There are more than billion people in India who will be internet users and who don't have the ability to shell out this kind of money. 10 dollars is probably 2 day salary for many workers.
By the same logic, Google cannot charge much for targeting ads at those same people. So I am not sure what your point is.
The point is that targeted ads are a small price to pay for services like google that are so instrumental to the lives of most people. The reach that this model provides probably outweighs the benefits from being purely subscription based anyway.
I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…
> We do this by using local machine-learning to understand the user better, and making local decisions as to which ads should or should not be shown, and when (the user controls all of this) You realise that's what every ad-revenue driven company says right?
I don't think most ad-revenue driven companies claim that these things are done locally, which seems key.
Where can I file my adtech complaint against Google? (No where, trust me.) Their "algorithms" think an SVG on my site is malware (it's downloaded from the Apple website -- you know those "Get it on the app store" buttons?)
Now we can't even show an in-house ad without getting an error about the site having "malware".
Brave's strategy of replacing ads with other ads isn't going to do anyone any good. They could've used payment channels to build a content distribution network, but alas...
I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…
> We're not simply replacing ads. We're rescuing an industry.
This stinks of meaningless PR copy. You're rescuing an industry most people would like to see gone. If you want to do good, move away from Google-created products, and focus on the benefit for the common person, not for an industry.
By the same logic, Google cannot charge much for targeting ads at those same people. So I am not sure what your point is.
Price discrimination is harder to scale than ad targeting.
... they engage in price discrimination when they do ad targeting. You know it doesn't cost an advertiser the same amount to target people in India as it does over here, right?
Don't send me the content if you don't want me to render it as I see fit, I make no promises about how I will consume that data.
So can I ask, how would I as a website developer do that? If I don't want you blocking my ads, costing me money for servers and hosting, and removing my income stream, how do is signal to you or enforce that I will only send you content on the stipulation that you make a few promises on what you will display? Because in my experience, offering paid options to remove all ads and tracking if you want doesn't stop or ev…
You could statically serve ads from your servers, bypassing all targeting and user data collection but I understand that's not so lucrative.
I'd like to respond, as a developer on the Brave project. We don't simply replace ads with other ads. The entire ad landscape has been co-opted by those who aim to collect as much data about you as is possible. Over 600 million devices were running some form of ad-blocking software in 2017, and that was an increase of 30% from the year prior. This number keeps growing, year over year. Something has to be done. Users…
> We do this by using local machine-learning to understand the user better, and making local decisions as to which ads should or should not be shown, and when (the user controls all of this) You realise that's what every ad-revenue driven company says right?
My thoughts exactly. I really hoped there was something I missed about Brave, but it seems they are worse than I thought. Not just position itself as the middleman to take a cut from ad revenue, but trying to profile the users as well? All this with a PR crap of rescuing an industry. Call me old fashioned, but I would prefer my browser displaying documents.
People keep saying this but that's exactly how it's being done. This is what happens with regulation "on principle" instead of by the letter, which is what GDPR chose to be.
So, what you are saying is that my gmail doesn't work. Huh, that's weird, should I tell google?
No, that's not what I'm saying, but you already know that. Either way this isn't very productive unless you have some arguments.
By the same logic, Google cannot charge much for targeting ads at those same people. So I am not sure what your point is.
The point is that targeted ads are a small price to pay for services like google that are so instrumental to the lives of most people. The reach that this model provides probably outweighs the benefits from being purely subscription based anyway.
> The point is that targeted ads are a small price to pay
That's your personal opinion, and that's ok. However, others may and do have a different opinion.
Price discrimination is harder to scale than ad targeting.
... they engage in price discrimination when they do ad targeting. You know it doesn't cost an advertiser the same amount to target people in India as it does over here, right?
To be fair, advertisers are significantly less likely to complain about price discrimination than end users.