3 ms·

It's an arms race with a very easy to predict winner. Any scheme to force users to see ads is likely going to conform very closely to the precedent set by DRM.

by beloch 11y ago

It's an arms race with a very easy to predict winner. Any scheme to force users to see ads is likely going to conform very closely to the precedent set by DRM. e.g. MPAA and RIAA vs fair-use and content sharing. A few 9-to-5 corps don't have a hope in hell of building something that will thwart everyone who hates advertising.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> It's an arms race with a very easy to predict winner. Any scheme to force users to see ads is likely going to conform very closely to the precedent set by DRM. e.g. MPAA and RIAA vs fair-use and content sharing. A few 9-to-5 corps don't have a hope in hell of building something that will thwart everyone who hates advertising. That doesn't bode well for adblockers, then. DRM has been incredibly successful at (a) acclimating consumers to the idea that they can't own digital goods[0], even the ones that they have purchased; and (b) stifling innovation in the music industry for the last 15 years[1]. The status quo is that users have both the right and the ability to block ads. (The only missing piece is the knowledge or awareness of how to do so). In a DMCA-like situation, I can't see how things would realistically change for consumers for the better. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211 [1] Spotify doesn't count, since it's partially owned by the record labels. So the last major leap forward was.... iTunes? That was 2001.
- WalterGR 11y ago
  Spotify doesn't count, since it's partially owned by the record labels. So the last major leap forward was.... iTunes? That was 2001. Also in 2001, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_service) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_servic... : "Rhapsody was the first streaming on-demand music subscription service to offer unlimited access to a large library of digital music for a flat monthly fee..."
rtpg 11y ago
the major difference is that with ads, there is a solution to hide the ads in the content (native advertising). Native advertising is what's going to get us.
- gnoway 11y ago
  I usually see this in the context of movies and TV, not web stuff. How would you do native advertising in a web article? As for native advertising in tv/movies, we've had that already for years if not decades; if that were going to be 'the answer' it would already be the answer.
  - quotemstr 11y ago
    > How would you do native advertising in a web article? With the whole article. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/243797/forbes-puts-native-ad-on-cover.html http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/243797/forbes-... http://www.experiencetheblog.com/2014/08/new-york-times-native-advertising-FTC.html http://www.experiencetheblog.com/2014/08/new-york-times-nati...

by beloch 11y ago

chimeracoder 11y ago

> It's an arms race with a very easy to predict winner. Any scheme to force users to see ads is likely going to conform very closely to the precedent set by DRM. e.g. MPAA and RIAA vs fair-use and content sharing. A few 9-to-5 corps don't have a hope in hell of building something that will thwart everyone who hates advertising. That doesn't bode well for adblockers, then. DRM has been incredibly successful at (a) acclimating consumers to the idea that they can't own digital goods[0], even the ones that they have purchased; and (b) stifling innovation in the music industry for the last 15 years[1]. The status quo is that users have both the right and the ability to block ads. (The only missing piece is the knowledge or awareness of how to do so). In a DMCA-like situation, I can't see how things would realistically change for consumers for the better. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211 [1] Spotify doesn't count, since it's partially owned by the record labels. So the last major leap forward was.... iTunes? That was 2001.

WalterGR 11y ago
Spotify doesn't count, since it's partially owned by the record labels. So the last major leap forward was.... iTunes? That was 2001. Also in 2001, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_service) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhapsody_(online_music_servic... : "Rhapsody was the first streaming on-demand music subscription service to offer unlimited access to a large library of digital music for a flat monthly fee..."

rtpg 11y ago

the major difference is that with ads, there is a solution to hide the ads in the content (native advertising). Native advertising is what's going to get us.

gnoway 11y ago
I usually see this in the context of movies and TV, not web stuff. How would you do native advertising in a web article? As for native advertising in tv/movies, we've had that already for years if not decades; if that were going to be 'the answer' it would already be the answer.
- quotemstr 11y ago
  > How would you do native advertising in a web article? With the whole article. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/243797/forbes-puts-native-ad-on-cover.html http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/243797/forbes-... http://www.experiencetheblog.com/2014/08/new-york-times-native-advertising-FTC.html http://www.experiencetheblog.com/2014/08/new-york-times-nati...