Would you pay a monthly subscription if literally the only difference between the paid service and the free version was that the paid one didn't have ads?

#polls #ads

i.e. Same speed, same features, same quality, same level of support, same everything. But you could have unlimited free usage if you put up with ads, or you could have all that and no ads if you paid a monthly fee.

Yes
55.6%
No
22.2%
Other
22.2%
Poll ended at .
@GrahamDowns depends on the service really, but yes.
@GrahamDowns It depends: I pay for Spotify because I don't like my music being interrupted, but I don't pay for YouTube because I don't want to give Google any more money. I also pay for my Dutch weather app to keep it ad-free, but that's also because at €1 per year it's a steal

@jmopp I don't mind the occasional ad in between songs, but only if it's a single add, occasionally, not between every single song (like maybe once every five songs or so). But I'd draw the line at *interrupting* songs in the middle to play ads.

I pay for Spotify because the free version isn't supported by my Google Home, and I like to be able to say, "Hey Google, play xxx from Spotify" or even just, "Hey Google, play some music."

I don't pay for YouTube because I'm used to ad breaks in videos. It's a well established thing and it doesn't bother me. Although sometimes, it can get a bit much.

But yeah, cost is also an issue. If I found the service really useful and it was €1 per year, I might just pay.

In general, I'm a freeloader. :-)

@GrahamDowns I think a big part of it for me is where the money goes; I generally like supporting creators directly. I signed up for Nebula and Sauce Plus so I can watch my favourite video creators ad-free, and also when my Spotify Wrapped told me I was the #3 listener of a certain band, I went to bandcamp and bought their entire discography
@jmopp It definitely feels much better to support individuals and small, local businesses. :)
@GrahamDowns Nope, I likely would either use an ad blocker or find a free alternative.