To be clear: I prefer to pay for things instead of having to see ads but 13€ / month!? For a meta product that has inherently user-hostile design patterns even without ads?

Who does this appeal to?

  • Hyzerflip@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t want you to pay. They set the price artificially high to discourage you so they continue business as usual while complying to the laws. The price is a PITA charge to make it worth their while and to still profit from the ads they would have shown you.

    • AttackPanda@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve never used IG but I feel like it would be a $3.99/month type of service. This price just tells us they are making way more than that serving ads or that your ad data alone is worth a decent bit of cash.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s a -$10/month type of service, they’d have to pay me in order to use it… and they’d still be making money on the data and ads.

      • SamBBMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s weird in that most users would value it at $3.99 a month, but the average user also scrolls for several hours a month, with each one of those hours packed with ads.

        This equates to way more than $4 in revenue a month.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They set the price artificially high

      Actually… it’s likely only slightly higher than what they get from ads per user, and still lower than what they get from compiling and selling all the information you agree to give them.

      Users tend to severely underestimate how much their cumulative data can be sold for.