3 ms·

But if there's no advertising where's the money going to come from to pay those developers? Part of the third-party bloatware problem on the web is us, users w

But if there's no advertising where's the money going to come from to pay those developers? Part of the third-party bloatware problem on the web is us, users who aren't willing to pay for content

boomlinde 8y ago
The truth probably is that most websites would fail if users had to pay for them. In my opinion, that's a good thing. Ideally, anything that serves an important interest would remain (because users have a genuine interest in further use) while the useless stuff that's just tricking you into paying attention would disappear (because no one actually gives a crap about vapid celebrity gossip unless you really bait them into it). The sooner this can happen, the better.
- sureaboutthis 8y ago
  I talked of this elsewhere. It's a form of vetting we don't have anymore where there is an educated editor somewhere to make sure what we read is worthwhile (not censorship which isn't the same thing).
- rchaud 8y ago
  The biggest sites that are ad-dependent are in the digital media space, and they are undergoing a culling like never before. Mic.com and Mashable recently sold at distress sale prices, and Buzzfeed and Vice are also struggling to meet revenue targets. > The truth probably is that most websites would fail if users had to pay for them. I agree with you here, but the implication of this is that if the user isn't willing to pay for it, and ads aren't enough to sustain the business, maybe they should not be in that particular business. Or, they could try to rise to the challenge and build a brand people are willing to pay for. The Guardian in the UK recently hit a million paying digital subscribers, so it's certainly not impossible. Most sites do not need a million subscribers to make payroll.
sureaboutthis 8y ago
There are a number of articles on the 'net that show AMP can often be slower than a well made page or site. I don't recall the details.

But if there's no advertising where's the money going to come from to pay those developers? Part of the third-party bloatware problem on the web is us, users who aren't willing to pay for content

boomlinde 8y ago

The truth probably is that most websites would fail if users had to pay for them. In my opinion, that's a good thing. Ideally, anything that serves an important interest would remain (because users have a genuine interest in further use) while the useless stuff that's just tricking you into paying attention would disappear (because no one actually gives a crap about vapid celebrity gossip unless you really bait them into it). The sooner this can happen, the better.

sureaboutthis 8y ago
I talked of this elsewhere. It's a form of vetting we don't have anymore where there is an educated editor somewhere to make sure what we read is worthwhile (not censorship which isn't the same thing).
rchaud 8y ago
The biggest sites that are ad-dependent are in the digital media space, and they are undergoing a culling like never before. Mic.com and Mashable recently sold at distress sale prices, and Buzzfeed and Vice are also struggling to meet revenue targets. > The truth probably is that most websites would fail if users had to pay for them. I agree with you here, but the implication of this is that if the user isn't willing to pay for it, and ads aren't enough to sustain the business, maybe they should not be in that particular business. Or, they could try to rise to the challenge and build a brand people are willing to pay for. The Guardian in the UK recently hit a million paying digital subscribers, so it's certainly not impossible. Most sites do not need a million subscribers to make payroll.

sureaboutthis 8y ago

There are a number of articles on the 'net that show AMP can often be slower than a well made page or site. I don't recall the details.