The Free Era of the Internet Has Come to an End

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-05-29Обновлено 2026-05-29

Введение

The free era of the internet is ending. On May 27th, Meta officially announced a global paid subscription rollout, including Instagram Plus ($3.99/month), Facebook Plus ($3.99/month), and WhatsApp Plus ($2.99/month). This follows a major company shift towards AI, marked by recent layoffs and a massive $125-145 billion investment in AI infrastructure. The move aims to create a predictable revenue stream for investors, moving beyond reliance on fluctuating ad income. Unlike the earlier European "pay for no ads" model, these new tiers focus on offering enhanced features—like anonymous Story viewing on Instagram or privacy tools on WhatsApp—to provide "a bit more control." However, a Forrester survey indicates 70% of users are reluctant to pay, questioning the value. The core of Meta's strategy lies in its upcoming AI subscriptions, priced at $7.99 and $19.99, offering advanced reasoning and higher usage limits, mirroring the freemium models of OpenAI and Anthropic. With Meta's billions of users, even a small conversion rate could generate significant revenue. Analysts are optimistic, with some projecting WhatsApp alone could bring in $40 billion annually by 2030. This shift reflects a broader industry trend where the old bargain of "free services for user data" is under pressure from rising privacy regulations and the immense costs of AI development. The success of Meta's subscriptions hinges on whether users find enough value in these premium features to open their wallets, ...

Author|Hua Lin Dance King

Editor| Jing Yu

Once upon a time, the model where users used internet products for free in exchange for watching 'ads' has finally come to an end in the AI era.

On May 27, Meta officially announced the global launch of its paid subscription plans. Instagram Plus is priced at $3.99 per month, Facebook Plus at $3.99 per month, and WhatsApp Plus at $2.99 per month.

At the same time, Meta is also testing a premium AI plan for heavy AI users (with two tiers: $7.99 and $19.99), as well as a professional package for creators ($49.99), all integrated under the 'Meta One' brand.

This is not a simple product update; it is a key card played by Meta in a larger strategic transformation. Behind this may signify the end of the 'free internet era' we were once familiar with.

01 Even the Landlord Is Running Out of Surplus

To understand the significance of today's subscription plans, we need to turn back the clock to a month ago.

On May 20, Meta initiated a massive round of layoffs that shocked Silicon Valley, cutting about 8,000 employees while freezing 6,000 open positions. At the same time, the company announced it would invest $125 billion to $145 billion in AI infrastructure. Laying off people is to concentrate money on AI.

Meta's CTO subsequently stated on May 25 that the company would use AI tools to implement a 'large-scale transformation' of its workforce. 7,000 employees were transferred to AI-related roles. The company's focus is visibly shifting toward AI.

This brings up a core contradiction: How can investors be convinced after pouring so much money into AI?

For Wall Street, the most concerning issue is not how much Meta is spending, but what kind of predictable returns this money can bring. Google has Cloud, Microsoft has Azure, Amazon has AWS—their AI investments can be measured by subscriptions and API calls. But what does Meta rely on?

Ad revenue fluctuates with the market and is not stable enough; the open-source large model Llama has enhanced technical reputation but does not directly generate revenue; AI glasses and AR devices are still in their early stages.

Thus, subscriptions entered Meta's field of vision.

This timing is not coincidental.

02 How to Convince Users to 'Pay'?

Meta's products have long operated under an implicit contract—you use my platform, and I sell your attention to advertisers. This logic has worked well for twenty years, with Facebook boasting over 3 billion monthly active users, Instagram over 2 billion, and WhatsApp users spanning the globe.

However, cracks are beginning to appear in this wall.

European regulators have been the biggest catalyst. To comply with the EU's data privacy regulations, Meta began testing an 'ad-free subscription' option in Europe as early as 2023, offering users a paid choice to avoid data tracking. The globally launched subscription plan is, in a way, an extension and deepening of this European experiment.

This time, however, Meta is playing by a different logic—not 'pay to remove ads,' but 'pay to unlock more.'

The core selling points of Instagram Plus include anonymous browsing of Stories, detailed replay data analysis, extended disappearing post duration, and custom themes and reactions. WhatsApp Plus focuses on enhanced privacy and expanded features.

The common characteristic of these features is that the free version is sufficient, but the paid version allows you to: 'have a little more control.'

From a product design perspective, this is more challenging than 'paying to remove ads.' Removing ads addresses a clear user pain point with a straightforward functional trade-off; but 'unlocking more' requires Meta to prove that these 'more' are truly worth the price.

Forrester's survey data pours cold water on this idea: 70% of respondents indicated they would 'definitely' or 'likely' not pay for a Meta subscription. Reasons vary—some feel the current free version is sufficient, others harbor long-standing resentment toward Meta's privacy practices, and some bluntly ask, 'Why should I give you more money?'

This resistance is real, but it is not insurmountable.

Snapchat+ serves as the best reference point. When Snap introduced its paid subscription in 2022, the general consensus was pessimistic, believing users wouldn't pay for a messaging app. However, to date, Snapchat+ has surpassed 15 million paying users. The key isn't 'whether users are willing to pay,' but whether the product delivers enough concrete, direct value.

X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, and Snap are all increasing their bets on subscriptions. Paid subscriptions are becoming an increasingly important part of social platforms' revenue mix.

03 AI Features: The Real Battlefield for Monetization

If Instagram Plus and WhatsApp Plus are merely test runs, then AI subscriptions are the core of Meta's ambition in this layout.

Meta announced it will test two tiers of AI subscription plans, priced at $7.99 and $19.99, with the main difference being the usage limits for advanced reasoning and 'thinking mode.' The basic version of Meta AI will remain free, but for faster response speeds, stronger reasoning capabilities, and higher usage limits, users will need to pay to unlock them.

This design logic is almost identical to the freemium models of OpenAI and Anthropic.

The difference lies in scale.

OpenAI's user base is in the hundreds of millions, while Meta's monthly active users number in the billions. Even with a conversion rate of just 1%, the numbers would be vastly different. An analyst from Seeking Alpha crunched the numbers: based on WhatsApp Plus's $2.99 price and an estimated 1.5% conversion rate, this single product alone could generate approximately $2 billion in annual revenue, with a gross margin close to 100%.

What excites investors even more is the predictability of such revenue. Ad revenue fluctuates with macroeconomic conditions and privacy regulations, but subscription revenue is predictable, recurring income. This is precisely what Meta has struggled to articulate regarding its AI investments—now, it has a story to tell investors.

On the day of the announcement, Meta's stock price rose nearly 3%, a straightforward and clear market response. Evercore ISI analyst Mark Mahaney gave a buy rating, expressing particular optimism about WhatsApp's long-term monetization potential. He projects that by 2030, WhatsApp alone could generate $40 billion in annual revenue.

This is, of course, the most optimistic scenario, and the real path is fraught with variables. But it at least shows that this road is not a fantasy; it is a business logic supported by numbers.

04 The 'Free Era' Has Ended

Remember that phrase long circulated in the tech world—'If the product is free, you are the product.'

Meta's business model has always been the quintessential footnote to this statement. Users exchange attention and data for free services, and Meta sells this data to advertisers. This logic ran fast during the smartphone era. The rise of Facebook, the explosion of Instagram, and the global expansion of WhatsApp were all built on this foundation.

But the definition of 'free' is quietly changing.

On one hand, heightened privacy awareness is making more and more users wary of the exchange of 'data for services.' EU regulations like GDPR and DMA are tightening step by step, costing Meta billions of dollars annually. On the other hand, competition in the AI era has made the cost of 'free' unprecedentedly high—training an advanced model and maintaining the computing power for an AI assistant is far more expensive than displaying a few ads.

Mark Zuckerberg needs a way to make users who derive real value from Meta AI pay directly for that value.

This is not a betrayal of the original intent of the 'free internet,' but an acknowledgment of a reality—in the AI era, 'free' requires someone else to foot the bill.

The payer can be advertisers, or it can be the users themselves. Meta now wants both to coexist.

The success or failure of the subscription plans ultimately depends on the answer to one question: Are features like anonymous Story browsing, advanced AI reasoning, and creator data analysis truly worth the few dollars you pay each month?

Twenty years ago, when Zuckerberg typed the first line of code in his Harvard dorm room, he probably didn't imagine charging users one day.

But that story is from twenty years ago.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main strategic shift behind Meta's recent announcement of paid subscription plans?

AThe main strategic shift is Meta's transition from primarily relying on advertising revenue to actively pursuing a diversified revenue stream through paid subscriptions. This move is a key part of financing their massive investments in AI infrastructure and convincing investors of a predictable return.

QWhat are the core features driving user adoption for Instagram Plus and WhatsApp Plus, according to the article?

AFor Instagram Plus, core features include anonymous Story browsing, detailed replay analytics, extended disappearing message duration, and custom themes/reactions. For WhatsApp Plus, the focus is on privacy enhancement and feature expansion. The common appeal is offering users a greater sense of control beyond the 'good enough' free version.

QHow does the article use the example of Snapchat+ to support its argument about paid subscriptions?

AThe article cites Snapchat+ as a successful reference point. Despite initial skepticism, its paid subscriber base grew to over 15 million. This example demonstrates that users are willing to pay for social apps if the premium features offer clear, tangible value, suggesting Meta's subscription plans have a viable path forward.

QWhy is the AI subscription model particularly important for Meta's financial strategy?

AAI subscriptions are crucial because they provide predictable, recurring revenue (MRR/ARR), unlike the volatile advertising income. This direct monetization from users who gain value from advanced AI features (like faster responses, stronger reasoning) offers a concrete return-on-investment story to Wall Street for Meta's massive AI spending.

QWhat two major factors does the article suggest are ending the 'free internet era' as we knew it?

ATwo major factors are: 1) Growing privacy regulations (like GDPR and DMA in Europe) that challenge the 'data-for-service' advertising model, increasing compliance costs for companies like Meta. 2) The extraordinarily high costs of developing and maintaining advanced AI models, making a purely ad-supported 'free' model unsustainable for cutting-edge AI services.

Похожее

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbit37 мин. назад

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbit37 мин. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit7 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit7 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手9 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手9 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit10 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit10 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit10 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit10 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить ERA

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение Caldera (ERA) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки Caldera (ERA).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение Caldera (ERA)После приобретения вами Caldera (ERA) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля Caldera (ERA)С легкостью торгуйте Caldera (ERA) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

719 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.07.17Обновлено 2025.07.17

Как купить ERA

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на ERA (ERA) представлены ниже.

活动图片

Топ вопросы

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow