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

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#61

Post by thaumasiotes »

dambi0 wrote: post #43
thaumasiotes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? What can you do to a cable broadcast that you can't do to an internet broadcast? 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?

If something appears completely insane isn’t that often a good sign that we might not have understood. The comment you replied to was pointing out that it was possible to record from cable TV with DVRs and that they had a feature to detect commercials and either skip recording them or allow you skip them en masse during playback.

You left out the freedom that's supposedly missing from streaming now.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#62

Post by tonyedgecombe »

vasco wrote: post #55

Don't work in ads, never did, don't make money from them. I don't mind ads one bit, except video unskipable ones. I find stuff to buy there all the time, or discover new tools, sometimes I'll buy an equivalent thing years later that I remember I found first in an ad. If I want to research competitors to something, I just google the something and click the ads. And I also like that I like something that makes so many…

Don't feel you are unique, there are a lot of you out there and Google et all love you.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#63

Post by tonyedgecombe »

nox101 wrote: post #11

Disagree. Would I like zero ads? Yes, do I think a company should be required to offer a zero ad service for money? No. If you don't like that they have ads even if you pay then don't use the service. People still subscribe to newspaper even though they are full of ads. They paid money, they got an ad full paper. People still subscribe to cable TV even though it's full of ads. People still buy magazines (paid for the…

>No. If you don't like that they have ads even if you pay then don't use the service.

I'd prefer a world where we pay for services we are receiving.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#64

Post by the_gipsy »

unsungNovelty wrote: post #60

This is a bad take. Ads are not the problem. Behavioural ads with suriveillance and data economy is. Static ads or contextual ads are the answer. Some of the best examples I can think of on the top of my head is duckduckgo.com and https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/ Paywall doesn't stop data surveillance. All the news sites have become paywalled because ads revenue dried up because people installing ad blocker…

Ads are always bad. Poor or unemployed people get bombarded with lifestyle messages on a daily basis. That is psychologically damaging.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#65

Post by tonyedgecombe »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #37
paxys wrote: post #2

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 people most likely to pay the extra $1 are the people who will watch the most, and then they'd lose more than $1/mo from them in ad impressions. 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…

>The people most likely to pay the extra $1 are the people who will watch the most

No the people who pay the extra are the ones who are most able to afford it. The outcome is still the same though as these are the people the advertisers want to target.

The people who can't afford the extra dollar are of very little value to the advertisers.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#66

Post by lazyasciiart »

dhosek wrote: post #19
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People still subscribe to cable TV even though it's full of ads. Back in the day (yes, I'm that old) the selling point of cable was "TV without any ads". It was marketed as expensive and upscale TV, though. And people don't really want to pay for content, so this business model didn't work out in the end.

You must be really old because the selling point was always more channels/better quality picture. No ads was reserved for the premium channels (HBO and Showtime) which were an added fee. There were a small number of basic cable channels which were ad-free (AMC and TCM, if I recall correctly were originally both ad-free), but most basic cable channels had ads (and some were just re-feeds of independent broadcast “supe…

Or they could be foreign :) When cable TV launched in Australia, for the first couple of years ads during shows were banned.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#68

Post by contrast »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #44

It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. H…

You’re making a very different point to the article. The article is about how to pay for content, your point is that you don’t want to pay for content at all.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#69

Post by renewiltord »

Personally, I think the correct amount of subscription fee is zero and ads should be zero too. It’s unethical to charge for information you have that could improve someone else’s life. It’s near zero marginal cost to give it to them and you’re just going to hoard it?

We should ban paying for information at the federal level to prevent this horrific practice.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#70

Post by vasco »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #62
vasco wrote: post #55

Don't work in ads, never did, don't make money from them. I don't mind ads one bit, except video unskipable ones. I find stuff to buy there all the time, or discover new tools, sometimes I'll buy an equivalent thing years later that I remember I found first in an ad. If I want to research competitors to something, I just google the something and click the ads. And I also like that I like something that makes so many…

Don't feel you are unique, there are a lot of you out there and Google et all love you.

I made no claims of uniqueness!
Post reply on HN