6 ms·

Yes, for now there is AdBlock. AdBlock basically works by blocking inline ads loaded from offsite - eventually someone is going to figure out how to get around

by javanix 17y ago

Yes, for now there is AdBlock. AdBlock basically works by blocking inline ads loaded from offsite - eventually someone is going to figure out how to get around it. And as far as "too intrusive", that will only last as long as people let it. It'll be the "slowly boiling water" technique, adding more and more intrusive ads slowly enough that there won't be an immediate backlash. Any company wishing to create content will have to figure out how to monetize it somehow, or else they'll have no reason or ability to create/provide the content in the first place, and right now, the current ad model just isn't enough for the level of profitability that traditional media are accustomed to. If YouTube, one of the most popular sites on the planet, can't come up with enough ad revenue to be profitable, the current status quo just isn't enough. Either they will need to scale back their site, or add a massively increased volume of ads.

calambrac 17y ago
eventually someone is going to figure out how to get around it It's not that hard to do, there's not much figuring out involved. It just doesn't make sense to serve ads to people who have actively taken steps to ensure that they don't see them. As for YouTube - do you realize how much data they deal with? Their costs are ridiculous; they're hardly the example you should be trotting out to inspire incredulity about the viability of the online advertising model.
- javanix 17y ago
  Of course their costs are ridiculous - I was trying to make the point that we are living in a "golden age" of relatively ad-free bliss on the internet. We won't have YouTube in its current, awesome-for-the-consumer implementation forever. Either they are going to have to start serving many many more ads, or they are going to have to scale back the amount of content they provide - both options are not really ideal from a user standpoint. I don't think the online advertising model is a failure - I just think there is a lot more room for increased ad volume with it. As traditional media outlets decline, we are going to see more and more of that room exploited on our screens. As far as AdBlock, no company wants to pay for eyes that they are never going to get on their ads. There was (and is) plenty of resistance to TiVo from the networks because they know that companies do not want to pay for commercials that consumers using TiVo can and will skip.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    There's a third option: ride it out on the revenues from the other business lines until the advances in software, processing speed, power consumption, storage, and network bandwidth drop your costs to a profitable level.
    - javanix 17y ago
      That might work for YouTube, but how many companies have the deep pockets of Google to ride it out long enough for technology advances to make their product profitable? There is no way the vast amount of free, professionally made, high-quality content we have available online now continues without some sort of tradeoff in either cost, increased ad exposure, or reduction in quality. The transition period the internet is in right now has to end sometime, and I'm pretty sure it will come down squarely on the side of the content providers/producers.
      - calambrac 17y ago
        Not too many, but we were talking specifically about YouTube, not some theoretical every-company. If you'll recall, my initial point in this thread was that it was kind of dumb to point to YouTube as if it were anything like a typical internet company.
        javanix 17y ago
        And if you look at my original point, you'll see that I was trying to point out that not everything can stay free and ad-minimal forever. I was simply using YouTube as an example of something that, absent of Google deciding to run it at a significant loss for 5 years (far from certain), will have to change its operating methods to something less pleasant to the consumer.
        calambrac 17y ago
        Where in our thread did I dispute that 'not everything can stay free and ad-minimal forever'? The only thing I ever said was that YouTube wasn't a good example supporting your point, because it was in a completely different situation from most of the rest of the web, and that because of its unique situation, it actually could continue on at a loss for quite a while longer than most. In other words, you were kind of right, but for the entirely wrong reason.

by javanix 17y ago

calambrac 17y ago

eventually someone is going to figure out how to get around it It's not that hard to do, there's not much figuring out involved. It just doesn't make sense to serve ads to people who have actively taken steps to ensure that they don't see them. As for YouTube - do you realize how much data they deal with? Their costs are ridiculous; they're hardly the example you should be trotting out to inspire incredulity about the viability of the online advertising model.

javanix 17y ago
Of course their costs are ridiculous - I was trying to make the point that we are living in a "golden age" of relatively ad-free bliss on the internet. We won't have YouTube in its current, awesome-for-the-consumer implementation forever. Either they are going to have to start serving many many more ads, or they are going to have to scale back the amount of content they provide - both options are not really ideal from a user standpoint. I don't think the online advertising model is a failure - I just think there is a lot more room for increased ad volume with it. As traditional media outlets decline, we are going to see more and more of that room exploited on our screens. As far as AdBlock, no company wants to pay for eyes that they are never going to get on their ads. There was (and is) plenty of resistance to TiVo from the networks because they know that companies do not want to pay for commercials that consumers using TiVo can and will skip.
- calambrac 17y ago
  There's a third option: ride it out on the revenues from the other business lines until the advances in software, processing speed, power consumption, storage, and network bandwidth drop your costs to a profitable level.
  - javanix 17y ago
    That might work for YouTube, but how many companies have the deep pockets of Google to ride it out long enough for technology advances to make their product profitable? There is no way the vast amount of free, professionally made, high-quality content we have available online now continues without some sort of tradeoff in either cost, increased ad exposure, or reduction in quality. The transition period the internet is in right now has to end sometime, and I'm pretty sure it will come down squarely on the side of the content providers/producers.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      Not too many, but we were talking specifically about YouTube, not some theoretical every-company. If you'll recall, my initial point in this thread was that it was kind of dumb to point to YouTube as if it were anything like a typical internet company.
      - javanix 17y ago
        And if you look at my original point, you'll see that I was trying to point out that not everything can stay free and ad-minimal forever. I was simply using YouTube as an example of something that, absent of Google deciding to run it at a significant loss for 5 years (far from certain), will have to change its operating methods to something less pleasant to the consumer.
        calambrac 17y ago
        Where in our thread did I dispute that 'not everything can stay free and ad-minimal forever'? The only thing I ever said was that YouTube wasn't a good example supporting your point, because it was in a completely different situation from most of the rest of the web, and that because of its unique situation, it actually could continue on at a loss for quite a while longer than most. In other words, you were kind of right, but for the entirely wrong reason.