5 ms·

If this were true chrome would ship with ad block and they would accept cold hard cash for their services.

verdverm 6y ago
I tried this, I used it, no big adoption, product got killed. Largely people prefer the free perception of the internet and wouldn't pay the prices it would cost if direct payments were made. I believe its in the $x00s per year
- monadic2 6y ago
  > Largely people prefer the free perception of the internet You have any reasoning behind this or are you taking the people who killed the product at face value? If I were to guess that product (i have no idea to what you’re referring) was designed to fail, like youtube premium.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  They tried this, I used it, no big adoption, product got killed. To which service do you refer?
  - gundmc 6y ago
    I believe it was Google Contributor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
    - verdverm 6y ago
      Yes, that is the one, thank you
GuB-42 6y ago
Google Chrome already ships with an ad blocker (it is in the "site settings"). It is, however, very weak. I think Google would love to block ads more aggressively, but the conflict of interest is so obvious it is going to be raining lawsuits the instant they do that.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  A more aggressive ad blocker would block Google's primary source of revenue. So no, they have no interest in shipping an ad blocker akin to others.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    It really makes me wonder what the internet would be like if google had built microtransactions into a browser to support their sites instead, or as a complement to ads (e.g. an advertiser can pay for your time on the site in exchange for an ad, and google would only middleman the ad negotiation, not the transaction).
    - s17n 6y ago
      Exactly the way it looks today, because most people aren't willing to pay for content.
      - monadic2 6y ago
        Got a source for that absolutely impossible to source claim? People pay for content all. The. Time.
        s17n 6y ago
        NY times has 3.5M digital subscribers. Netflix has 120M. There are 4.5 billion internet users.
    - millstone 6y ago
      I think the surreptitious tracking is the real problem. I don't mind ads on podcasts, because their tracking is explicit and opt-in ("enter our show's promo code on the sponsor's product page.") Likewise Google Contributor did not reduce tracking, which is why I never signed up.

I tried this, I used it, no big adoption, product got killed. Largely people prefer the free perception of the internet and wouldn't pay the prices it would cost if direct payments were made. I believe its in the $x00s per year

monadic2 6y ago
> Largely people prefer the free perception of the internet You have any reasoning behind this or are you taking the people who killed the product at face value? If I were to guess that product (i have no idea to what you’re referring) was designed to fail, like youtube premium.
reaperducer 6y ago
They tried this, I used it, no big adoption, product got killed. To which service do you refer?
- gundmc 6y ago
  I believe it was Google Contributor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
  - verdverm 6y ago
    Yes, that is the one, thank you

GuB-42 6y ago

Google Chrome already ships with an ad blocker (it is in the "site settings"). It is, however, very weak. I think Google would love to block ads more aggressively, but the conflict of interest is so obvious it is going to be raining lawsuits the instant they do that.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
A more aggressive ad blocker would block Google's primary source of revenue. So no, they have no interest in shipping an ad blocker akin to others.
- monadic2 6y ago
  It really makes me wonder what the internet would be like if google had built microtransactions into a browser to support their sites instead, or as a complement to ads (e.g. an advertiser can pay for your time on the site in exchange for an ad, and google would only middleman the ad negotiation, not the transaction).
  - s17n 6y ago
    Exactly the way it looks today, because most people aren't willing to pay for content.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Got a source for that absolutely impossible to source claim? People pay for content all. The. Time.
      - s17n 6y ago
        NY times has 3.5M digital subscribers. Netflix has 120M. There are 4.5 billion internet users.
  - millstone 6y ago
    I think the surreptitious tracking is the real problem. I don't mind ads on podcasts, because their tracking is explicit and opt-in ("enter our show's promo code on the sponsor's product page.") Likewise Google Contributor did not reduce tracking, which is why I never signed up.