3 ms·

Ads are the least bad option. The Web functions best if content is available without paywalls. The Web is about friction-free use, you click a link, you are fac

Ads are the least bad option. The Web functions best if content is available without paywalls. The Web is about friction-free use, you click a link, you are faced with walls. If we went to a micro-transaction based Web, where every link was behind a payment service, it would destroy crawlability, hamper sharing, and cast a chilling effect on people's behavior with respect to consuming content. The people producing content do need to eat and datacenters cost money too. You can either turn the entire Web into a giant App Store Mall where you pay for everything on demand, or we can have a free, open web, where 'curl' works, but you have to suffer the annoyance of banner ads and profiling (which people can do anyway with paywalls anyway) To me, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. I'd rather not see the Web behind a bazillion freemium pay-me links like we have on native. The real debate should be over how to make ads less annoying, more relevant, more pleasant, and let those who don't want to make the tradeoff make a micro-payment instead to opt-out of ads. If I could pay $50/year for an ad-free YouTube experience I probably would.

josu 13y ago
>If I could pay $50/year for an ad-free YouTube experience I probably would. When you can install adblock and get the same experience for free I'm not sure that many people would think that way. And the problem is that for most of the people that I have installed adblock for don't understand the moral implications of using it. I've tried to teach them how to deactivate it for pages they like, but they just didn't care because they didn't see the problem with having it always on. Most of the regular people around me don't understand how webpages make their money. They may say advertising, but if you question them any further all I get is blank stares.
- ninjac0der 13y ago
  I don't think tools like noscript, adblock would be nearly as popular if the content publishers hadn't gotten so greedy. I'll use the verge as an example, it's mostly text content yet hitting any page on their site feels like I'm loading a damn application. I want print, not a shifty application around the print. The pendulum will swing.
- ljf 13y ago
  People pay for itunes when they can get music for free, people pay for netflix when they can torrent or stream for free. Some people are happy to pay for services they like. Some aren't. But I think that you can make a business out of those that can be happy to pay, if the product is right.
isomorphic 13y ago
> The real debate should be over how to make ads less annoying, more relevant, more pleasant Doesn't it seem like Google would be the right company to determine how to make ads more relevant? Does it seem like they're getting better at this, or worse?
- sp332 13y ago
  Step 1. Find companies I actually care about and convince them to make ads to show.
edgarallenbro 13y ago
$50/year is wishful thinking. I pay $10/month for Spotify. Thats $120/year. I doubt YouTube would be cheaper
- jaynos 13y ago
  Spotify is working in the realm of artist royalties. Much less content on YouTube would be subject to this and if some form of royalty did go into effect, youtube would have a huge say in how it was setup.

josu 13y ago

>If I could pay $50/year for an ad-free YouTube experience I probably would. When you can install adblock and get the same experience for free I'm not sure that many people would think that way. And the problem is that for most of the people that I have installed adblock for don't understand the moral implications of using it. I've tried to teach them how to deactivate it for pages they like, but they just didn't care because they didn't see the problem with having it always on. Most of the regular people around me don't understand how webpages make their money. They may say advertising, but if you question them any further all I get is blank stares.

ninjac0der 13y ago
I don't think tools like noscript, adblock would be nearly as popular if the content publishers hadn't gotten so greedy. I'll use the verge as an example, it's mostly text content yet hitting any page on their site feels like I'm loading a damn application. I want print, not a shifty application around the print. The pendulum will swing.
ljf 13y ago
People pay for itunes when they can get music for free, people pay for netflix when they can torrent or stream for free. Some people are happy to pay for services they like. Some aren't. But I think that you can make a business out of those that can be happy to pay, if the product is right.

isomorphic 13y ago

> The real debate should be over how to make ads less annoying, more relevant, more pleasant Doesn't it seem like Google would be the right company to determine how to make ads more relevant? Does it seem like they're getting better at this, or worse?

sp332 13y ago
Step 1. Find companies I actually care about and convince them to make ads to show.

edgarallenbro 13y ago

$50/year is wishful thinking. I pay $10/month for Spotify. Thats $120/year. I doubt YouTube would be cheaper

jaynos 13y ago
Spotify is working in the realm of artist royalties. Much less content on YouTube would be subject to this and if some form of royalty did go into effect, youtube would have a huge say in how it was setup.