As someone who was an initial skeptic when this was first announced, I really appreciate what twitter is trying to do with Blue, especially around direct payments to publishers. Any step to get the internet off of the ad-based data-harvesting revenue model is ultimately better for almost all parties.
But, it's not direct payment to publishers. It's indirect via twitter. You can pay publishers directly already by buying subscriptions. Publishers angling for retweets to get nickels from twitter's algorithm is anathema to professional journalism.
This is mostly my hot take just based on the press release, but color me dubious. Local news is struggling nationwide and this doesn't feel like a solution. It feels like silicon valley looking to increase profits for their shareholders to the detriment of the world.
As someone who used and appreciated Scroll (now Twitter Blue) for the same reasons, I'm pissed that they shut down the standalone service and locked it behind Twitter accounts.
Canceled my subscription after that email went out. It's a shame. Kinda wish Mozilla had acquired it instead, although they don't have the leverage to promote it like Twitter does.
Unfortunately, I suspect $2.99 per month isn't sufficient to make these publishers whole with what they would have earned from the same users.
Only a small fraction of twitter users will sign up, and the overlap with the kind of users likely to spend money on advertisers products will be big.
I suspect this is true at nearly any price point. Even if it cost $50 per month, the tiny fraction of users who did sign up would be worth more than $50 in monthly ad revenue, since those are the kind of people who will subscribe to other high value services.
This seems eerily similar to what people feared could happen to the web in the absence of net neutrality, only with the role of the ISP this time replaced by a platform content referrer. A multi-tiered web: premium lanes for corporate sponsors with money changing hands.
>"On iOS and desktop, Twitter Blue members will enjoy a fast-loading, ad-free reading experience when they visit many of their favorite news sites available in the US from Twitter, such as The Washington Post, L.A. Times, USA TODAY, The Atlantic, Reuters, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, BuzzFeed, Insider and The Hollywood Reporter."
I don't think the fear with network neutrality was ever the idea of a content aggregator buying content on behalf of a subscriber, was it?
My understanding of the argument with network neutrality was that the combination of the network provider as a natural monopoly and the network provider's ability to render content inaccessible would result in a fragmented Internet - you can only run so many wires to a house, and if Provider B cut off Content A, you might not get Content A anymore.
How is this any different from any other sort of bundling done by Apple news or Google news?
You're free to obtain a subscription to any of those media companies personally and simply follow the link without Twitter Blue.
Most people likely aren't going to want to manage multiple subscriptions and will instead opt to not read the article. At least with Twitter Blue the user doesn't have to worry about multiple subscriptions and can simply read the story when they want to.
Additionally, they now have a notification that indicates that they won't immediately hit a paywall when they click on the link.
Ultimately, media companies need to be compensated, and this doesn't seem to be disadvantaging anyone...
Is the WaPo subscription full or is it more like Apple News where you only get access to a couple headline articles and have to pay even more beyond news+ for full access?
just looked it shows me $5.99 a month for wapo add on.
If so might be worth it for me even though I don't use twitter. The rest I think are mostly available on news+
Full bloomberg on apple news is $34.99 a month, though they do have more free articles than WaPo it seems and at least I can understand the value and niche of financial news not really worth reading about unless you're in finance.
I don't think NyTimes is even an option anymore. They make enough profit on their walled garden seems they won't ever participate in this stuff again.
The Apple News subscription I already pay for seems to be more for magazines. It used to have everything.
If you're an Amazon Prime subscriber, you can get a full WaPo subscription for $3.99/month.
It works great for me on my Mac, less so on my iPad when following links in Twitter. The Twitter browser view doesn't seem able to handle logging into Amazon, then reporting success to WaPo so I can read the article. I think it works OK if I remember to open the link in Safari.
I just signed up not because I'm particularly interested in the Twitter Blue features, but because I believe in paying for things I use. I also want Twitter (and other companies) to start reducing their dependency on advertising dollars, which come with a lot of perverse incentives.
If people are looking for in on the web client, it's in the left menu under "More".l
Ideally you'd also get ad-free access to Twitter itself, which I would certainly consider paying for. Considering the annual per-user revenue is ~ 12USD [1], this seems like something that would be financially interesting to Twitter.
- Is not compatible with any news paywalls (they just strip ads out of already free-to-access articles)
- Edit Tweet isn't Edit Tweet. It's an option to delay your tweets by 60 seconds. After that, you cannot Edit Tweet. "Slow Tweet" is more accurate but probably less marketable.
Even if I were still using Twitter, and even though I support journalism when I can (paywalls for a few sites, etc.), I still wouldn't pay $3 for this.
I think Twitter has a lot of work left to do on their business model. This move, IMO, is at least 5 years too late (if not 8-10). Considering Twitter has been unprofitable for most of its life, including in 2020[0], it's only now that they're thinking about alternatives to their ad network.
I would pay this to kill the promoted tweets. I know it sounds super tin-foil hat but in the days or weeks leading up to Twitter's earnings reports the promoted tweets are absolutely out of control. This year I took screenshots of my feed where out of 14 tweets 10 were promoted!
Ad-free twitter doesn't seem like good value to me, but a completely ad-free Google sounds like a winner. I'm slightly terrified to hear what my net value to advertisers is to defray that lost profit for goog.
This came from an acquisition of scroll, which used to allow browsing partner websites without ads. Twitter Blue seems to require that we visit those sites from a tweet, which is a degraded functionality
I pay for YouTube Premium and spend a lot more time on Twitter. I’d pay the same for ad free Twitter.
As soon as Twitter Blue comes to the UK I’d pay for it even without it being totally ad free (while complaining about that). Between Tweetbot and comprehensive ad blocking I never see ads anyway and I’m happy to pay for something I get that much value from.
I have been an elite troll since the original doom deathmatch days. I have a true skillset in the arts. Twitter Blue is going to require some serious passive trolling but I have just taken the challenge. If I get banned after paying then I'll be the one that is foaming at the mouth with rage!
This idea would probably be a headache to implement, but has any service tried something like charging $1/$x for specific features? Feels like Twitter would be the prime candidate.
Ad-free article access could be $1.
"""Editing""" tweets could be $1.
Ad-free Twitter could be $4-5 (as that's what Twitter makes per US user per month via ads).
Etc.
IMO Patreon has already broken through the mental mode of "sign up for multiple sub-$5 things and have a single bill at the end of the month."
Any big services out there doing a-la-carte premium features?
strava (exercise tracking app) was doing it for a while, they had safety/training/metrics premium bundles each centered around a single standout feature at somewhere between $1 and $2 each, but have since gone back to a single premium tier.
I signed up for it, and immediately cancelled. The ability to undo tweets is a bit of an annoyance after a while, and none of the features really justify the $3/mo price tag for me. If they charged me $3/mo to make my feed ad free, that would have been worth it. This...not so much.
This might seem like a tweet soundbite,but it goes to the root of the problem - twitter develops its features in a vacuum and actively refuses to listen to its users.
I'd also argue that they picked a horrible price point - it's too expensive for most twitter users, and too cheap for the ones willing to pay. The demographic of people willing to pay for twitter is not extremely price sensitive, and going for a lower price point will only insignificantly expand it. Going for a higher price point with more value add (remove "promoted tweets" garbage) would be significantly more appealing.
I find it quite astonishing that Twitter is gating UX improvements like Undo/Edit and Reader view behind a paywall — both are problems of their own doing!
- Undo/Edit is just basic functionality being sold for money.
- Reader View wouldn't be necessary if twitter threads weren't hot garbage to begin with.
I really don't mind paying for a good product, and overall I like twitter the most out of all the other big social sites. However, what I've been seeing for years now is that they refuse to build the best product possible for most of their users, and they would rather stagnate than improve it "for free".
I'd love to pay handsomely to remove ads from my Twitter feed, but Twitter Blue only remove ads from _other_ websites? please Twitter folks if you see this :pray:
underwhelming. now if they would roll out a feature that ensures i never reread a tweet and shows me a true 'done'/'inbox zero' after my feed has been consumed they might have something.
> In continuing our commitment to strengthen and support publishers and a free press, a portion of the revenue from Twitter Blue subscription fees goes directly to publishers within our network.
I’m going to guess that I won’t find any NY Post stories about Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop on this filtered platform.
Honestly this just sounds like a door fee for an echo chamber.
manningthegoose|4 years ago
tootie|4 years ago
This is mostly my hot take just based on the press release, but color me dubious. Local news is struggling nationwide and this doesn't feel like a solution. It feels like silicon valley looking to increase profits for their shareholders to the detriment of the world.
ghawk1ns|4 years ago
dralley|4 years ago
Canceled my subscription after that email went out. It's a shame. Kinda wish Mozilla had acquired it instead, although they don't have the leverage to promote it like Twitter does.
londons_explore|4 years ago
Only a small fraction of twitter users will sign up, and the overlap with the kind of users likely to spend money on advertisers products will be big.
I suspect this is true at nearly any price point. Even if it cost $50 per month, the tiny fraction of users who did sign up would be worth more than $50 in monthly ad revenue, since those are the kind of people who will subscribe to other high value services.
giga_chad|4 years ago
perihelions|4 years ago
>"On iOS and desktop, Twitter Blue members will enjoy a fast-loading, ad-free reading experience when they visit many of their favorite news sites available in the US from Twitter, such as The Washington Post, L.A. Times, USA TODAY, The Atlantic, Reuters, The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, BuzzFeed, Insider and The Hollywood Reporter."
bri3d|4 years ago
My understanding of the argument with network neutrality was that the combination of the network provider as a natural monopoly and the network provider's ability to render content inaccessible would result in a fragmented Internet - you can only run so many wires to a house, and if Provider B cut off Content A, you might not get Content A anymore.
I don't see how this is the same thing.
black_puppydog|4 years ago
peytoncasper|4 years ago
You're free to obtain a subscription to any of those media companies personally and simply follow the link without Twitter Blue.
Most people likely aren't going to want to manage multiple subscriptions and will instead opt to not read the article. At least with Twitter Blue the user doesn't have to worry about multiple subscriptions and can simply read the story when they want to.
Additionally, they now have a notification that indicates that they won't immediately hit a paywall when they click on the link.
Ultimately, media companies need to be compensated, and this doesn't seem to be disadvantaging anyone...
LordAtlas|4 years ago
somehnacct3757|4 years ago
missinfo|4 years ago
dillondoyle|4 years ago
just looked it shows me $5.99 a month for wapo add on.
If so might be worth it for me even though I don't use twitter. The rest I think are mostly available on news+
Full bloomberg on apple news is $34.99 a month, though they do have more free articles than WaPo it seems and at least I can understand the value and niche of financial news not really worth reading about unless you're in finance.
I don't think NyTimes is even an option anymore. They make enough profit on their walled garden seems they won't ever participate in this stuff again.
The Apple News subscription I already pay for seems to be more for magazines. It used to have everything.
shp0ngle|4 years ago
Plus they want to be more in control what gets shown.
jdeibele|4 years ago
It works great for me on my Mac, less so on my iPad when following links in Twitter. The Twitter browser view doesn't seem able to handle logging into Amazon, then reporting success to WaPo so I can read the article. I think it works OK if I remember to open the link in Safari.
wpietri|4 years ago
If people are looking for in on the web client, it's in the left menu under "More".l
partiallypro|4 years ago
Yeah, except Twitter Blue does do that at all. They are just double dipping. You still get just as many ads as before.
unangst|4 years ago
angulardragon03|4 years ago
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/forecast-of-the-day%3A-twitt...
acheron|4 years ago
Andrex|4 years ago
- Is not compatible with any news paywalls (they just strip ads out of already free-to-access articles)
- Edit Tweet isn't Edit Tweet. It's an option to delay your tweets by 60 seconds. After that, you cannot Edit Tweet. "Slow Tweet" is more accurate but probably less marketable.
Even if I were still using Twitter, and even though I support journalism when I can (paywalls for a few sites, etc.), I still wouldn't pay $3 for this.
I think Twitter has a lot of work left to do on their business model. This move, IMO, is at least 5 years too late (if not 8-10). Considering Twitter has been unprofitable for most of its life, including in 2020[0], it's only now that they're thinking about alternatives to their ad network.
0. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/twitter-twtr-earnings-q1-202...
tehwebguy|4 years ago
echelon|4 years ago
YouTube Red is the best product experience, and it's something I would pay to have elsewhere.
I hate ads. I never buy products from ads. They just distract me.
I'd pay $1000/yr for a completely ad-free Google. (No search result ads, no AMP, no "McDonalds" in Google Maps, ...)
tootie|4 years ago
tills13|4 years ago
dang|4 years ago
Twitter confirms Twitter Blue - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27316115 - May 2021 (722 comments)
Twitter's subscription service might cost $3 per month - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27168200 - May 2021 (66 comments)
khc|4 years ago
barnabee|4 years ago
As soon as Twitter Blue comes to the UK I’d pay for it even without it being totally ad free (while complaining about that). Between Tweetbot and comprehensive ad blocking I never see ads anyway and I’m happy to pay for something I get that much value from.
gok|4 years ago
gjsman-1000|4 years ago
nvr219|4 years ago
woodpanel|4 years ago
tillinghast|4 years ago
fortyseven|4 years ago
Bellend|4 years ago
Andrex|4 years ago
Ad-free article access could be $1.
"""Editing""" tweets could be $1.
Ad-free Twitter could be $4-5 (as that's what Twitter makes per US user per month via ads).
Etc.
IMO Patreon has already broken through the mental mode of "sign up for multiple sub-$5 things and have a single bill at the end of the month."
Any big services out there doing a-la-carte premium features?
notatoad|4 years ago
partiallypro|4 years ago
cercatrova|4 years ago
groby_b|4 years ago
This might seem like a tweet soundbite,but it goes to the root of the problem - twitter develops its features in a vacuum and actively refuses to listen to its users.
I'd also argue that they picked a horrible price point - it's too expensive for most twitter users, and too cheap for the ones willing to pay. The demographic of people willing to pay for twitter is not extremely price sensitive, and going for a lower price point will only insignificantly expand it. Going for a higher price point with more value add (remove "promoted tweets" garbage) would be significantly more appealing.
no_wizard|4 years ago
Is this not just listed as a feature? To be honest, I would pay 4.99 a month to get that blue check mark
paulpauper|4 years ago
Seems like a good way to push a ideological/political agenda, too.
ushakov|4 years ago
fideloper|4 years ago
The changes we are paying for are client-side features only! There's no change to twitter.
For example, you can't edit a tweet, you can only delay sending the tweet for a few seconds while you stare at the tweet!
ProfessorLayton|4 years ago
- Undo/Edit is just basic functionality being sold for money.
- Reader View wouldn't be necessary if twitter threads weren't hot garbage to begin with.
I really don't mind paying for a good product, and overall I like twitter the most out of all the other big social sites. However, what I've been seeing for years now is that they refuse to build the best product possible for most of their users, and they would rather stagnate than improve it "for free".
FalconSensei|4 years ago
nvr219|4 years ago
PascLeRasc|4 years ago
thorgutierrez|4 years ago
diebeforei485|4 years ago
Taniwha|4 years ago
oxymoran|4 years ago
uncomputation|4 years ago
mikeevans|4 years ago
Disclaimer: Not associated with the tweet above, but I was the TL for Reader :)
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
0xdeadb00f|4 years ago
analogdreams|4 years ago
thrower123|4 years ago
foxhop|4 years ago
captn3m0|4 years ago
koolba|4 years ago
I’m going to guess that I won’t find any NY Post stories about Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop on this filtered platform.
Honestly this just sounds like a door fee for an echo chamber.
bob229|4 years ago
[deleted]