31–40 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Commercials on cable are fully skippable, since the first DVR in 1999. It's streaming that takes that freedom away.
Cable is an example of streaming; that particular freedom hasn't gone anywhere.
[flagged]
Is the privileged dude the one who coded the advertising system, or managed the team, or made the decision to use advertising for additional monetisation and got promoted for it?
Do they hate ads too, despite being that guy?
> The correct amount of ads for a publication that’s directly supported is zero. I basically agree with this sentiment, but one place where it can be a tricky balance (not saying that's the case here!) is "native advertising". For example, a new game is being released, the publisher collaborates with TheBrink, a hypothetical popular game news site, and for this they get a huge takeover banner advert for the week, inc…
Also fashion magazines would be boring without all the stylish fashion ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cable is an example of streaming; that particular freedom hasn't gone anywhere.
While I suppose you could describe cable as streaming it doesn’t really refute the point about the ability to skip adverts
The comment I responded to suggested that it's impossible to record video delivered over the internet, which is obviously insane. Were you thinking of something different?
Blame consumers for this. If a company sells a service for $10/mo ad-free and $9/mo completely loaded with ads, most people will pick the latter plan. Why won't they offer it then?
The real question is, why don't they have a completely free plan supported entirely by ads -- don't even try to get a huge premium for the ads, just sell lots of them, even if it's a 1:1 time relationship between ads and content. And then have another plan where you pay money and have zero ads.
Because the latter scheme should be the most profitable. To begin with you open up the market to people who wouldn't pay you at all but would watch ads, so you get more viewers, and on top of that it's effectively try before you buy where the trial requires watching ads, which means you can stay on it as long as you like because the service is still making money. People start watching a show and get tired of seeing ads so they subscribe, when they otherwise would never have started. Then you don't charge $10/mo for no ads, you charge $20, which is worth it to a lot of people because there are so many ads in the free version, and for the people it isn't you still make money from them by showing them lots of ads.
[flagged]
the desperately poor conveniently don’t have much time to critique society, so i guess we can’t do anything huh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also fashion magazines would be boring without all the stylish fashion ads.
Computer Shopper with no ads wouldn't have been worth buying either.