I would say that's even worse. By giving bread away for free, he's making it impossible for other bakeries to compete unless they do the same thing.
This is why there are no serious competitors to services like Facebook or GMail. It's impossible to compete with free unless you monetize the data.
I say this as someone who pays for ProtonMail. Do you think it's possible to convince friends and family to start paying for email as well when they already get it for free?
A great example of this is car insurance companies. I had a friend who is a very careful driver and was looking to maximize his cost savings, so agreed to use an app that would track things like hard braking, average speed, etc, and at first he was complaining about how stupid the definitions for hard breaking were, then after months of data the insurance company actually raised his rates with the justification that his driving times were during peak traffic hours (you know, when everyone drives to work and back) and therefor he was a higher risk.
I told him before he started that would be the outcome. Simply because I extrapolated the insurance companies wanted to be able to use data they defined to make extra money. Not working? Redefine the data.
Not to mention the fact they are probably also making a bit Morea on top selling it to a third party (and even in anonymized, I think we all know how easy it is these days to deanonymize data)
People will start caring because it will affect them, but I'd they don't start caring now it will largely be too late or at least a much harder battle.
Obviously we are not quite there yet. You friend has learned a lesson, many here are paying money so that they could say "hey siri/google".
Easier yes, more profitable no. Selling direct advertising is the most profitable of all: the money all goes to the site without 20 trackers and 8 seconds of auction-waiting on each of your pages, resulting in a better experience for everybody.
This doesn't prove that direct selling is more profitable. Sure there is no ad network taking a 40% cut but sites also need to run their own in house sales staff then.
And I'm pretty sure that per-unit it is indeed more profitable.
He's not going to make enough from simply selling data to invest in talented bakers and quality ingredients, so his bread will be visibly at the lowest tier of quality. Other bakeries will compete on baking bread that is actually edible.
However, computers mean that the analogy breaks down. The data is selling for more than the cost of the service.
But only to a point, I think it's actually become somewhat overrated as a principle. Many of the most valuable subpopulations of any market are made up of people who know perfectly well how financial reality works, and that things that aren't free to offer need to get paid for somehow. There was a period where often "free" really was essentially free, because it was VCs pissing away money, and it was perfectly rational to use it. Or there were volunteer efforts while people tried things. Much of that of course was not sustainable, and the compromises that come with it long term are a lot more visible and widely known now. There is backlash to be seen against "free" models in plenty of areas. Sure, much of the market may make the bargain, but that isn't the same thing as there being no market for something that has a higher sticker price but offers privacy and quality alongside that.
--Original Post--
>Do you think it's possible to convince friends and family to start paying for email as well when they already get it for free?
Yeah, pretty trivially, so long as their needs are normal. Email is just such a fundamentally light service for most usage that it can be covered easily. These days I do most of my domains through Gandi.net for example, and each domain includes 5 mailboxes at 3 gigs a pop. In actual practice is just hasn't been hard to sell friends and family on the value of having their own domain for email. It looks good/personalized, it means they can have the exact handle they want rather then johndoe5712038123871@gmail.com, tying into that they can have easier mailbox splits, it means they can keep their email if they move to a different service, and $16/year or less simply does not break the bank. I've set up a lot of friends and family at this point, and nobody has ever had any difficulty grasping the advantages of any of these in this day and age. Many have for example lost old email accounts before due to moving services, and "this can be yours for the rest of your life regardless of where you go" is quite compelling. It's not even just companies going out of business, it's not hard to pull up stories of Google alglorithms banning accounts for unrelated stuff for example, and it being nearly impossible to rectify.
The real obstacle isn't some minimal payment, it's that it's seen as more technically challenging, or they've simply never considered it at all.
If there are enough people who are ready to pay for their bread and prevent selling out their private information -- then it would allow such privacy respecting bakeries to exist.
But some users start to worry when that information is getting sold to third-party providers. Information sales are easier to audit.
The vast majority of users don't understand what is happening, and the few that are aware have decided that it's not worth the fuss, because they have correctly internalized that they basically have no real choice in the matter.
This sort of data collection is almost never optional, and when it is, the settings are deliberately hidden and obfuscated behind the worst kind of dark patterns.
If properly informed about what data is collected, and given a real choice about opting out, that doesn't reset every two seconds or hobble the service (what gdpr theoretically requires), I think the majority of users would be concerned and would opt out of as much as possible.
Or worse, sometimes they do take your money, but it's impossible to verify whether or not they kept your information out, until the next data leak, when you discover that they didn't.
Free markets don’t exist.
I have a question. How is it the customers data? The data is about a transaction that happened in the bakers store. It's all information that was plain for the baker to see. The baker did the work to collect it.
In fact, all the information is about the interaction directly with the baker. How is this not the bakers data?
Can someone walk into my store and somehow give me something that belongs to them against my will? And then impose requirements on me about what I can do with it? Or it only belongs to them at the point I write it down?
Now I start to agree that there are concerns at the point in a computing scenario when people are gathering data that isn't a part of the transaction actually taking place without the person knowing. But shouldn't that be on the browsers to deal with?
Translating this analogy back to tech inverts your argument: It's my phone, and it's my computer. Thus any data collected from or generated on these devices is mine. I'm just letting a company use these hardware resources temporarily to deliver a service.
You can argue all you want that nothing was 'taken' from you, yet at the end of the day you will not be able to take a single step without your corporate masters knowing about it.
Mozilla and apple claim to want to protect your privacy, but their browsers continue to sell you down the river
Ie. I use no google products. Yet by just surfing the web and being tracked through google’s products or by emailing people with gmail, google has almost as much information on me as if I were their user.
I disagree. If he is not transparent about what he does with his customers privacy, he is still a "bad neighbor" as the OP put it.
Even if he makes everyone sign a contract which explains his actions before giving them the bread (GDPR-style), the transaction would still be sketchy to me. IMO, to be as fair as possible to the customer, the contract would have to be very clear and concise. Otherwise, the wording of the contract could easily take advantage of the customer's lack of time, short attention span, or poor reading comprehension.
Maybe it's a bit more like a baker that only gives you free bread once you've come to his store to shake hands and listen to the sales pitch of 10 of his business friends. And then after all that he still quietly spies on you and sells whatever he can glean about you, to people you've never met.