Don't even see how it's scaleable, even if they manage to find someone capable of that intuition.
This is what annoys me about the current "innovation" worshiping cult. Everybody just takes a already existent idea and changes just a simple variable. "Uber/Airbnb of X" style of thinking should just be put to rest forever. This is obviously happening because our current way of thinking is a mistake in itself. Everything should be modular and Jef Raskin was a proponent of this idea unfortunately nobody took him seriously enough.
I should be able to use a search application that lists to me every available expert, click the link, and then have a modular app skype/whatsapp/telegram blend in my workspace or open and be able to chat with that said expert.
Speaking of search engines every website should index they're own content and those indexes be categorized in blocks and linked to a central repository that then can be coupled with searching algorithms and users should be able to connect to that central repository and query it like a public library of the internet. Goodbye Google!!
Another thing if find annoying is paywalls. What if I go to Netflix and I just want to watch a just a specific movie or episodes without having to pay a membership fee. Let's say that Netflix has "Pirates of the Caribbean" and just want to click that video and stream it for 0.9 cents with not login in features and my ISP provider to add that payment to my utility bill. No Paypal/ApplePay/Google Wallet! Is it that hard to innovate in those way?
VCs tried to fund a bunch of dreamers decentralizing and modularizing everything in their blockchain apps. Many organizations conduct ICOs or token sales so they are able to secure funding in their one-time revenue event, and bring the product to the world. Is it a panacea? Nah. It is very Machiavellian and we'll see this evolve very quickly into something more efficient. But we aren't stuck in the limitations that require companies to become the same toll-taking middlemen as before.
Well, at nine cents, that'd mean you'd only pay the $9 if you watched 100 movies per month. Most people don't watch nearly that much, so you've just heavily decreased the price per movie. Even if you hadn't, a fixed subscription is probably much better for them than variable income; it's not like Netflix couldn't just let you buy "credits" and then spend them, even while using existing payment providers. Chances are they don't want to suffer from the "app store problem", ie, users having to make a spending decision on every item.
Also, what makes you think your ISP would be cheaper than whatever payment provider they're using now?
But why doesn't it "just work"? Why isn't the internet more simple? It comes down to two things: this way is more profitable, and stuff is hard.
I don't believe that these companies have a personal data fetish. They have a money fetish. If they believed they could make more money by charging every user a flat rate and keeping their data secret, they'd do it. And I'm pretty sure they're right. If simple pricing and privacy was the better option, it would have won by now. There is no shortage of people who want to try a new twist on things in the tech world.
As for the second item, the hardness. Indexing data is hard. There isn't enough value for every given website to do it. So, Google does the work for them and also extracts the value.
You want a video site to charge your ISP. So they'll have to integrate with every ISP? That's quite a task. Maybe a company will come in and help with that. They'll integrate with every ISP and then allow every movie streamer to use them as a service. And perhaps to simplify things, they'll charge the thing you use to pay your ISP bill (credit card) instead of adding to the bill. Cut out a middle man. Maybe they'll even let you use any credit card you choose and hide them from the merchants you're purchasing from. Of course, this is a good idea, so they'll have competition.
Oh shit. Now you have all those payment processing companies you're tired of. It's hard.
I guess it's the same reason why we don't use modularity in operating systems and applications. We have gotten used to how things have been done until now. Recommend reading this article since this ideas have been in my head for some time.
https://joshondesign.com/2017/08/18/idealos_essay
Disclaimer: this isn't my article.
Doesn't mean that this things can't be disrupted.
"Indexing data is hard. There isn't enough value for every given website to do it."
Well a lot of websites have their own search feature and a modular FOSS search engine wouldn't be out of the question. The database would need to figure out what is the context of the content and then tag those contents. The data could be feed to a repository or pass around different computers if we would use a decentralized protocol.
Given the modular nature of the system you could be hooked to more than one repository and your application would only need to figure out if the data feed is a duplicate and sort the content by metadata.
I'm curious to what would the web look like if a large numbers of websites decided that they don't want Google. A verification system would also be need to verify that no one website tempers with it's data in order to rank higher in the results.
Then again this would be a very modular experience so you would have a lot of choices regarding verification systems,wall crawlers, database repositories. True, the last part is true, that you would have more choices but isn't that what we want? Also i'm not saying that I wouldn't want Paypal and Gwallet to not exist just saying that there is a lot of interesting things out there I would wish to see happen.
A) Most of a penny
B) Ninety pennies
Still, the ISPs would definitively charge something for the service, so it's unclear if it would actually be cheaper.
1) Tells kids they should go to the gym instead of learning to code
2) Career change for optimal male to female ratio
3) Gets you fired so that you can spend more time with your family
4) Alarm when you've had too much/too little coffee
Any app that doesn't address these issues is purely for entertainment value
Luckily no one reads the ToS and it's a huge market - everyone has relationship problems.
So they'll make millions because most of the population isn't rational enough to understand that at a base-level that none of us know shit about all the intricacies of human relationships. Life coaches and psychiatrists included.
Kudos to them on their traction. I'm talking shit but preying on people's insecurities in relationships is an endless market. Can't wait to see their FB ads pop-up right after a Tai Lopez infomercial.
Directly quoted from their TOS:
The Platform enables you to communicate with a Dating Expert for the purpose of getting dating advice, information or any other input, benefit or service (not considered "Counselor Services"). The Dating experts are neither our employees nor agents nor representatives. Furthermore, we assume no responsibility for any act, omission or doing of any dating expert. We make no representation or warranty whatsoever as to the willingness or ability of a Dating Expert to give advice. We make no representation or warranty whatsoever as to whether you will find the Dating Expert’s advice relevant, useful, correct, relevant, satisfactory or suitable to your needs. We do not control the quality of the dating advice and we do not determine whether any Dating Expert is qualified to provide any specific service as well as whether a dating expert is categorized correctly or matched correctly to you. While we may try to do so from time to time, in our sole discretion, you acknowledge that we do not represent to verify, and do not guarantee the verification of, the skills, degrees, qualifications, licensure, certification, credentials, competence or background of any Dating Expert.