I'm not bothered by ad-supported accounts, or ad-supported websites or whatever. I think it's clear that it bothers some of the users, or else they all would have gone to ad-supported. I'm bothered (almost academically, since I don't use my account for posting) that they made an obvious big policy change without notifying existing users.

But it doesn't even affect existing users, does it? If you have a basic account now, you're fine. It's new accounts where free=ads.

I don't know. They were assy about it, and I get that. But I'm just tired of one more lj kerfuffle, and especially discouraged that this one is, IMO, not particularly defensible.

My cynicism is more that 6 months or a year from now, they'll decide that, hey, wouldn't ads for everyone be a great idea after all.

I'd assume that's what's coming.

As for the ads themselves, I kind of think of it the way I think of ads on tv, I want X, they want a platform to sell advertising space, and so yeah eventually they are going to see basic users as wasted resources that should be repurposed into a market with built-in psychodemograpics.

The only difference--and this is where it probably bugs some folks--is that with tv the deal is upfront, here they are changing the parameters of access. So it now involves a sell job. I haven't read any of the discussion, but my guess would be at least some of the "insistence" is simply resistance to change.

This part I'm not getting.

If you mean, I'm wrong because I think they want an image as a warm and fuzzy company, I guess we disagree about the thrust of their most recent release. It does make clear that everything from now on will be a business decision. But hiding policy changes from users isn't really a business decision so much as a decision that implies disinterest in the community.

It's not a big deal, I just think it's interesting. I also think what Starbucks did today is interesting -- they just bought the Clover company, which makes fantastic coffee makers. SBUX is so convenient, but their product so inconsistent and generally bitter, that I avoid them. But if their product was better they would have all my money.

If you have a basic account now, you're fine. It's new accounts where free=ads.

I think the fear is, if they'll take away one service without warning, they'll take away another the same way. Wake up one morning, find your LJ shilling Ronco snoot-wranglers, whether you like it or not.

I... guess I prefer to scavenge on the edges of profit-oriented services anyway, so I can't say I'm surprised that being unwilling to pay eventually causes the services to become unwelcoming. Still, I like to think that it's polite to provide some advance warning when the Ronco snoot-wranglers come.

But it doesn't even affect existing users, does it? If you have a basic account now, you're fine. It's new accounts where free=ads.

I would agree with you under some circumstances, except I think the ability to create multiple or new accounts is an option that users value. At least I've considered closing my account (where I talk about work stuff, rather embarrassingly) and getting a new one. Now I feel like I have less liquidity of accounts, because I lose that free, non-ad account.

Yeah, if they'd made an announcement along the lines of "Look, this sucks, but we can't afford free accounts, and that's how the internet usually works, and sorry 'bout that", I wouldn't blink much. But trying to slip it in just makes me wary that next it's going to be changing all the old free accounts to ad ones. And jacking the paid price. And charging to see my old entries, or some shit. Destroys the trust, man.

I also think what Starbucks did today is interesting -- they just bought the Clover company, which makes fantastic coffee makers

I saw that, but figure if they're using the good machines with their burnt starbucks beans, it wouldn't make that big a difference--would it?

Destroys the trust, man.

I guess I didn't know there was any of that around.

But hiding policy changes from users isn't really a business decision so much as a decision that implies disinterest in the community.

It feels like a business decision to me, but it does seem to position users as consumers, not community members. Not that I care that much because for me LJ never felt like a community. B.org is my community, LJ is just a website.

I also think what Starbucks did today is interesting -- they just bought the Clover company, which makes fantastic coffee makers.

Oo, isn't that the company that makes the new amazing $10,000 coffee maker that bloggers insist is the best cup of coffee evah? Fascinating. I hope they don't do to the coffeemaker what they did to their coffee.

I saw that, but figure if they're using the good machines with their burnt starbucks beans, it wouldn't make that big a difference--would it?

Who knows. They are making some other changes to the kinds of beans they brew, maybe they will roast them better. It would be silly to still have shit coffee after making those changes, though.

I think the fear is, if they'll take away one service without warning, they'll take away another the same way. Wake up one morning, find your LJ shilling Ronco snoot-wranglers, whether you like it or not.

Sure. But will the boycott talk be taken more seriously at that time or less, having gone through such conniptions now?

I would agree with you under some circumstances, except I think the ability to create multiple or new accounts is an option that users value.

Yeah, I can see where that's an annoyance.

[Can't tell if that sounds snarky or not. Not, for the record.]