3 ms·
That's interesting. If you DVR a show do you feel obliged to sit through the commercials? This feels somewhat similar.
by jusben1369 15y ago
That's interesting. If you DVR a show do you feel obliged to sit through the commercials? This feels somewhat similar.
- larrik 15y agoTV either comes over public airwaves, or through a cable service that I pay (a lot) for. So no, I don't feel obligated to sit through commercials. My GMail account, on the other hand, is a great service provided directly to me. The ads on it are well done and don't interfere with my usage. Sometimes I even see ads I click on, since they are interesting. Seems like a good deal.
- Drbble 15y agoBroadcast is forced into your home over public wavespace, yes. But cable is something you signed up for, and ads are part in for the deal, like Gmail. You are paying Comcast, not the content producer of the channel you watch. A better argument against cable is that it's a monopoly product, so you feel entitled to renegotiate against the anticompetitive agreement that got cable in you neighborhood.
- larrik 15y agoGiven that my DVR is 1) provided by that same cable company, and 2) rather awful (5 years old, and yet still the newest model available), I still don't have any sympathy.
- kjhughes 15y agoThe ad-supported model is robust enough to still work without 100% attention of the audience. Side conversations, bathroom breaks, fast forwarding, not reading every ad, not clicking on every ad, etc are all very different than systematically eliminating ads from any possibility of consideration.
- jusben1369 15y agoIsn't this similar though? You could argue "Well, only a couple of % of Gmail users at best will use the service. Google will be just fine in the big picture". I'm actually impressed that several people objected to removing an ad-supported revenue stream.