5 ms·

I'm happy with advertising. It pays for all the free stuff. Apple wants to kill all the free content so you only have the choice of paying Apple to do anything

by hoodoof 11y ago

I'm happy with advertising. It pays for all the free stuff. Apple wants to kill all the free content so you only have the choice of paying Apple to do anything. Companies built around an advertising model should detect and reject Apple browsers. Individuals who value getting free stuff on the web should switch to non Apple browsers to show support for advertising.

panabee 11y ago
Not to mention killing ads kills the primary revenue source for its primary competitor. (90% of Google's revenue in 2014 came from ads.) Though to be clear, Apple isn't trying to nuke all ads. It's just trying to steer people away from the web and toward apps.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  I hope they succeed. Web is for interactive content not apps. <rant mode> too many scars of web projects trying to replicate desktop experience with pixel perfect requirement across browsers. </rant mode>
onion2k 11y ago
I'm happy with advertising. It pays for all the free stuff. But not magically with free money that just appears when a company decides to buy an advert. Adverts are paid for by businesses that consequently charge a little more for their goods and services, a cost passed directly to you and me. We don't get free services, we get services that we pay for indirectly through other things. Free is a myth.
- hoodoof 11y ago
  Yes it's an ecosystem I want to be healthy. Many, many software engineers have jobs and many startups exist because there is an advertising ecosystem. The advertising ecosystem is an inherent part of the capitalist economy. In whose interest is it to kill that? Apple should stop advertising if it hates advertising so much.
  - lazyjones 11y ago
    > The advertising ecosystem is an inherent part of the capitalist economy. I doubt that; it distorts competition by making false / aggrandizing claims about products and their prices and capitalist markets would work much better with transparency instead of the smokescreens of advertising (i.e. more comparison shopping). > In whose interest is it to kill that? Consumers and small businesses would profit greatly if advertising played a smaller role (big businesses spend a lot of money in advertising to sell inferior products, small companies find it difficult to compete even with better or cheaper offers). Also, page load times and traffic plans, obviously.
    - punee 11y ago
      Small companies sell better and cheaper products than big businesses, but somehow people have never heard about them, and that's because of "advertising". Sure, buddy. You keep telling yourself that.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >Yes it's an ecosystem I want to be healthy. There is nothing particularly healthy about an advertising ecosystem. It skews the incentives of content creators towards dishonesty. >The advertising ecosystem is an inherent part of the capitalist economy. In whose interest is it to kill that? Anybody who believes that market power should be determined by the quality of your products rather than your advertising budget? Sao Paolo banned advertising. As far as I'm aware they are still a capitalist economy.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      Do you think mailchimp is worse because of the ads it puts in podcasts? How about Squarespace? Arguing that all advertising is misleading and evil is just as silly as saying that all advertising is truthful and trustworthy. Honest salespeople know that selling a product to someone is a win-win situation. And honest ads can help people find things they are genuinely looking for, and solve a problem they are having.
- rtpg 11y ago
  That's a pretty naive way of doing it. Without advertising, many (real as in "sells goods" sense) businesses would not find any real growth. Advertising is a business cost like any other. and websites with ads sell eyeballs. Things cost more because of advertising or marketing in general only in the sense that said things would not exist without them. That's like saying conferences actually cost more because of sponsors.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    Without advertising, many (real as in "sells goods" sense) businesses would not find any real growth. I think you're conflating advertising with marketing. Marketing is what grows a company, and advertising is a part of marketing (how big or small a part depends on the business). We could have no advertising and still have companies informing people about their products.
na85 11y ago
>Companies built around an advertising model should detect and reject Apple browsers. Companies built around an advertising model should die in ignominy.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  There's no reason not to use advertisements to fund your content-producing efforts. Newspapers, magazines, television, radio, podcasts, internet forums... pretty much any of this content is paid for by advertising. Would you rather everyone have to pay for SeriusXM, basic cable, etc?
  - eps 11y ago
    If it means no ads, then - yes, that would've been fantastic.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    > Would you rather everyone have to pay for SeriusXM, basic cable, etc? That is what we already do in Europe anyway. Most countries have TV and Radio tax. Additionally in countries like my own, if you don't subscribe to cable, there are only 4 lousy channels available, with deplorable content.
  - na85 11y ago
    Most radio stations that aren't publicly funded are complete trash and I would not miss them in the slightest. My tax dollars already fund the CBC's excellent news and classical music service and that's all I need from radio. If I want to listen to pop I'll download some. Most of what's on TV is complete shit, and I'm happy to pay for netflix. The only thing I miss are hockey games, but I can always go to one live, or go to a bar.
mc808 11y ago
I'm happy to view content supported by ads that are not animated, are not hosted or tracked by third parties, are not disguised as normal content, and which do not execute scripts. It's also easy enough to sneak that type of ad past an ad blocker. Win-win.
DanBC 11y ago
I'm tolerant of ads[1] but I remember an Internet before ads; a WWW where most pages were not ad-driven, and it was amazing. A lot of content now is not ad supported but ad driven - they meed the clicks to get views for ads. But ad views pay so little they need people to click the ads. So ads become manipulative and scummy ("HELLO!" Punch the monkey, mosquito, you won't believe, etc) and also content becomes dumb to drag in people who can't tell the difference between links to other content and ads. I miss the WWW we used to have. [1] although i strongly feel that I should be allowed to opt out of gambling and alcohol ads - not being able to do so pushes me towards ad blockers
- hoodoof 11y ago
  You may be recalling "the web we used to have" with nostalgia. The web we have is MUCH better and Google does it share of paying for it.
  - radmuzom 11y ago
    Speak for yourself. As a Microsoft fan, I am considering switching to GNU/Linux as all commercial operating systems seem to be moving towards the model of "don't pay us with money, pay us with data". A lot of this is driven by the trend to make web applications out of web pages when there is no need.
  - pyvpx 11y ago
    what is the determining factor for "better"? if the web is for transmitting information, I'd say it is significantly fatter, slower, and more difficult to parse in that regard. is it shinier? yes, it is much shinier.
    - novas0x2a 11y ago
      Do you remember when the only way to make your site discoverable was to 1) get yahoo to add you to their hand-curated list of sites or 2) trade banners with a super scummy link exchange? If we still had that internet, the only sites that would get any traffic at all would be the ones that could justify their existence with traffic, i.e. these[1]. How do you get traffic if you can't get listed? You can't unless you advertise through other media. Is everything better? No. Privacy's worse, signal to noise is worse (that's a natural consequence of availability, anyway). Are a lot of things better? Yep. Niche sites can get traffic in a way they never could before. That's the natural consequence of taking humans out of the loop- instead of having to interest Jerry or David, now your only requirement for indexing is to interest anyone who is also interesting. Let's keep working to make things better, but let's also not forget the improvements that have already been made. 1. https://www.quantcast.com/top-sites https://www.quantcast.com/top-sites
oska 11y ago
> I'm happy with advertising. Good for you. I'm not. And I reserve the right to block anything appearing on my computer through my paid-for internet service. I also read and view a lot of content that is offered for free and that material has 1) no need for an advertising support model and 2) is often better than that supported by such models.
pjmlp 11y ago
I am ok with adverting in small doses, not when 90% of the page are ads.
threeseed 11y ago
> Companies built around an advertising model should detect and reject Apple browsers. Not sure why this gets repeated. iOS users whether you like it or not are a significant percentage of users (especially on mobile). They skew higher socio economically and are far more likely to spend money for content. There is a reason why iOS is the primary platform for development. Companies should instead look at WHY people would want to block ads. They are often poorly implemented on mobile e.g. cover content or are unable to be dismissed. They don't take into account people are generally skimming through content. And they excessively drain the battery.
teaneedz 11y ago
I believe that the growing aversion is toward the pervasive tracking and UX destroying variety of ads. Not all ads have to be that. It's not just an iOS user mentality obviously since ad block usage is increasing across desktops too. The ad ecosystem is out of control and in need of an overhaul. iOS 9 will simply help many more see how much ad-tech has slowed down the browsing experience. Also, free stuff will always exist on the Internet.
soneil 11y ago
Advertising is useful, at least until we find a better way to pay for things we don't want to pay for. Unfortunately, history has proven we also need ways to steer their behaviour. I don't particularly miss having metric tonnes of dead trees shoved through my front door. Or having my phone ring all evening. I don't think pop-up blockers have destroyed the internet as we know it. And I don't feel bad for any business model that's suffered from improvements in spam filtering. While it's obvious the money needed to run out favourite services needs to come from somewhere, it's also obvious that we need to be able to enforce some limits to the never-ending war to make your advert more visible than the other guy's.

by hoodoof 11y ago

panabee 11y ago

Not to mention killing ads kills the primary revenue source for its primary competitor. (90% of Google's revenue in 2014 came from ads.) Though to be clear, Apple isn't trying to nuke all ads. It's just trying to steer people away from the web and toward apps.

pjmlp 11y ago
I hope they succeed. Web is for interactive content not apps. <rant mode> too many scars of web projects trying to replicate desktop experience with pixel perfect requirement across browsers. </rant mode>

onion2k 11y ago

I'm happy with advertising. It pays for all the free stuff. But not magically with free money that just appears when a company decides to buy an advert. Adverts are paid for by businesses that consequently charge a little more for their goods and services, a cost passed directly to you and me. We don't get free services, we get services that we pay for indirectly through other things. Free is a myth.

hoodoof 11y ago
Yes it's an ecosystem I want to be healthy. Many, many software engineers have jobs and many startups exist because there is an advertising ecosystem. The advertising ecosystem is an inherent part of the capitalist economy. In whose interest is it to kill that? Apple should stop advertising if it hates advertising so much.
- lazyjones 11y ago
  > The advertising ecosystem is an inherent part of the capitalist economy. I doubt that; it distorts competition by making false / aggrandizing claims about products and their prices and capitalist markets would work much better with transparency instead of the smokescreens of advertising (i.e. more comparison shopping). > In whose interest is it to kill that? Consumers and small businesses would profit greatly if advertising played a smaller role (big businesses spend a lot of money in advertising to sell inferior products, small companies find it difficult to compete even with better or cheaper offers). Also, page load times and traffic plans, obviously.
  - punee 11y ago
    Small companies sell better and cheaper products than big businesses, but somehow people have never heard about them, and that's because of "advertising". Sure, buddy. You keep telling yourself that.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Yes it's an ecosystem I want to be healthy. There is nothing particularly healthy about an advertising ecosystem. It skews the incentives of content creators towards dishonesty. >The advertising ecosystem is an inherent part of the capitalist economy. In whose interest is it to kill that? Anybody who believes that market power should be determined by the quality of your products rather than your advertising budget? Sao Paolo banned advertising. As far as I'm aware they are still a capitalist economy.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Do you think mailchimp is worse because of the ads it puts in podcasts? How about Squarespace? Arguing that all advertising is misleading and evil is just as silly as saying that all advertising is truthful and trustworthy. Honest salespeople know that selling a product to someone is a win-win situation. And honest ads can help people find things they are genuinely looking for, and solve a problem they are having.
rtpg 11y ago
That's a pretty naive way of doing it. Without advertising, many (real as in "sells goods" sense) businesses would not find any real growth. Advertising is a business cost like any other. and websites with ads sell eyeballs. Things cost more because of advertising or marketing in general only in the sense that said things would not exist without them. That's like saying conferences actually cost more because of sponsors.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Without advertising, many (real as in "sells goods" sense) businesses would not find any real growth. I think you're conflating advertising with marketing. Marketing is what grows a company, and advertising is a part of marketing (how big or small a part depends on the business). We could have no advertising and still have companies informing people about their products.

na85 11y ago

>Companies built around an advertising model should detect and reject Apple browsers. Companies built around an advertising model should die in ignominy.

mattlutze 11y ago
There's no reason not to use advertisements to fund your content-producing efforts. Newspapers, magazines, television, radio, podcasts, internet forums... pretty much any of this content is paid for by advertising. Would you rather everyone have to pay for SeriusXM, basic cable, etc?
- eps 11y ago
  If it means no ads, then - yes, that would've been fantastic.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  > Would you rather everyone have to pay for SeriusXM, basic cable, etc? That is what we already do in Europe anyway. Most countries have TV and Radio tax. Additionally in countries like my own, if you don't subscribe to cable, there are only 4 lousy channels available, with deplorable content.
- na85 11y ago
  Most radio stations that aren't publicly funded are complete trash and I would not miss them in the slightest. My tax dollars already fund the CBC's excellent news and classical music service and that's all I need from radio. If I want to listen to pop I'll download some. Most of what's on TV is complete shit, and I'm happy to pay for netflix. The only thing I miss are hockey games, but I can always go to one live, or go to a bar.

mc808 11y ago

I'm happy to view content supported by ads that are not animated, are not hosted or tracked by third parties, are not disguised as normal content, and which do not execute scripts. It's also easy enough to sneak that type of ad past an ad blocker. Win-win.

DanBC 11y ago

I'm tolerant of ads[1] but I remember an Internet before ads; a WWW where most pages were not ad-driven, and it was amazing. A lot of content now is not ad supported but ad driven - they meed the clicks to get views for ads. But ad views pay so little they need people to click the ads. So ads become manipulative and scummy ("HELLO!" Punch the monkey, mosquito, you won't believe, etc) and also content becomes dumb to drag in people who can't tell the difference between links to other content and ads. I miss the WWW we used to have. [1] although i strongly feel that I should be allowed to opt out of gambling and alcohol ads - not being able to do so pushes me towards ad blockers

hoodoof 11y ago
You may be recalling "the web we used to have" with nostalgia. The web we have is MUCH better and Google does it share of paying for it.
- radmuzom 11y ago
  Speak for yourself. As a Microsoft fan, I am considering switching to GNU/Linux as all commercial operating systems seem to be moving towards the model of "don't pay us with money, pay us with data". A lot of this is driven by the trend to make web applications out of web pages when there is no need.
- pyvpx 11y ago
  what is the determining factor for "better"? if the web is for transmitting information, I'd say it is significantly fatter, slower, and more difficult to parse in that regard. is it shinier? yes, it is much shinier.
  - novas0x2a 11y ago
    Do you remember when the only way to make your site discoverable was to 1) get yahoo to add you to their hand-curated list of sites or 2) trade banners with a super scummy link exchange? If we still had that internet, the only sites that would get any traffic at all would be the ones that could justify their existence with traffic, i.e. these[1]. How do you get traffic if you can't get listed? You can't unless you advertise through other media. Is everything better? No. Privacy's worse, signal to noise is worse (that's a natural consequence of availability, anyway). Are a lot of things better? Yep. Niche sites can get traffic in a way they never could before. That's the natural consequence of taking humans out of the loop- instead of having to interest Jerry or David, now your only requirement for indexing is to interest anyone who is also interesting. Let's keep working to make things better, but let's also not forget the improvements that have already been made. 1. https://www.quantcast.com/top-sites https://www.quantcast.com/top-sites

oska 11y ago

> I'm happy with advertising. Good for you. I'm not. And I reserve the right to block anything appearing on my computer through my paid-for internet service. I also read and view a lot of content that is offered for free and that material has 1) no need for an advertising support model and 2) is often better than that supported by such models.

pjmlp 11y ago

I am ok with adverting in small doses, not when 90% of the page are ads.

threeseed 11y ago

> Companies built around an advertising model should detect and reject Apple browsers. Not sure why this gets repeated. iOS users whether you like it or not are a significant percentage of users (especially on mobile). They skew higher socio economically and are far more likely to spend money for content. There is a reason why iOS is the primary platform for development. Companies should instead look at WHY people would want to block ads. They are often poorly implemented on mobile e.g. cover content or are unable to be dismissed. They don't take into account people are generally skimming through content. And they excessively drain the battery.

teaneedz 11y ago

I believe that the growing aversion is toward the pervasive tracking and UX destroying variety of ads. Not all ads have to be that. It's not just an iOS user mentality obviously since ad block usage is increasing across desktops too. The ad ecosystem is out of control and in need of an overhaul. iOS 9 will simply help many more see how much ad-tech has slowed down the browsing experience. Also, free stuff will always exist on the Internet.

soneil 11y ago

Advertising is useful, at least until we find a better way to pay for things we don't want to pay for. Unfortunately, history has proven we also need ways to steer their behaviour. I don't particularly miss having metric tonnes of dead trees shoved through my front door. Or having my phone ring all evening. I don't think pop-up blockers have destroyed the internet as we know it. And I don't feel bad for any business model that's suffered from improvements in spam filtering. While it's obvious the money needed to run out favourite services needs to come from somewhere, it's also obvious that we need to be able to enforce some limits to the never-ending war to make your advert more visible than the other guy's.