That's a side effect of the way we've educated the market to expect everything to be "free." That leaves the only option available being indirect monetization through ads or in-app purchases or something similar to that.

Once upon a time, it was illegal to discount something to gain market share and then charge extra once you've bullied out your competition. Technically it's still illegal, but good luck finding enforcement.

We're seeing the "free" version of that.

This is called dumping and yes it was and maybe still is illegal with things like commodities and manufactured goods.

It was never enforced with software or services. If it had the entire standard VC startup playbook would be different.

It’s also never been enforced internationally. China has arguably been subsidizing its industries and effectively dumping cheap manufactured goods for years to become the workshop of the world, and it works.

True. I hope the pendulum can swing back the other way if services push too hard.

It was funny when the corporatists here blamed consumers for using free (or “free” or whatever) services, falling into the FB trap etc. As if that mattered at all? As if FB and its ilk wouldn’t use the Free strategy every time in order to grow humoungous or fail? Of course they would bet their money on network effects over getting money in the short term—there’s no point in a boutique social network. Those hypothetical consumers who wanted to pay upfront for a 2K user social network (patently irrational but okay) would have remained unserviced.

There never was a choice.

> "Our economy isn’t one that produces things to be used, but things that increase usage."

...the quote, *AS A SOUNDBITE*, only sounds good on a surface level, but collapses under the slightest test. All products in some form or another increase the usage of resources in order to reach a certain goal.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-anti-economy/

The article, where the quote originates from, contextualizes the quote marking (a) the difference between products in service of an actual goal, (b) products that are only meant to look good on a balance sheet, and (c) how companies have morphed towards (b) in order to attract investor funds and increase share prices / company market values.

The quote, BY ITSELF AND WITHOUT CONTEXT, is a twisted Neo-luddist version of its original self.

I think it means increase usage of the thing itself, and I think it's a good insight. While there is a natural supply and demand curve, unscrupulous growth-focused businesses optimize their products (unhealthy food) and services (gambling, social media, mobile games) for high levels of consumption (at least for a portion of vulnerable users), irrespective of harmful effects. It's the tobacco industry model reborn.

I think a more generous interpretation of this is simply one that is critiquing planned obsolescence and addicting algorithm. Some things need to increase usage by nature, but how many services have you used that really needed a subscription as a necessary model to work?

My hot take is planned obsolescence doesn't exist.

It's a side effect of items being built to cost, and the marketing phenomenon that consumers follow fashion trends.

Your car doesn't have planned obsolescence: it has a warranty period. If you want a longer one, you'll pay more because that is not a free service to provide.

That’s a reductionist view. Have you read “Made to Break” by Giles Slade? A great book on this subject. Make no mistake, there’s a lot of deliberate planning and effort that goes into designing things to break after a point in time, for nothing else but profit, the environment be damned.

And usage tends to go two ways.