I think you're right, and that that be great in my opinion. I'd love for this to be the start of Google being less dependent on ads across some of their currently free products. If a "Google One" subscription guaranteed that Gmail and other services were no longer mined for ads, that would be a great thing. It might allow them to maintain the ads-based model for free users, while providing a single subscription for people who are willing to pay. In a way that offering subscriptions for each individual product wouldn't be feasible due to the complexity of marketing/managing so many at once.

> If a "Google One" subscription guaranteed that Gmail and other services were no longer indexed for ads

You can already pay for that for Gmail. You have been able to for years.

"we never collect or use data from G Suite services for any advertising purposes" https://gsuite.google.com/security/

Gmail stopped being mined for ads last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14620608

I would love to see a not ads supported Google.

I am not convinced this can happen. It seems that ads is the only form of micro payment that really works at scale.

However, I love Google Products. Photos is awesome. Inbox makes my mail manageable, etc.

I am sadly probably in a minority, but I would pay a good price to have all these products without any ad targeting.

What's the harm of a single "premium" no-ads Google that most people don't use? The ongoing cost to maintain two versions that are differentiated that way seems pretty low, given that it's really just removing some very self-contained UI modules... They could price it in such a way that it is just as profitable as running ads for those "high value" users, even if that further reduces adoption and still be able to reap a lot of good faith.

I think the general resistance to doing away with ads is related to revenue ceiling.

Ad revenue at Google / Facebook scale is a magic money box. In that they can tell Wall Street (and deliver) ever increasing monetization per user.

Once they start directly charging users, they can't increase that invisibly via "better" ad tech anymore. Any increase is directly passed on to the consumer. AND ceiling just became users * subscription fee.

Interesting insight, thanks!

The irony is that the whole game is not that different from the mortgage backed security products that torched the world.

The market's a lot smaller, but it looks a lot like the same information asymmetry that led to more and more complicated instruments being created and sold (in what was at its base a game of trying to push leverage).

well, there is youtube red / play music

I would be curious to know how many people are subscribed to this service.

I in turn am ambivalent about a not ads supported Google. Like you, I love (loved) their products. However even if they said they're not ad supported I can't believe them. And so I've migrated to other vendors. It'll take an act of god to get me to use any of their stuff again.

It'd be an interesting turn of events if Google is signaling that its adtech business is flattening (in Europe / due to the GDPR) and is moving to monetize its customer services directly.

They're also now requiring billing data be attached to any accounts using their APIs (Google Maps notably in my case)