3 ms·
This vaguely reminds me of record labels' arguments against filesharing. The answer to impacted profits isn't to fight trends in technology (easy music copying,
by ayu 15y ago
This vaguely reminds me of record labels' arguments against filesharing. The answer to impacted profits isn't to fight trends in technology (easy music copying, easy ad blocking); the answer is to find another way to monetize. People will pay for good stuff. Just look at the dozens of well written OS X apps. You pay for TextMate. You pay for Stay. You pay for Apple products in general. Why? They're good. Good things cost money, and people know that.
I will continue to use AdBlock, and I will continue to entrepreneur.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y agoSorry, but that's not a valid comparison. Piracy is zero-cost (other than the "lost customer" argument) to the record label. Bandwidth is something SOMEONE pays for. If you're stealing my bandwidth, either by deep-linking a photo to put into a news article or by reading my site while blocking the monetization I've put on it, that's real money you're costing me, not some theoretical "you would have bought it if you didn't pirate it" argument of loss. And there's no micropayment system that would allow a small blog to charge you the 1/100 of a cent that an ad might earn, so really there's no alternative unless you're a big enough company with a compelling enough product that you can charge a non-trivial subscription fee.