Do I need to take money from "superuser"?
Om Malik expressed a rather controversial point of view that free services like Twitter should take money from so-called “super users”, who use the service beyond measure, an order of magnitude or several orders of magnitude more active than the total mass of users.
For example, the popular blogger Robert Scoble is tweeted by over 25,000 people . This author clearly benefits from the use of Twitter, but the service, as you know, has recently begun to experience technical problems due to such users. Even the creators of Facebook had the sense to limit the number of friends to five thousand.
Most likely, the "superuser" would gladly agree to pay a few dollars a month for using such a useful tool. But how does such a system fit into the philosophy of a free service? Or, on the contrary, the attraction of such "superuser" should be the main task and service, so that he, on the contrary, should pay extra to the same Robert Scoble? This is a philosophical question that remains open.
Perhaps over time, Twitter will limit the number of friends and the maximum number of messages per month for each user, and exceeding the limit will cost money. But this is if they do not find enough advertisers to recoup the costs. This approach looks too archaic, because in the era of Web 2.0 technical resources - servers, traffic, hosting, and so on. - it is considered to be theoretically free. Moreover, a modern startup, as fashion theorists say, should strive to squander them as much as possible . Perhaps Twitter is trying to develop just such a scenario.
For example, the popular blogger Robert Scoble is tweeted by over 25,000 people . This author clearly benefits from the use of Twitter, but the service, as you know, has recently begun to experience technical problems due to such users. Even the creators of Facebook had the sense to limit the number of friends to five thousand.
Most likely, the "superuser" would gladly agree to pay a few dollars a month for using such a useful tool. But how does such a system fit into the philosophy of a free service? Or, on the contrary, the attraction of such "superuser" should be the main task and service, so that he, on the contrary, should pay extra to the same Robert Scoble? This is a philosophical question that remains open.
Perhaps over time, Twitter will limit the number of friends and the maximum number of messages per month for each user, and exceeding the limit will cost money. But this is if they do not find enough advertisers to recoup the costs. This approach looks too archaic, because in the era of Web 2.0 technical resources - servers, traffic, hosting, and so on. - it is considered to be theoretically free. Moreover, a modern startup, as fashion theorists say, should strive to squander them as much as possible . Perhaps Twitter is trying to develop just such a scenario.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/26256/
All Articles