4 ms·
Oh well. It's like Music Lables vs Napster all over again. The funny twist is, Springer gives away content for free. They just imply that there is "some kind o
by axx 11y ago
Oh well. It's like Music Lables vs Napster all over again.
The funny twist is, Springer gives away content for free. They just imply that there is "some kind of contract" between a website provider an a visitor, that the visitor has to "pay" for the content by viewing Ads.
Most people (especially in Germany) don't block Ads because they hate Ads. They block because they hate tracking, slow websites, bandwidth usage etc.
The sad thing is, most of the big publishers, that rally against ad blocker don't have the guts to just go subscription-only.
Since they love their old business model so much, why not try that on the web? Because showing Ads and sell visitors to tracking and ad networks is so much easier.
Just to clarify: If the visitor has the choice to block ads, publishers should have the choice to block adblocker-enabled visitors.
- granos 11y agoIs it that they "don't have the guts" or that they just don't have a product offering enough value to support itself on a subscription model?
- benjaminjackman 11y agoJust to add to your clarification: Publishers do have the choice already in the exact same way that visitors have the choice to block ads. They could/have Implement(Ed) some less than perfect software that uses a bunch of heuristics to determine if the visitor/element is blocking/displaying ads then block/block the element/visitor. This assign equals rights to visitors and elements, which seems a bit off balance to me, but still they could do it already they have the technology.