authors who want to link to other sites for background information will rarely chose to link to subscription sites because they will know that the majority of their users will not be able to follow the links. Similarly, search engines will not be able to index subscription sites, so users will not find pages that relate to their interests on such sites.

Even if authors and search engines do link to a subscription site, users will never go there because the cost of signing up for a subscription and the time needed to do so cannot be justified for the sake of a single desired page. Thus, the site never gets visited by the user; it also never gets the chance to prove its value to that user and convert him or her into a loyal, repeat visitor.

In contrast, charging a micro-fee will not prevent links. Presumably, there will be a way for reputable search engines to spider a micro-charging site for free since most sites want to be found. A human author would not be deterred from linking to a fee-based page: if you don't think that a page would be worth a few cents to your readers, then you should not recommend it in the first place.

When deciding on what pages to recommend, an author would certainly consider the pricing: cheaper sites would have an advantage, though somebody who had really great content could get away with charging more. A site need not charge the same for all its pages. An opinion piece or a news story might carry lower fees than a thorough review of an entire product category.

It is likely that there will be mechanisms for pre-paid links. If, for example, a movie site wanted to refer users to a particularly favorable review on a certain newspaper's site, then it could use a special, digitally signed, link that would authorize the newspaper to charge the micro-fee to the movie site and not to the user. Users would thus be encouraged to follow the link and read the favorable review.

In general, it will be necessary to develop a spectrum of user interfaces for micro-payments such that users can follow cheap links with no overhead and without having to register, and yet still be protected from being hit with a large charge without knowing it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013



Faaaaaaart

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

Trophy-ko says:
~death to capitalism~

Hilalry is 45


basically the plan is the bitcoin tip economy hth

Dren
Jan 5, 2001



Pillbug

oh yeah in 1998 you had to wait for pages to load I forgot about that

that article is especially funny when considering that the length of a page was entirely arbitrary even at that time and it's only gotten less clear what a page worth of information is now thanks to interactive sites

Buttcoin purse
Apr 24, 2014

THIS DUDE HERE IS A REAL CLOWN


Dren posted:

that article is especially funny when considering that the length of a page was entirely arbitrary even at that time and it's only gotten less clear what a page worth of information is now thanks to interactive sites

For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John

INSERT COIN TO READ NEXT 10 WORDS


To be honest, if I generated any worthwhile content on the Internet instead of just shitposting, I'd probably like a way to try to get money for it, e.g. if I was a news website who used to sell newspapers. Charging a credit card 5c isn't the solution to it, and neither is bitcoin because of its no transation fees.

Maybe you could force people to sign up for a free account to read their first 100 articles, and after that say "hey, you read all of this cool stuff on our site and you seem to keep coming back, how about you give us $10 now and that'll let you view another 1000 articles?" Sure, having to sign up for an account in the first place sucks, oh well. Anyway, substitute $10 for some amount of bitcoins because of course it's only possible to do anything using a blockchain.

Silver Alicorn
Mar 30, 2008

dude put that thing away


Bloody posted:

Faaaaaaart

great, my buttcoins just lost value again

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007





Biscuit Hider

Nintendo Kid posted:

i found one of the proposals

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox for January 25, 1998:
The Case For Micropayments
Ultimately, those who pay for something control it. Currently, most websites that don't sell things are funded by advertising. Thus, they will be controlled by advertisers and will become less and less useful to the users. A veritable arms race has already started with more and more annoying advertisements that intrude on the user's attention in an attempt to survive ever-declining click-through rates.

Annoying ads are ultimately self-defeating since people will avoid sites that do not give them a positive user experience. The Web is a user-driven phenomenon, where people go online for a purpose. Quite often, that purpose will be to buy something, so there is a great future for commercial sites that sell or support products and services. Traditional products can be charged to credit cards, but many Internet services will require incremental payments rather than large one-time payments.

I predict that most sites that are not financed through traditional product sales will move to micropayments in less than two years. Users should be willing to pay, say, one cent per Web page in return for getting quality content and an optimal user experience with less intrusive ads. Once users pay for the pages, then they get to be the site's customers, and the site will design to satisfy the users' needs and not the advertisers' needs.

Some analysts say that users don't want to be "nickeled and dimed" while they are online. In fact, the problem is being dimed; not being nickeled. Unfortunately, some sites that currently charge for content do so at a level of a dollar or more per page. Such pricing is obviously unpleasant and will only be acceptable for highly value-added content that users can predict in advance that they will benefit significantly from buying. Regular articles (like this column) cannot be that expensive.

Long-distance telephone calls and electricity are both metered services. Many people do feel a tension while they are on the phone, at least while making an international or other expensive call. At the same time, very few people worry about powering a lightbulb, even though doing so costs a few cents per hour. Electricity charges mainly serve to make people turn off the lights when they go to bed. The difference is clearly in the level of pricing:

less than a cent per minute and people use as much as they need (electricity)
10 cents per minute, and people ration their usage a little (long distance phone calls)
40 cents per minute, and people ration their usage a lot (international calls)

On the Web, users should not worry about a cent per page. If a page is not worth a cent, then you should not download it in the first place. Even as the Web grows in importance in the future, most people will probably access less than 100 non-free pages per day (in June 1998, heavy users visited an average of 46 pages per day). Most users will have $10-$30 in monthly service charges for Web content.

During working hours, it is easy to calculate the value of a user's time. If we assume that various overhead costs are about the same as a person's salary, then somebody making $35,000 per year costs their company a cent per second. In other words, every time you access a Web page, it costs your company ten cents just for having you sit and wait while it downloads (assuming that the page design obeys the 10-second response time limit). Add time to actually read the page, and we are looking at a cost of 25 cents to a dollar every time an employee accesses a Web page (with proportionally larger costs for highly-paid staff). In this context, paying a cent (or a few cents) for the content is nothing if it ensures higher-quality pages.

Simply waiting for a typical banner ad to download costs about 3 cents in lost employee time, so that could be a possible value of ad-free pages. Of course, much Web access occurs during off-duty hours where people's time is harder to value. But if people value their free time at a third of their working time, then even leisure browsers should be willing to pay a cent to avoid an ad.
Subscription Fees Fence You In
Acknowledging that Web advertising is not a sufficient business model, several famous websites have announced that they will start charging subscription fees later in 1998. Unfortunately, subscriptions are not a good idea on the Web.

The main problem with subscription fees is that they provide a single choice: between paying nothing (thus getting nothing) and paying a large fee (thus getting everything). Faced with this decision, most users will chose to pay nothing and will go to other sites. It is rare that you will know in advance that you will use a site enough to justify a large fee and the time to register. Thus, most people will only subscribe to very few sites: the Web will be split up into disconnected "docu-islands" and users will be prevented from roaming over the full docuverse.

Micropayments lower the threshold and do not require a big decision before users get their initial benefits: thus users will be encouraged to view more pages and spend more. Of course, there will almost certainly be discount schemes for frequent users of a site such that nobody would end up paying more than they would under a subscription plan. It would also be reasonable to make repeat viewing of the same page by the same user virtually free since doing so would discourage pirate copying.

Subscriptions work in the physical world because people can sample single issues of publications through newsstand purchases before they have to decide on a subscription. Also, limitations on the physical distribution of printed materials make the magazine or newspaper a reasonable unit of packaging: it would be too difficult to assemble a daily reading list of twenty articles from ten different magazines and ten newspapers. On the Web, it is no problem at all to browse the best pages from many different sites, following recommendations, search engine hits, and cross-references.

Subscriptions break the basic principles of the Web: the linking of information and user-controlled navigation. Charging subscriptions is like building a city wall: you keep people out. Authors who want to link to other sites for background information will rarely chose to link to subscription sites because they will know that the majority of their users will not be able to follow the links. Similarly, search engines will not be able to index subscription sites, so users will not find pages that relate to their interests on such sites.

Even if authors and search engines do link to a subscription site, users will never go there because the cost of signing up for a subscription and the time needed to do so cannot be justified for the sake of a single desired page. Thus, the site never gets visited by the user; it also never gets the chance to prove its value to that user and convert him or her into a loyal, repeat visitor.

In contrast, charging a micro-fee will not prevent links. Presumably, there will be a way for reputable search engines to spider a micro-charging site for free since most sites want to be found. A human author would not be deterred from linking to a fee-based page: if you don't think that a page would be worth a few cents to your readers, then you should not recommend it in the first place.

When deciding on what pages to recommend, an author would certainly consider the pricing: cheaper sites would have an advantage, though somebody who had really great content could get away with charging more. A site need not charge the same for all its pages. An opinion piece or a news story might carry lower fees than a thorough review of an entire product category.

It is likely that there will be mechanisms for pre-paid links. If, for example, a movie site wanted to refer users to a particularly favorable review on a certain newspaper's site, then it could use a special, digitally signed, link that would authorize the newspaper to charge the micro-fee to the movie site and not to the user. Users would thus be encouraged to follow the link and read the favorable review.

In general, it will be necessary to develop a spectrum of user interfaces for micro-payments such that users can follow cheap links with no overhead and without having to register, and yet still be protected from being hit with a large charge without knowing it.


a time capsule from 16 years ago

InShaneee
Aug 11, 2006

Cleanse them. Cleanse the world of their ignorance and sin. Bathe them in the crimson of ... am I on speakerphone?

Fun Shoe

someone already made a real-money online tipping service

it's called Flattr

no one actually uses it

theflyingexecutive
Apr 22, 2007



InShaneee posted:

someone already made a real-money online tipping service

it's called Flattr

no one actually uses it

compare it to the subscription model of patreon and there's an obvious winner

though tbf that's not all that popular either

I guess paid content wins?

Weatherman
Jul 30, 2003

SCREECH


two things that piss me off, by weatherman (age 8)

- the media calling every scandal somethinggate
- evry nw strtup rmving the vwls frm ther nme

vOv
Feb 8, 2014



Weatherman posted:

two things that piss me off, by weatherman (age 8)

- the media calling every scandal somethinggate
- evry nw strtup rmving the vwls frm ther nme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB9JgxhXW5w

point of return
Aug 13, 2011

by exmarx


theflyingexecutive posted:

compare it to the subscription model of patreon and there's an obvious winner

though tbf that's not all that popular either

I guess paid content wins?

ads won, by far

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

Weatherman posted:

two things that piss me off, by weatherman (age 8)

- the media calling every scandal somethinggate
- evry nw strtup rmving the vwls frm ther nme

vwlgte

unpacked robinhood
Feb 18, 2013

drak cornfields of the earht, my dearest moths

Weatherman posted:

two things that piss me off, by weatherman (age 8)

- the media calling every scandal somethinggate
- evry nw strtup rmving the vwls frm ther nme

bitlr

Soricidus
Oct 20, 2010
freedom-hating statist shill

Pillbug

point of return posted:

ads won, by far

this is the best proof that advertisers are extremely good at persuading people to act against their own best interests

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

Fuck your duck dynasty

Midjack posted:

a time capsule from 16 years ago

fishmech was able to post that because he actually lives in the past and comes to the future to post about it

goddamnedtwisto
Dec 31, 2004

"goddamnedtwisto" (not his real name) is banned from the isle of wight for trying to overthrow the democratically elected mps there to set up bradley from s club 7 (now s club 3) as the island's new communist dictator. think about that when reading his posts



Fun Shoe

QuarkJets posted:

fishmech was able to post that because he actually lives in the past and comes to the future to post about it

he uses his powers for shitposting instead of stopping 9/11 or justin bieber because fishmech is literal pure evil

Weatherman
Jul 30, 2003

SCREECH



Nice!

crusader_complex
Jun 4, 2012



i wonder what i pay per SA page in terms of monthly bill

Sweevo
Nov 8, 2007



Lowtax, 2001 posted:

eCash and Micro Commerce - Ordinary cash and credit cards are too mundane for the Internet. What people really want is the ability to pay .0000003 cents to view a page and pay for it via virtual eCash which is easily stolen, manipulated, and conveniently "lost" by unscrupulous eBankers.

Herman Merman
Jul 6, 2008


Iridium posted:



woulda figured bentley was too high brow to get in on this poo poo
lol, for a second i thought it was kinda original

Heresiarch
Oct 6, 2005

Literature is not exhaustible, for the sufficient and simple reason that no single book is. A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships.


duTrieux. posted:

somewhere scott mccloud is sobbing in abathtub

mccloud's actually a real humble guy and has admitted that he was wrong about a lot of stuff

Crust First
May 1, 2013

Wrong lads.


the best thing is that bitcoin was pushed as a microtransaction savior early on, monitize the web, etc etc, and now the official stance is that bitcoin is not useful for microtransactions because of transaction no fees and minimum transaction size and dust prevention etc etc. bitcoin can't even live up to its own supposed best use case given 5 years or whatever.

TVarmy
Sep 11, 2011

like food and water, my posting has no intrinsic value



plus, who wants to wait ~10 minutes for a micro transaction to confirm? if it's meant to be a way to get to content more conveniently than viewing ads, lol.

Dren
Jan 5, 2001



Pillbug

Crust First posted:

the best thing is that bitcoin was pushed as a microtransaction savior early on, monitize the web, etc etc, and now the official stance is that bitcoin is not useful for microtransactions because of transaction no fees and minimum transaction size and dust prevention etc etc. bitcoin can't even live up to its own supposed best use case given 5 years or whatever.

Whoa whoa whoa. Official stance? Bitcoin is decentralized there is no official stance. Be your own stance.

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

careful now


Cybernetic Crumb

trigger warning on Jakob Nielsen, for gently caress's sake

Alan Smithee
Jan 3, 2005


Silk Broad

Drone_Fragger
May 9, 2007

VOTE
FOR
PEDRO


I'm still laughing so hard about that bitcoin warehouse that caught fire because libertarians aren't willing to do even the most basic of fire prevention in a warehouse with 2 million quids worth of hardware.

Just-In-Timeberlake
Aug 18, 2003

iSheep krew represent


Salvor_Hardin posted:

I went to a board game cafe in Toronto today and saw this right by the entrance:



Wow, so convenient! I only have to scan my palm a total of 5 times to set up an account and buy a bitcoin and it only takes an hour or so! Wait, what's this note taped to the other side...



Oh, so the software is in transition, is admittedly not anonymous, and has a few bugs. I guess that's not a big deal for an online transaction that handles lots of personal information and hundreds of dollars.

The Management
Jan 2, 2010

sup, bitch?


Drone_Fragger posted:

I'm still laughing so hard about that bitcoin warehouse that caught fire because libertarians aren't willing to do even the most basic of fire prevention in a warehouse with 2 million quids worth of hardware.

statist fire regulations and basic safety and insurance measures don't apply to captains of industry.

ElectricMucus
Feb 9, 2013


Drone_Fragger posted:

I'm still laughing so hard about that bitcoin warehouse that caught fire because libertarians aren't willing to do even the most basic of fire prevention in a warehouse with 2 million quids worth of hardware.
The also use these
http://www.spondoolies-tech.com/pro...ovember-batch-1

quote:

Power Supply


2 x 1600 W - Drawing 2 x 1750 W "at the wall" (approved by the manufacturer)

Malloc Voidstar
May 7, 2007

Fuck the cowboys. Unf. Fuck em hard.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comme...e_was_a/clwhizx

Erenthal
Jan 1, 2008

A relaxing walk in the woods

Grimey Drawer


Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

careful now


Cybernetic Crumb

The Management posted:

statist fire regulations and basic safety and insurance measures don't apply to captains of industry.

admiralty law of thermodynamics

PleasureKevin
Jan 2, 2011




I look at vanilla straight porn with more security precautions than this guy did with dealing drugs.

also the tesla thing should be news on every site that ran that story

Herman Merman
Jul 6, 2008


sleepy gary
Jan 11, 2006




He got called out




edit: here's where he originally received his bit tips



his post history is painful to look through

sleepy gary fucked around with this message at Nov 9, 2014 around 15:45

Antlerhill
Nov 6, 2012



Smellrose

DNova posted:

He got called out



i don't see what the problem is
if she hodls those 12 cents in spergobux, she'll have enough money to clone him when bits go to the moon

Don Lapre
Mar 28, 2001

If you're having problems you're either holding the phone wrong or you have tiny girl hands.


Using your bitcoin savings is so easy

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/com...p_cold_storage/

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TVarmy
Sep 11, 2011

like food and water, my posting has no intrinsic value



what a big faux pas. you don't tip the bereaved, you tip the dead so they can tip the boatman after they've been goxxed off the mortal coil (the blockchain of mortal souls mined by the fates).

  • Locked thread
«944 »