91–100 of 269 posts
>a small portion is kept by Google to cover the cost of running the service This is incredibly cheeky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they going to show you no ads if they don't know it's you? They have to track you for it to work.
I think GP means that you're signed in with Google, so you have a cookie linking your browser to your account, but Google does not do anything with the metadata from the requests that include the cookie of a paying contributor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that most (all?) site subscriptions now are all-or-nothing, and even if you do like a site, you probably like several, and paying $10-$30 per month (or whatever) each for even 5 different sites starts adding up real fast. If sites were to offer an "article bank", it might be more compelling: you put in $X and that buys you Y articles, which you can read over the span of days, months, or years. But no o…
Or just buy a games console. Articles on the internet exist primarily as free entertainment. If I am going to spend money on entertainment, there are much more fulfilling options.
[1] Read: Addiction. :)
I really think a much better system would be for websites to adopt GNU Taler, and allow people to conduct micropayments using digital cash. The system is about as seamless as Flattr, except that the website can actually charge an amount rather than a fraction. But, most importantly, Flattr guarantees the anonymity of consumers' transactions. So the big G won't have a log of what websites you paid to access.
The data is still being generated. It's a matter of whom you trust with this data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful And more importantly, with the guarantee of "no tracking whatsoever" (rather than just not 'showing' ads). Then, some of my friends would start trusting Google again (and are already willing to pay for something like that).
How are they going to show you no ads if they don't know it's you? They have to track you for it to work.
This doesn't seem that useful to me as only a small number of sites (none of which I visit) support it. Hypothetical question: If I were allowed to bid on my own ad impressions - and if I won an auction, no ad would be shown - how much would it cost a month for me to see no adverts? (I realize this is heavily dependent upon the type of sites that are involved, so I guess take the average HN user as an example).
Don't know, feels a bit like ransom when coming from Google, not the publisher.
Also what I thought. If this starts becoming widely used, then Google would be essentially getting a share out of the tip that readers would be giving to publishers, only for the service of "not showing ads and redistributing money".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they going to show you no ads if they don't know it's you? They have to track you for it to work.
They already have my sign in information. When I say no tracking, I mean nothing other than that. Like what I search, which sites I go to, which videos I watch on YouTube, or mining my photographs for more advertising hints, and what not.
This doesn't seem that useful to me as only a small number of sites (none of which I visit) support it. Hypothetical question: If I were allowed to bid on my own ad impressions - and if I won an auction, no ad would be shown - how much would it cost a month for me to see no adverts? (I realize this is heavily dependent upon the type of sites that are involved, so I guess take the average HN user as an example).
CPM (cost per mille) is highly variable per site, but $1-$10 captures most of them. So one of your views is worth 0.1 to 1 dollar cents.