141–150 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I think it is clear he made a deal with Google, with or without monetary compensation I do not know. Please slap me with proof that I'm wrong, I so wish to be wrong.
Maybe Mozilla encouraged him in this direction, since they're friendly with Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Mozilla encouraged him in this direction, since they're friendly with Google?
I don't know how friendly they are now, given Chrome and Google apparently declining to renew its payments to Mozilla that were a big chunk of Mozilla's budget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But your initial decision was to turn off ads, in opposition to your desire to support sites you like, which led to your current notion of where things should be on the page. Basic sanity determines where things should appear on the page. Ads, by definition, try to draw your attention from useful content. If they provided the content you wanted, we wouldn't call them ads.
Allow me to offer a different take on this. I spend a lot of time looking for companies who will fabricate printed circuit boards for my small business. So much time, in fact, that I often see ads for circuit board companies. And these are actually welcome! I click through, check their prices, and sometimes in the course of doing so I find good deals on other related products (business cards, shipping materials, etc.…
Regarding companies who can do small-run circuit board fabrication, I highly recommend Screaming Circuits: http://www.screamingcircuits.com/ . They do both fabrication and assembly. Also check out Sunstone: http://www.sunstone.com/
"We have agreements with some websites and advertisers..." Uh huh..
Cannot upvote this enough. I think that's actually the whole point. ABP was always "impartial": all ads were blocked. Deciding which ads are blocked, and which ones aren't is already a subjective decision. BUT , knowing that you can make agreements with ABP folks to get your ads through is insane. Makes all other arguments moot.
Regardless of if money is changing hands as a result of any agreement, I think this is a great move that will be able to positively affect the web advertising landscape.
It is unfortunate that many people commenting here didn't bother to RTFA. In particular, from the FAQ: Are you stupid? Nobody wants this! The results of our user survey say something different. Only 25% of the Adblock Plus users seem to be strictly against any advertising. They will disable this feature and that's fine. The other users replied that they would accept some kinds of advertising to help websites. Some us…
I've "read the fucking article", and my take-away is that Wladmir is, in effect, selling ads. In return for some sort of consideration and a pledge to only provide "acceptable" advertising, Wladmir will unblock your ads by default in AdBlock Plus: > We have agreements with some websites and advertisers that only advertising matching our criteria will be used, their ads will be unblocked then. We hope to grow our list…
In fact, as a result of this article I've just installed AdBlock Plus for the first time since it now does, by default, exactly what I've always wanted in a blocking tool - and I appreciate as a feature the fact that it required exactly zero configuration to do so.
Beginning of the end. It's nice that the developers are giving users a choice, even if it's opt-out not opt-in. But AdBlock Plus is a tool to remove ads- that's it. And they're extremely good at it. The moment they become politicized and try to be "a tool to support small websites" or whatever nonsense, marks the beginning of the end.
This is the beginning of the beginning for me. I've never used AdBlock despite being aware of it from the start because I've always felt it breaks the economics of the web. If it becomes a tool to weed out the bad apples while not punishing the rest, I'll actually start using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the beginning of the beginning for me. I've never used AdBlock despite being aware of it from the start because I've always felt it breaks the economics of the web. If it becomes a tool to weed out the bad apples while not punishing the rest, I'll actually start using it.
You could always a) white-list pages where you do not want ads to be blocked and b) decide on the ads to block yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you can bet that option gets turned on every time they release a new update" That's a rather unfair assumption.
All you have to do is look at Facebook and privacy settings. And here there'll actually be extra revenue at stake, so there is more incentive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've "read the fucking article", and my take-away is that Wladmir is, in effect, selling ads. In return for some sort of consideration and a pledge to only provide "acceptable" advertising, Wladmir will unblock your ads by default in AdBlock Plus: > We have agreements with some websites and advertisers that only advertising matching our criteria will be used, their ads will be unblocked then. We hope to grow our list…
Actually, Wladimir's incentives are now aligned precisely with mine - to provide a means for me to not have to see all the noisy, obtrusive crap but still support websites providing me with free content in general (note: this means whitelists are -not- sufficient for me, and blacklists would be overly irritating to maintain). In fact, as a result of this article I've just installed AdBlock Plus for the first time sin…
That aside, I wish to address the "free content" dichotomy (either we accept ads, or we lose free content ).
First of all, the content is not free; there are both tangible and intangible costs to you; advertising is funded through higher prices on the products we buy, and there are the intangible costs to being inundated with ads.
Second, advertising is surely not the only viable model. If adblocking were to actually succeed in undermining the web advertising industry, it would also provide impetus for the development of low-resistance web payment mechanisms, similar to the app stores and in-app purchasing that have revolutionized content purchasing on mobile devices.
In other words: 100% blocking of advertisements would not lead to the loss of "free" (but not really free) content, it would merely lead to the establishment of a more direct and efficient mechanism for funding that content.