Cabel SasserVerified account

@cabel Perhaps a random example, but how many people cared about "organic foods" in the 1970s? It was a reasonable concern, went mainstream.

@danielpunkass Is non-organic food free?

@cabel No, I just mean it is an example of something that would be laughed at and scoffed about becoming extremely mainstream and marketable

@danielpunkass This is true. But what I mean is, if non-organic Google food co. set their price to "free", nobody would buy organic. Well 3%

@cabel It’s a good point. I guess maybe a better (more hopeful?) metaphor is cable TV vs broadcast. paid options leveraged their benefits…

@danielpunkass True! But "way, WAY more content" is significantly more compelling than "the same content but we don't track what you watch!"

@cabel Not sure that's 100% true. Americans, at least, seem to be more and more concerned about privacy recently. See recent legislation.

@AriX There's a concern about privacy, I agree. But I don't think it crosses into purchasing decisions. Free will always win.

@cabel Well, the primary decision people make is what kind of phone to buy, and neither iPhone nor Android phones are free.

@cabel Google Photos is free where iCloud Photos isn't, but iCloud Mail and Apple Maps are both free, like Google's offerings.

@AriX Sadly neither iCloud Mail nor Apple Maps are even close to as popular as Google's offerings despite being significantly more "private"

* nobody = 3% of some nerds care

@cabel that’s not what polls say.

@misuba "What polls say" vs. "What people are willing to pay for" I think are dramatically different things. But I literally know nothing

@cabel Why sad?

@_Jordan I appreciate the sentiment of respecting data. Or they backed into that stance because they wanted to charge money. Cynicabel!

@cabel But at the end of the day it’s just that: a sentiment. The added privacy isn’t reflected in any real-world consequences for most.