I’m sure you’ve noticed the backlash against free internet services over the past couple of years. Not that there are fewer free services, just that a certain set of people have been arguing that we shouldn’t be using them. Their rallying cry is “If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.” This is considered a deep truth among the anti-free set. It’s certainly true, but it isn’t deep, and I’m not convinced it makes free services bad.

First, you have to recognize that you’ve been “the product” your entire life. So were your parents and so were your grandparents. Television and radio, newspapers and magazines—they all sell your attention to their primary customers: advertisers. Even things you “pay for” sell you off to advertisers because you really don’t pay for them—you only cover part of the costs. Despite this obvious and longstanding fact of life, while everyone bitches about commercials, no one says TV networks are insidious or underhanded because they run ads.1 I’ve never heard of anyone boycotting Mad Men because they don’t want to be a product sold by AMC.

What’s that? You avoid ads by recording shows on TiVo and skipping over the commercials? TiVo knows that and has been selling your data for a decade or more. They’ve partnered with our Google overlords. Hell, they even keep track of what you pause and replay. This, despite the fact that you paid them for the box and also pay a monthly service fee.

Now, it’s certainly true that ads in old media weren’t as creepy as the ones in new media. When you sat down at breakfast with your newspaper and looked at an ad, it didn’t look back at you, notice what breakfast cereal you were eating, and run off to sell that information to General Mills.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure there’s any convenient way to avoid the creepiness. You can do things like block cookies and use multiple signons, but those things slow you down and detract from your browsing experience. Significantly, paying for your services isn’t necessarily the answer; the TiVo example proves that. Another example may be the new Flickr. You can avoid ads by paying for an Ad Free account, but is there a guarantee that Flickr won’t be collecting data on you and selling it? Not that I can see. In fact, Yahoo’s privacy policy says it uses the information it collects from you to “provide anonymous reporting for internal and external clients.” And really, do you expect anything else? The material of the internet is information; that’s the only thing it can sell.

Apple has held the line on some of the encroaching creepiness, but hasn’t been praised for it. Just the opposite. Apple cut its ties with Google for Maps data because Google wanted your user info and Apple wouldn’t give it to them.2 The quality of iOS Maps went down, and everyone dumped on Apple for providing an inferior product.

Why was Apple’s mapping data inferior? Part of it, certainly, was because they got a late start. But the main reason Google’s maps are better is that Google spent a lot of time and money on its maps, and it did that because it knew that spending would pay off in the collection and selling of your information. In effect, the creepiness of Google is what makes Google Maps so good.

Back when the Hypercritical podcast was still running, John Siracusa said something very smart (not surprising) that didn’t get any play in the blogs I read. He and Dan were talking, I think, about Twitter’s attempts to monetize its service. There was probably some comparison to ADN, which was at the time an exclusively for-pay service (and was a big favorite of the anti-free folks). John said3 it was apparent that Twitter had made an economic assessment of its users and decided they were worth more as advertising targets than as paying customers. Exactly. And those other evil bastards of the internet, Google and Facebook, have done the same thing.

The thing is, this sinister, creepy approach works, and it benefits us, too. A social network that isn’t free won’t have a huge number of users and won’t have everyone you know on it. A search engine that isn’t free wouldn’t be used much and wouldn’t be able to leverage the data collected on an astronomical number of searches. And it’s the same for maps.

I’m not saying free is always the best. There are plenty of internet services that can provide value to their users and sustain profitable businesses without the large scale that free can generate. Conversely, there are plenty of free services that get their plug pulled. But for certain combinations of user interest and profit potential, free works best.

  1. For other reasons, yes, but not because they run ads. 

  2. I’m not suggesting Apple is a white knight. It has your user info and it uses it for its own purposes. It just wouldn’t give it to Google. 

  3. I’m paraphrasing because I’m too lazy to find the episode and relisten. 

7 Responses to “Free”

  1. Tom S. says:

    I’d like to think I’m not a nut bag in that I usually don’t run around wearing a tin hat. But I do avoid free services. To me it isn’t a question of whether “free works best”. Its a question of whether the improvement is worth the loss of my privacy.

    As an example, it annoys me greatly that I can’t get completely away from Google search. IMO other search engines just don’t work as well and getting good results quickly is far, far too important to my work to leave it behind.

    But their other services? The threshold for others may vary but I don’t use any of them. I particularly do not under any circumstances want them to have access to my email or to my financial information.

    Yes, Apple has this information. But they’re in the business of selling hardware and they are far, far less likely to do anything with that information that I would disapprove of simply because it would damage that business if they did. IMO they’re much less likely to push the envelope.

  2. Jose says:

    Maps don’t need to keep personalised information at all. Just anonymised data.

    Same for search, for example DuckDuckGo makes an excellent search engine without keeping anything about you.

    Google wants all that information + your identity. Plus they want to be at the centre of everything you do, so they can combine all that data. I feel that is asking too much.

    It’s simple math, proving more free services while bathing their employees and executives in luxury as they do (e.g. private airport terminal) can only come from mining more and more data about you. Money just doesn’t grow on trees.

  3. Eric says:

    There is one part of the large scale data collection issue that you left out, namely, what happens if the information Google, Facebook, Yahoo et. al. holds is captured by a 3rd party. I think it was Mikko Hypponen who recently penned an article whose gist was “show me the person who doesn’t have something to hide, you can’t. “

    It’s entirely possible that even Google could be somehow hacked and its also entirely possible that at some time in the future one or more of these companies could fall into the ownership hands of less savoury characters.

    As someone whose mom was on the FBI watch list during the McCarthy era in the US for her dalliance in radical politics in the 1930s I got to see first hand why the concentration of personal information in the hands of any organisation can have a chilling effect during politically unsavoury times. To my mind there one’s privacy like one’s health and youth is only appreciated when its lost, sadly.

  4. Dale says:

    Wow. What an insightful post. Exactly what I’ve been thinking but much more articulately stated than my half formed thoughts. While I wonder about privacy issues with Google and the like, I also appreciate that their algorithms know the information I prefer and serve it. In some ways, targeted ads seem like a win-win.

  5. Justin Ainsworth says:

    John Siracusa phrased it an additional way which was that consumers are being “out-bid” by advertisers, and until users are willing to pay more than advertisers free services will represent the lionshare of services.

    I’ll expand on that to say if a company willfully accepts the lower bidder it may be able to claim morality as a feature but the companie won’t be able to spend as much money on the product. Note that when companies are evaluating the advertiser’s “bid”, they’re including things like sales teams, engineering effort to appease advertisers, etc. Even after all THAT advertisers are out-bidding users at large.

  6. Chris Suter says:

    Privacy is overrated in my opinion. Do people really think that someone at Google is going through looking at your details? They have lots of information about you, but it’s machines that are using that data to serve you more relevant adverts or search results (and I see this as a good thing). If someone does want to do a serious investigation about you, can’t they bug your phone, follow you, or heck, just point a gun at you? Sure, those examples are not legal, but then neither is using your private data for nefarious reasons—these companies are all bound by strict privacy laws.

    It’s the same as CCTV—you can’t walk far these days without being caught on camera, but there’s nobody watching all this footage; people have better things to do with their time.

    I wonder what those that complain about privacy are trying to hide, only illegal things I suspect.

  7. Eric says:

    Chris, as previously mentioned, the concern doesn’t necessarily have to be with what the company does with the data, but with the possibility that the data could be compromised by, say, a criminal group or government.

    It’a not fair to assume that people who value privacy are trying to hide anything nefarious. Personally, I try to weigh the inconvenience of having the data of some free web service compromised vs. the value of the service, put simply.