With Google owning nearly the entire browser market, Google is free to create its own web standards that benefit Google to the exclusion of others (take AMP for example). Open and platform-agnostic web standards are important to combat this. It's for this reason that I like the sentiment, but I don't see this making a huge impact for creators. Patreon and Stripe already have robust APIs that can be integrated into a website. I'm not sure how integrating something similar into a web browser would increase adoption by creators. As much as I hate ads, they have their place. Not everyone has an extra $5 to spare every month. Even if you do have the money to spare, a $5 monthly subscription for unlimited 'premium' content spread around to all the creators you support would see a small portion of your $5 subscription going to each to each individual creator. Would that small amount of money be enough to offset the ad revenue they'd be losing? In situations where you can't pay cash to get something, paying with your eyeballs is a good compromise, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I'd rather see an open and platform-agnostic web standard for ads and ad networks. Instead of trying to fix the issues with ads by implementing a payment system, wouldn't it be better to just fix the ads themselves?
I don't think they're similar. It's like you want to watch movies, but instead of buying separate DVDs now you can just subscribing to tv cable network that showing those movies. With both you can watch the same thing but with different medium and different ways to get your content, the content format which will thrive would be quite different than each other. When I'm saying "disable ads" I don't mean website owners must choose between two different sides. With Web Monetization API you can check whether an user is subscribing or not and just load ads for free users, something like this: https://webmonetization.org/docs/remove-ads And the ability to show numbers animation on how much money you're giving to content creators in the real time also quite novel, something that you can't do with conventional third party payment API.
It is going to fail because Google is too big and also because subscription doesnt work. I am still waiting for Spotify to make money Amazon Prime has never made money Just the way Netflix kept increasing their prices. That your magic number $5 will also balloon. People complain about ads and offer supposed great solutions but are ignoring the elephant in the room: Who is paying for the content production? People forget that ads made me possible for us to have a variety of content eg WongFu with Asian American target movies and short TV shows. Would any investor had invested in them 10 years ago with no guarantee for revenue? I dont know how people think It cost me $100 to translate chapters in a month for example and you think $5 spread across 1,000 creators will work. You might mention Amazon has a subscription or that company has a subscription but most do not make any profit and even lose money. To them, it is about soft power and market share. Using subscription as a lure to get users to pay for others services or basically buying new users with subscription services I really dont get why people keep championing Subscription like it is some feasible monetization option for the average content creator
I don't like ads in the middle of chapters. I'm fine being with footer and headers. just put it on widgets or some thing, I'll drop the novel if I see ads in the middle of chapter.
It's still too early to tell if Google isn't into this. It still in proposal stage after all. Even if Chrome doesn't implement it, there's always a workaround. And you're talking about completely different industry. Netflix and Spotify deal with licensing that cost a fortune. And Amazon Prime isn't designed to make money but to lock consumers in Amazon's ecosystem. If you want to argue subscription model doesn't work then you should research about Medium's flaw, because Medium subscription model is the closest use case for the subscription model I'm talking about. I've said it and will say again, you can have ads and this subscription model at the same time in your website; the only thing thats matter is how you add value for subscribers: which the most viable options are exclusive content and non-ads experience. It the same thing when you don't lose overall revenue when you give Patreon perks to remove ads. Ads take up spaces, performance concern, privacy and security issues because nobody can trust what third-party scripts can bring to websites. And not to mention the revenue diminish for repeated visits. Web Monetization API model doesn't have all these issues. Patreon model require user auth that can be a hurdle for small sites that rely on referrer links like NU. And the revenue diminish after content creators' commitment finished--if Web Monetization API started a few years back (standardized payment only viable now because there's blockchain technology) and there's enough money in subscribers pool today, then Wuxiaworld will have more choices other than locking their completed novels behind paywall. Web Monetization API doesn't intrusive like ads. It doesn't require user sign up and works across websites unlike current Patreon/Stripe/PayPal subscription model. And it can works alongside ads and Patreon. The only thing that is bad about it is that it's still has a long way to go for it to get matured and still in proposal stage at W3C. Web Monetization API can change the internet the same way WebAssembly can change how the internet infrastructure are being built. It's not because the argument that they're just "better" and provide "more revenues" than any other models out there, but because they're opening paths that just impossible with yesterday technologies. No one thought they can make money directly by making meme before, now everyone can. Non-profit organizations like Mozilla and Creative Commons won't fork $100M if they don't think this is gonna work. It will work, considering it will lands directly as browser feature and considering how simple it is to get implemented by website developers. The only question is how long it will takes for the subscribers pool big enough for companies consider to join in the fray.
It all definitely work got Mozilla but not content creators. I am talking about those with premium content that need to license and those who produce content with high production value. Most content creators don't have a $1 tier because it doesn't make sense financially. Now you are saying that $5 shared amongst thousands of sites is a better idea. True content costs money, unless you run a sweatshop or do second tier content creation e.g.commentary. People want insurance, better working conditions, good wages and at the same time want it to cost $5 for unlimited content. Friend, that just doesn't work. Also, I did point out that Amazon does it to get customers not make profit. It's simple because the standard subscription model as we know it doesn't work. I will look up Medium law flaw like you said I looked it up. It's eerily similar to Crunchyroll. If their model was so good. The creators would not need to sell and it won't need to change ads. I have been studying subscription models for years. Dramafever shutdown. Rakuten bought Viki. Rakuten doesn't need to make and profits as they are a very large company. It is more about soft power and having their own video platform. You say that Mozilla put $100 million into it. Well Mozilla use to make phones. Companies have poured $200 million into things and failed. Subscription will only work for companies that are large enough to have subsidiaries that they leverage their subscribers for their other business. The best model is a per chapter model like Munpia does. $0.10 per chapter. Focusing on quality content instead of a system that promotes filler and average content. Last I checked Wuxiaworld doesn't have a $5 tier. The lowest should be $10 And like I always pointed out, it is a system like gaming that relies on the consumers that spend $100+ : the whales and not the ones that spend $5 The goal is to monetize the rest. The users who can't even afford $5 per month. Personally, I believe rewarded video ads are a much better option : You watch a video and earn virtual currency and buy all the chapters that you need. Of course it has its flaws
Mozilla doesn't get a single cent from this API. But Coil is. The only reason Mozilla and Creative Commons want to support Coil even though they're non-profit organizations is because they believe Web Monetization API is a healthier alternative than ads. I haven't said this before. But while the business model available for this API is currently $5/month, Web Monetization API essentially is a streaming micropayment--meaning, this is the only built-in API available to make money based on how much time spent on websites, not clicks, not direct monthly plans. The amount of money from the subscription is being spread based on how much time you spent on the websites you visited, similar like how Medium subscription currently works. Even if your readers visit 10 other websites but they're spending more time on your website then you get bigger slice of the pie. The only reason I said $5/month subscription is because Coil, the current sole provider (and the one who proposed this API), is currently only providing $5/month subscription plan for their users (it's not a big deal, they're still in BETA). Other subscription plans and the ability to tip creators with a single click without any hassle are works in progress. The current state of Web Monetization API is too early to support licensed content alone. But let me repeat here again: you can use ads, Patreon, whatever revenue model you want while using this API in your website at the same time. Nobody said to remove your ads completely from your website. Let me ask you, would you rather your readers block your ads with Adblock or with this $5/month subscription? If you don't like the idea about letting your readers still be able to support you while letting them to block ads the same time, then you don't have to use it. Simple. You said it doesn't work based on your understanding on current internet economy, yet doesn't bother to ask or find out more about what it can do for you. Honestly, I rather not continue this discussion if it keeps going like this. And also don't bother to google about Medium subscription. Just look at this post about someone's earning: https://writingcooperative.com/a-look-at-my-earnings-through-mediums-partner-program-32532fe5afad
I read about the Medium's flaw which I incorrectly read as medium's law. The system is no different from Crunchyroll. I understand it plenty. Crunchyroll shares their monthly subscription to their licensors based on the content subscribers consume. I am not saying that it prevents users from using Patreon. Your question: Would you rather your reader block ads or pay a $5 subscription? Is very misleading because readers have more than those two options. Most people who block ads cannot afford $5 per month. It is quite similar to YouTube because visitor time is shared Are you a content creator that uses Patreon? Because Patreon already has API that keeps subscribers on your website without needing to visit Patreon. I used it for sponsored chapters, but it had some bugs. The goal should be to monetize those who cannot afford $5 per month or it is just another Patreon Competitor
I think you're talking about Patreon WordPress plugin. It's quite different than their API. Setting up Patreon API from scratch actually is pretty complicated, especially for client side and pre-built websites.