What I'd like is a "Twitter made $x from you in the last year through showing you ads. Click here to pay us $2x and not see any for the next year."
While some high-quality publications (the New York Times, Economist, etc.) have seen some success in recent years, the overwhelming evidence is that the economics just don't work out among the general public.
Most people also underestimate the costs. IIRC, Google needs about $100/pa to supplant advertising revenue.
Yes, you may be willing to pay, so why aren't more services willing to take your money? Apart from the administrative hassle of such a program, the $100 (or whatever) are also an average. People willing to pay as much for an ad-free experience just happen to be at the top end of the value distribution for advertisers as well.
In other words: If you're willing to give me 2bucks, it's gonna cost you 5!
It doesn't seem worth it, to me. I need ad blockers anyway for other ad services and annoyances so I end up just avoiding their built-in ad-riddled apps and going through a browser for things like youtube. It's a poor experience but better than dealing with ads.
I understand the value prop for shipping crippleware apps in a low cost android phone, but they ship the same stuff on flagship $1k phones like the pixel. It's a bizarre choice.
It's frustrating how people complain about ad supported models while at the same time aren't willing to pay for it. So much entitlement. There's also the option of not consuming their resources.
What I did point out is that they're making a mockery out of their premium phone brand by shipping it with crippleware. Check back and see what that decision costs them in a decade.
Google is absurdly bad at product.
It’s been awhile since I’ve had the chance to measure the caliber of Twitter’s finance quants, but last I knew it was pretty fucking hard to get past the phone screen for that job. I enjoyed jousting with them.