Hacker News Reader

Comment by Celcius | Hacker News Reader

Besides €3 probobly being enough set up a tunnel too Germany, USA or UK and then get the free service (aswell as having a way around that problem on other occations). I can't help but feel sorry for the poor nations where €3 is an unreasonable amount of money. I get that it was a buisness decission but them exempting certain countries just alienates those of us who aren't on that list, or at least that's how I feel.

View on HN

It pisses me off when I am being treated differently on the internet based on where I am in the real word. It is one of the reasons Hulu won't get my patronage even if they extend to other countries outside the us.

In this case it didn't matter much, I won't sign up (or pay) just to _hear_ music that I can't even choose my self.

It pisses you off that your use of the service isn't being subsidized by other parts of the world anymore? I mean, that's what seems to be the reason for instituting the fee. They are able to use ad sales to generate revenue for the 3 countries mentioned, so the service is paid for that way. They aren't able to generate enough ad revenue in the other countries, hence the fee.

I do find the general reactions a bit perplexing. Most range along the lines of "Everyone should pay or no one should pay.", "Companies should charge the people who can afford it more.", "I expect music to always be free to listen to." and "I refuse to pay for music, so I will now go back to pirating more."

Or: "3 euros a month is too much". 10c per day -- too much!

They've gone on record as saying the reason the 3 countries were picked as keeping the status quo is purely down to advertising sales in those countries.

What's really stupid is the way international entities still segment countries as far as bottom line goes. I assume this is for tax reasons or similar, but since their products cross international borders it just seems a bit strange.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com