Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The web's original sin

quirksmode.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: The web's original sin

#71

Post by Diamons »

mwcampbell wrote: post #41
Diamons wrote: post #24

I don't understand. This article claims users feel entitled to free content on the internet and then goes into a rant about pricing and ad blockers while doing nothing to address the glaring fact that he himself thinks he's entitled to make money off of content. The internet is for the people. It is a free and open service for anyone to use. The only one entitled is the content creator who feels that they have a righ…

> The internet is for people, not for businesses. Businesses are just people trying to make a living, which just about everyone has to do.

There are plenty of ways to make a living. If starbucks can sell you $5 coffee, you can make money from a website. But if your creativity is limited to create content + place ads, you have 0 right to bitch and moan about consumers using ad blockers.

Re: The web's original sin

#73

Post by kelvin0 »

"The price difference between desktop apps and tablet/mobile apps does not make any sense, but everybody pretends it does. It’s one of the minor mysteries of the mobile world(...)"

The barrier to entry in the mobile dev world is definitely lower than on PC/Console. Simply put, when you buy a PC game you can expect AAA content which necessitates vast amounts of resources (game studios?). Of course there are exceptions to the previous statement. But the memory and CPU constraints of a mobile platform simply cannot compete with what is available on PC. Its a simple equation, if you need more resources to crank out a product, its also is going to cost more.

Re: The web's original sin

#75

Post by dangoor »

mikeash wrote: post #60
notahacker wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the OP, but I'd say many objections to "content" is less to do with it describing a web composed of documents and more to do with it describing a web composed of documents conceived as a means rather than an end. "Content" is to a large extend marketing shorthand for "text which improves our conversion funnel or sells CPM slots by being well optimised for search queries and/or social clicks". Which…

"Content" is to a large extend marketing shorthand for "text which improves our conversion funnel or sells CPM slots by being well optimised for search queries and/or social clicks". I guess that's the disconnect. I see that some people use it that way, but to me it's far more broad than that. I would certainly refer to blogs and other such things as "content" too.

I also find "content" to be a useful shorthand for things like podcasts and videos which can't be lumped in with "writing".

Re: The web's original sin

#76

Post by [deleted] »

liotier wrote: post #12

When I open my mouth to talk to my neighbor, I am not producing "content" - I am communicating. The Web is a communication medium. The lack of commercial functionality baked in the communication medium is a feature not a bug. Whoever uses the word "content" betray his bias as a commercial publisher.

[deleted]

Re: The web's original sin

#77

Post by mudil »

liotier wrote: post #12

When I open my mouth to talk to my neighbor, I am not producing "content" - I am communicating. The Web is a communication medium. The lack of commercial functionality baked in the communication medium is a feature not a bug. Whoever uses the word "content" betray his bias as a commercial publisher.

When a web publisher produces a content, it constitutes someone's work. It's different than talking to your neighbor.

Re: The web's original sin

#78

Post by lmm »

I think the teleology is correct. The web had competitors. Some of them weren't free. See which ones won.

If your collective action requires that everyone not do something that's fun and that ordinary people can do (blogging) then it is doomed to failure. As people realise there is no money in web content, there will be less web content. That's ok. There will still be more than enough.

Re: The web's original sin

#79

Post by pmontra »

> I found an estimate that ad blockers will cost publishers $22 billion in revenue

My first reaction was that consumers will save $22 billions because those ads are eventually paid by them. Well, not really, because some of those money will go into paywalls. More or less? Instict says less because people don't want to pay. We'll see how it plays out.

Re: The web's original sin

#80

Post by dpc_pw »

> For a desktop computer game, $/€25 is considered a reasonable price — and physical board games are often much more expensive. But as soon as people are invited to spend that money on an iOS or Android app, they soberly point out that that’s a LOT of money and they aren’t sure the app is worth it.

Mobile devices are terrible for playing games. I can't imagine playing something > 100 hours on a phone/tablet...

I actually stopped considering using mobile devices for anything that is not commute/alarm/on the go communication related too.

Post reply on HN