Hacker Read

mort96 · 2022-07-26 16:46:33

What does this have to do with anything? If the user if paying for a service, they should be getting that service. If the operator is offering a service which they can't afford to offer, that's not the user's problem.

atomical | karma 2465 | avg karma 1.42 · | 2010-09-30 13:17:42+00:00

It's not relevant whether a user pays for a service or not. They are your customers.

ars | karma 27176 | avg karma 2.04 · | 2013-11-06 07:26:59+00:00

Isn't that the point? To get people to pay for better service?

diveanon | karma 1465 | avg karma 2.12 · | 2021-05-05 01:14:07+00:00

It's not real time billing, so there is no real way to disable service until costs have been determined.

I agree that it seems like a solvable problem, but it doesn't make them money so why should they care?

reply

untog | karma 43841 | avg karma 4.88 · | 2012-12-19 15:15:41+00:00

If they object to paying for the service, they should stop using the service- not just stop paying for it.

ogre_codes | karma 10853 | avg karma 4.25 · | 2020-09-17 13:01:35

I don't get your point here. Why should some users pay and others not?

nickpp | karma 2513 | avg karma 1.27 · | 2021-12-23 09:42:59

This hurts most people with less money to pay, as they can’t access the service otherwise.

badgar | karma 595 | avg karma 3.34 · | 2013-04-10 10:28:55

Generally, we consider a service being too expensive to be a good reason for a company not to offer that service. So not offering a service might be evidence that said service is too expensive to offer/operate. You can see this argument being made prominently in the Linode thread on the front page - someone complains that they don't offer a $10/month plan, and others point out it would be extremely expensive to support. Thus the lack of the $10/month plan is used as evidence that it is likely too expensive to offer.

You've gone the completely other way: you're saying the service not being offered is evidence that it is cheap. This is the opposite of the typical argument. So I'm reducing your idea here to its simplest logical form, trying to make it super clear to readers (and hopefully you) how ass-backwards it is.

reply

amelius | karma 42902 | avg karma 1.63 · | 2020-03-29 21:23:59

I suspect the situation is that most customers have already paid for the service, and would demand a refund if they can't reasonably use the service.

Griffinsauce | karma 1384 | avg karma 3.34 · | 2021-05-31 11:38:12+00:00

It's valid when speaking about a service. None of those are.

Services have operating costs, if you are not paying it means someone else is and your data and attention is very likely part of the package.

reply

def_true_false | karma 295 | avg karma 0.82 · | 2018-11-12 16:12:24+00:00

If your service doesn't charge per unit, perhaps in addition to a fixed price, you are most likely just subsidizing other people's usage.

bigbob2 | karma 145 | avg karma 1.42 · | 2020-12-20 10:00:51

This entire discussion is about privately held organizations systematically charging customers for services they did not receive with no oversight to prevent it. Your argument doesn't even make sense in this context.

o1y32 | karma 715 | avg karma 3.4 · | 2023-05-11 05:28:16

Are you asking people to pay additional money to a third party service so that they can continue to use a service they have already paid for and should be fixed by that service provider in the first place? Don't you think this is ridiculous?

marcus_holmes | karma 13555 | avg karma 3.31 · | 2014-09-12 23:47:04+00:00

I tend to agree, but if governments make laws that insist that customers be supported, then there needs to be distinction made between customers who pay money and who could be reasonably expected to be supported, and users who get a service for free and cannot reasonably expect support.

code_runner | karma 688 | avg karma 2.02 · | 2023-03-10 15:03:30

Like it or not the service being available is the payment. People clearly already want to use it

sippeangelo | karma 208 | avg karma 2.48 · | 2021-12-23 14:17:06

It exploits most people with less money to pay, as they're not privileged enough to access the service otherwise.

Hisoka | karma 389 | avg karma 1.0 · | 2011-07-08 08:18:06

The problem is that most of these people can't afford to pay a lot for this service.

zero_intp | karma 431 | avg karma 2.02 · | 2014-06-10 22:08:47+00:00

Money is fungible. Costs to service providers /must/ be passed to those paying bills. There is no logical difference between costs to content providers and direct charges to customers.

The argument provided is an illustration to demonstrate who is paying in the end.

reply

escherize | karma 872 | avg karma 2.37 · | 2017-07-21 22:19:23+00:00

Why is it that people who never use a service ought to be forced to pay for it?

nxzero | karma 1785 | avg karma 1.4 · | 2016-04-15 02:18:41

Paying for the service is paying for the service; bundling it with support costs would just make it cost more for people that don't need support.