Per https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/04/02/a-... they make about $7.50 per user per year, so even a dollar a month should be better

Yeah, but there's a good chance the parent poster is worth more the $7.50 ARPU to Twitter. They can also probably increase their ARPU more than they can increase a hypothetical subscription cost, which is why these comments about ad-based companies providing a subscription service aren't actually these no-brainer ideas.

Now with that being said, it would be nice if companies cared more about having sustainable businesses with healthy, non-intrusive user experiences than revenue growth.

The people willing and able to pay to opt out of ads are worth much more than $7.50.

+1, thanks for the link.

Since the original article is more about Google, I would like to say that while Google's paid gmail+office is a compelling product that I liked paying for until I realized that there was no way I could merge services bought with my "free" Google account with the paid account. I think this is a lesson for Twitter if they ever do offer a paid service: integrate well with the old free account or convert old account and history smoothly.

The general response to this seems to be that people who would pay for subscriptions are the highest value ad targets and worth significantly more than 3-4/m?

I'd love to see some data on this.

I'm worth literally zero to Twitter; I use an adblocker everywhere, and when that fails, not only do I never click on an ad, I purposefully scroll as quickly past them as I can.

I'd pay a couple bucks a month to remove that hassle.

Good point. That probably gets us up to the $3 to $4/month price point, or much more.