Control and money. They can serve more ads and harvest your data more easily if they control the platform
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
26 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43810 readers
1229 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
To them, loss of 3rd party users is insignificant because they're users they weren't able to monetize to begin with
If that insignificant number is disproportionately active users and moderators, then they will significantly feel it.
At least until they just have bots commenting, posting, and moderating.
Everyone says that the loss of these 3rd party app users will destroy them, but I disagree. I don't think that the quality of experience is as closely linked to profitability as most people think. Ad-Clicking viewers of cat gifs are blissfully unaware of the current fiasco.
Bang on. Can't serve you ads if they can't control what's on your screen.
Ads.
Not only ads, but their app is the only one that supported their NFT system. And their Twitter Spaces clone. And their upcoming shorts feature. And so on. They desperately want to be every other social network, and that means copying features that are mobile-centric.
I really don't get why all these social platforms try so hard to just be copies of each other. I like having diverse and different platforms for different things. Once they all started homogenizing, I really stopped using most social media.
And when LinkedIn added their ripoff of Instagram Stories I was like...aaaaand that's it for me. Why does a professional site need a stories feature?
Because companies don't want money. They don't want a lot of money. They want ALL the money. If another company has a feature that people like and use, then this company wants that money as well. So they either buy that other company or copy and push the feature in the hopes of converting users.
This is why YouTube has these asinine shorts shoved into your layout. They know YT users don't want them. This is why you can't disable them. They know that another company makes money with shorts and they want it - so YOU are gonna use them goddammit.
A third party YouTube app doesn't have to show these shorts so YT wouldn't be able to pressure their users into consuming that format.
I happen to like the shorts. I only wish your shirts subscriptions were separate from your regular subscriptions. Otherwise I don't have any issues with it.
However, I do know a lot of people do take issue with it, and that's okay!
I heard they are planning on adding pants soon, cant wait to see the drama around it
YouTube Pantsβ’ coming soon to a mobile app near you!
That's precisely what they don't want. The modern fight isn't directly for your money, but for your time.
If you're binge watching Netflix... You're not playing a Nintendo game. If you're playing a Nintendo game... You're not listening to Spotify. Or going to the movie theater. And so on.
For social media platforms it's the same. People like short videos now? Well, if Facebook doesn't add them to their app you'll close it and go browse TikTok. In the next board meeting, executives are going to ask the team why the hell are they not working on adding short videos.
It's a vicious battle for your time, and then figuring out later how to monetize that attention. Usually ads.
LinkedIn is the most stupid thing because it is a fucking job board that wants to play to be Facebook and is the most unnecesary thing in the world. Before the Instagram Stories clone they were already too far by adding like 20 other social network features that a page like LinkedIn doesn't need.
Yeah they really took it downhill dramatically didn't they?
This kind of feature creep was also common in the web2.0 days. Lots of forum plugins were basically "you can have a facebook profile and feed page and a twitter feed, but they're all wish.com equivalents because they're locally hosted and can only be seen by the other people on this forum". These features were generally quite popular too, heck I installed a few on my own forum. Besides money and things, I think it's enticing to want to make your site into a "one stop" site. Throw in the fact that these are all capitalist hegemons trying to become the next ring to rule them all, and I think you've got your answer.
I have to say, there's something peak hilarious to imagining someone at redsit huffing and puffing that "THEY'RE NOT USING OUR NFT's!
load more comments
(2 replies)
They've gotta reclaim all that lost valuation for their IPO somehow!
Ads and tracking.
So $$$.
They can force-feed ads to you and track your every click and sell that gobs of data to companies using it to make more $$ and to further develop their tracking to make yet more $$$
So, as always, the answer to such questions is: Money.
If they streamline how users get access to Reddit, then they get to determine what they see. Now the third-party apps will get killed, the access through mobile browsers will be limited with the idea to force users into the app, old-reddit will be gone at some point as well. And then Reddit can spam users with ads and also force users into buying premium services to see no/less ads. Since all alternative ways of using the website will be gone, people have to swallow that pill no matter how big it is.
Tracking. Ads. Selling data etc.
To quote ljdawson, the dev of Sync for reddit: "Apart from crashes I don't track shit."
He was asked how many API calls Sync's users have on average. He simply couldn't answer. That's why we loved 3rd party apps.
A native app offers the most control. Ad blockers are harder to obtain and use.
The third-party API doesn't let them see how people interact with the app, only what the user is accessing.
It's just to further monetize the user's interactions and sell the data, because the executive team are greedy little pigboi.
Correct. Mobile apps get privileged access on your device which they use to track you. They don't want third-party apps having all that data.
Money. Not only can they better monetize it, it makes their numbers look better for the potential IPO.
Just from using reddit, I can only really see a few ways for them to make money.
-
Subscriptions/awards. Not many people do this, certainly not enough to keep the doors open.
-
Advertisements
-
Selling user data
Let's start with 2. The reason they re-designed the UI in both the app and the desktop version is because they need to create as much space as possible for them to put ads into- and still have it not be so annoying for the user that they stop using the site. Now, on the website they can still put adds on old.reddit, just not as many- so they haven't come for that yet, because it isn't draining nearly as much income as the mobile market. Their new mobile app does the same as the frontend redesign- it maximizes ad space, and also allows them to collect other user data such as location to sell to marketing agencies.
ALL of the alternative Reddit clients (or at least, all I have used) have adblocker built into them. For some of them, you pay the app for that- a payment which is often less than Reddit Gold is, and is usually a one-time payment. And these apps hold the user data that can actually be sold, like location. So third-party apps disrupt all three of Reddit's possible revenue streams by having people not pay for premium to hide ads, by blocking advertisements anyway and denying Reddit the ad revenue for them, and by keeping the user's data away from Reddit.
That's why I think they made the API price so ridiculously high- it isn't just meant to scare them away, it's meant to be a reflection of what they feel they are losing in revenue from users using third party apps. If it was just about any one of the 3 points above, the rate would be much more reasonable- but it's all 3.
Thanks for the thorough and understandable response! You wouldn't believe how many responses aren't even a full sentence much less an explanation.
Money. It's always just money.
Don't know if it's been posted yet.... money
They donβt make money off of our regular interactions on the site. They make money by selling tracking packages of users to advertisers.
In an app made by them, they can track so so much of what you do. Much much harder to get data from someone using a third-party app.
It wants to keep control of how people get access to its data. The recent massive surge of interest in A.I.s means that there's a lot of people looking for good quality datasets to train new models. Reddit is sitting on a goldmine, and it currently handing out gold nuggets for free.
It wants to charge these desperate users of its data through the nose for that access, and $12,000 per 50M API calls is the market rate it has determined (and it is clearly comfortable that existing commercial users of its data such as marketers will also pay those rates).
The fact that this will kill third party clients is just the icing on the cake. If reddit wanted to kill such clients it would just turn off voting and comments in the API.
AI datasets can be built by scrubbing web content and doesn't require API access.
This is about making sure Reddit controls the user experience and users can't, say, block their ads or hide Reddit awards. It's also a cold (and short-sighted) calculation: some people are making money from our product without sharing our costs, better kill them.
They can, but that would be a) more work than just paying to use the API b) easy to spot and hamper if done at scale c) really difficult to explain to investors.
Again, if Reddit wants to kill third party apps, it just needs to turn off comments and votes through the API.
Everything you have seen happen recently is in service to the upcoming IPO.
Expect a similarly sized drama explosion when they take huge action against the porn on the site.
Profit. Simple as that.
App is tied to phone, phone for the most part kills the idea of you being anon. Which means glorious glorious user data, and problem users with multiple accounts get nuked based on their device and inside the app they can serve you anything anyone pays them to serve and unlike browser based stuff there is noting you can do to prevent or pervert it.
I see it as a good old Foucault problem of Knowledge/Power.. By using their app, more knowledge can be visualised about the subject. More knowledge - > more power. Which in turn makes them more interesting to investors.
They want to make sure you see ads so they can get revenue. A user that uses a website, even on mobile, could be using an adblocker. By forcing you to use the app they have full control of what ads you see and how often, thus incerasing the price at which they can rent that ad space.
Tencent should know some more details.
Capitalists love monopolies. The closer they can get the better. Third-party apps compete with their own.
The more control they can have on the community the better.
Because they want to go public and get as much money as possible. They wonβt be able to do that unless they demonstrate that they can monetise their platform.
view more: next βΊ