> Somebody spent ten dollars, so they must have a ton of disposable income that they're just itching to throw around?
Very much yes.
> Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free.
Not really. But consider you're talking about two distinct groups here. Being a "hacker" / "computer enthusiast" is one of the cheapest hobbies possible, and while it may end up giving you a well-paid career in tech, until it does, as a "hacker" you're probably without any money of your own.
Spending hours or days to get something for free? That's what people do when they can't afford what they want. Unsurprisingly, when your poor, parent-subsidized "hackers" turn into software industry professionals, they suddenly become good spenders, because they can afford to stop wasting time on bullshit.
> They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online.
Not "they" the "hackers / computer enthusiasts", and not insulted. Rather, it's general population that got culturally used to things on the Internet being free. Obviously, almost everyone younger than ~50 got exposed to the Internet when they were too young to have any income, but ultimately, this is something companies inflicted on themselves. "Free" is the singularity of commerce, it breaks competition; "free but subsidized by ads" is an anti-competitive business model. It won not because people demanded it, but because no one can compete with it.
> Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold
It may have been a view people had at some point, but that's more because the Internet was new and everything on it felt frivolous to those who didn't grow up in it. That's becoming a past now.
Now, for the actual key point:
> Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income.
But they have! Why do you think there are so many ads in sports events, in cinemas? Why do you think advertising metastasized to cable TV so quickly after it was created? Why do you think malls are set the way they are? Merchants and advertisers are, and have always been, hunting for those with money to spend. This was true off-line, and it is true on-line.
It's not always easy to tell who has disposable income and who counts every penny. However, one of the most reliable signals here is spending. People buying stuff have money to buy stuff. The more frivolously the buy, the more money they have that could be redirected to other frivolous purchases. And that's the whole thing advertising is after - redirecting people's purchasing decisions.
> Being a "hacker" / "computer enthusiast" is one of the cheapest hobbies possible
Could you explain this better? It certainly used to be one of the most expensive hobbies possible, and still today you need devices that are not free. Compared to many sports who are essentially free, as long as you have shoes.
> Not "they" the "hackers / computer enthusiasts", and not insulted. Rather, it's general population that got culturally used to things on the Internet being free.
You're making a very good point. Still, the general population will just give up or pay if they cannot get what they want for free. If they're given an option like Spotify or Netflix, they will uninstall Kazaa and DC++. Hackers will spend endless effort setting up their Plex servers, and write endless paragraphs on why they shouldn't pay for a cheap subscription.
> Obviously, almost everyone younger than ~50 got exposed to the Internet when they were too young to have any income
Hackers started living on the internet when they were young and penniless, while the general population started living on the internet since about 10 years ago. I'd argue that they don't even consider their Netflix, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok to be "the internet".
> However, one of the most reliable signals here is spending. People buying stuff have money to buy stuff. The more frivolously the buy, the more money they have that could be redirected to other frivolous purchases. And that's the whole thing advertising is after - redirecting people's purchasing decisions.
I mean, in my experience the more "premium" an environment is, the less advertising you see. Both in the physical world and the cyber world. When I go to an expensive restaurant, they don't have banners with their special deals. When I watch a National Geographic documentary on YouTube premium, there are no sponsor breaks.
> "Free" is the singularity of commerce, it breaks competition; "free but subsidized by ads" is an anti-competitive business model. It won not because people demanded it, but because no one can compete with it.
"Free" breaks the mind of most people. If people were given the option between the best beer in the world for $10 and a low quality beer for free, almost everybody would choose the free beer. If they were given the option of a great beer for a dollar or free low quality beer, they would be lining up around the block for the free beer. But there's always a segment of people who are resistant to the allure of "free" and spend a few bucks for something better. That doesn't mean they're rich. It just means they value their time and mind more.
Very much yes.
> Most hackers / computer enthusiasts are cheap skates and if there's an opportunity to get something for free instead of paying a dollar, they will spend hours or days to get it for free.
Not really. But consider you're talking about two distinct groups here. Being a "hacker" / "computer enthusiast" is one of the cheapest hobbies possible, and while it may end up giving you a well-paid career in tech, until it does, as a "hacker" you're probably without any money of your own.
Spending hours or days to get something for free? That's what people do when they can't afford what they want. Unsurprisingly, when your poor, parent-subsidized "hackers" turn into software industry professionals, they suddenly become good spenders, because they can afford to stop wasting time on bullshit.
> They are highly insulted by the thought that anything on the internet would cost money. Maybe because they started young without an income and when commerce was not online.
Not "they" the "hackers / computer enthusiasts", and not insulted. Rather, it's general population that got culturally used to things on the Internet being free. Obviously, almost everyone younger than ~50 got exposed to the Internet when they were too young to have any income, but ultimately, this is something companies inflicted on themselves. "Free" is the singularity of commerce, it breaks competition; "free but subsidized by ads" is an anti-competitive business model. It won not because people demanded it, but because no one can compete with it.
> Then if somebody else spends a few dollars on a subscription, they consider it so outrageous that they assume that this person must be made out of gold
It may have been a view people had at some point, but that's more because the Internet was new and everything on it felt frivolous to those who didn't grow up in it. That's becoming a past now.
Now, for the actual key point:
> Why wouldn't advertisers have the same attitude towards people who spend frivolously on things such as buying a bus tickets or buying a coke? They clearly also have ten dollars in disposable income.
But they have! Why do you think there are so many ads in sports events, in cinemas? Why do you think advertising metastasized to cable TV so quickly after it was created? Why do you think malls are set the way they are? Merchants and advertisers are, and have always been, hunting for those with money to spend. This was true off-line, and it is true on-line.
It's not always easy to tell who has disposable income and who counts every penny. However, one of the most reliable signals here is spending. People buying stuff have money to buy stuff. The more frivolously the buy, the more money they have that could be redirected to other frivolous purchases. And that's the whole thing advertising is after - redirecting people's purchasing decisions.