You literally said it was “worse” that they’re willing to pay, but not more, for a local version?? That is a judgement call you made about the people’s answer, those fabulous 33%, [..]

Correct. Making the leap from "free" to "paid" is a big one, mentally. A stance of "I would like an EU service, but not enough to go through the hassle of actually setting up a paid tier of service" is a lot easier to understand than "I already pay the Yanks, and would like an EU service, but I just don't wanna spend any additional money.

weirdos who “can’t be bothered enough to be willing to pay for it.”

Ah, no, not "can't be bothered" - "they’re not bothered enough". They are bothered, as in, it upsets them that the service is foreign, but not enough to get them to do something about it. And I'm not saying they should pay more. I just think it's funny that they aren't willing to, especially what's explicitly a "nominal surcharge". Kinda how when everyone says they want to eat healthy, and then keep eating pizza.

100% of the people they asked are paying something, they’re all using the EU’s services, which is currently not deGAAFed enough.

Aaah, you're talking about paying taxes for government services. Now you're making sense.

Fine, quote me the article part where it mentions paying for cloud services.

83% want it, "every other" (50%) would pay, 83-50=33, 33% (a third) want it, but aren't willing to pay to get it.

83% want a domestic alternative, one in two (50%) would pay more for it. 83-50=33. 33% is one third. So, quoting my comment in full, "…So, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?". That's it. That's what I said.

There is, as of now, exactly one (1) person in this entire thread that responded to my comment without either hallucinating things I didn't write, or ignoring what I did. There are, also, as of now, between three and eight of you that can't fucking read.

Excellent, you're making an effort now! Progress! Now, let's go and fix what's actually wrong. At the start, we said:

…So, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?

Pay more

I mean, yes, that’s what I said, but [..]

And then I clarify:

[..] not willing to pay for a service to be domestic

and

[..] They are willing to pay for the service itself, but not to have it be domestic

So, not that they're not willing to pay at all, but that, in their mind, kicking out the Yanks is a "nice to have", not an actual selling point they would pay for specifically. Once again, to clarify, the "it" in "pay for it" is specifically the local nature of the service, not the service itself.

Then, you slide in with "I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.", and I genuinely don't know where you got that from. I'm not saying it should, or even would cost more, I'm saying that I'm actually not saying anything, the article is saying that if it did, 50% (well, 51%) would not pay for it, and presumably opt for a cheaper, foreign option. And because this is the conversation it is, I am hereby clarifying that "cheaper" can also mean "free".

I don’t understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.

Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I'd read here is that "surcout", "plus cher", and "basculer vers un fournisseur" all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.

Pirating? Why would they pirate anything, the reason the US got to where they are is that most of their shit's basic tier is free. I'm dependent on Google, and I don't pay them anything.

...And from that, you assume the 83% are all paying customers?

Dude, look around you. Everyone’s telling you that you’re reading this wrong.

Yes, and you are all illiterate.

...I said the article, not the title. Go read the article.

text says 83% are ready to pay for it

It absolutely does not say that. It doesn't even say how many pay for it now. You're hallucinating things again.

Are you an LLM? Is that what's happening?

...I don't understand why you think I think that.

And you've failed to read my first post: the majority are, but a third are not.

They are willing to pay for the service itself, but not to have it be domestic. Ie., they would like to have it be domestic, abstractly, all else being equal, but they're not bothered enough to be willing to pay to actually make it happen.

I mean, yes, that's what I said, but you do, of course, realise that's worse, right? Like, not only are they not willing to pay for a service to be domestic, but they are willing to pay for it, to the people they want to decouple from.

...So, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?

It's not cheaper, it costs me time.

The framing device for the whole movie is that they're searching the wreck to find a priceless necklace, and bring along an old woman, who had it when the ship sank, to help them. She then tells them her story, moves them into abandoning the search, and in the end it's revealed she had it the whole time when she throws it overboard.

People thought COBOL would let managers write code.

"He vampired billionairely across the room, his sweetly-softcore rapey vibes engulfed her small feminine self-inserty hair, she looked exactly like [you, the girl reading this], and he was very vampirey and mysterious"

So we've reached "bargaining". Good to know.

A few years ago, "blockchain" was what "AI" is now. Everyone was adding blockchain to everything. It was the next big thing, we can't risk getting left behind, etc.