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

Wait, Google Sent Me

chrome.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 246 posts

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#161

Post by ryandrake »

manigandham wrote: post #143
scrollaway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite a bit absurd to complain about technical solutions which fullfill the needs of users. If a source of income revolves around annoying users into paying and for them not to find a way around such annoyances, don't expect it to last forever. In this model, I consider the whole tactic to be publishers relying too much on Google's policy in the first place. If they change that policy, said publishers are screwe…

Life and business is all about 3rd parties and working with and against them. It's quite easy to say that things should just be better but it's not like all these publishers are stupid and just sitting around not trying to come up with better solutions. This is actually the best we have at this moment without a massive shift in how the web works. The fact is that the internet makes things very easy to take without re…

There's no taking going on here. Taking something implies a transfer of possession, leaving one party no longer in possession of that thing. My browsing a web page does not result in such an outcome.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#162

Post by pkaye »

umurkontaci wrote: post #145

I have actually made a bookmarklet that allows you to do the same without installing an extension. https://umur.io/paywall-bypass-bookmarklet-come-from-google/ Related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9134118

That is pretty slick. I prefer something lightweight like this.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#163

Post by jashkenas »

umurkontaci wrote: post #145

I have actually made a bookmarklet that allows you to do the same without installing an extension. https://umur.io/paywall-bypass-bookmarklet-come-from-google/ Related HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9134118

Very nice approach. I didn't know that Google had that auto-redirect feature.

But it's not working reliably for me. Frequently, when I click the bookmarklet, it gets stuck on a blank page. Does it work every time for you?

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#164

Post by scrollaway »

manigandham wrote: post #143
scrollaway wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite a bit absurd to complain about technical solutions which fullfill the needs of users. If a source of income revolves around annoying users into paying and for them not to find a way around such annoyances, don't expect it to last forever. In this model, I consider the whole tactic to be publishers relying too much on Google's policy in the first place. If they change that policy, said publishers are screwe…

Life and business is all about 3rd parties and working with and against them. It's quite easy to say that things should just be better but it's not like all these publishers are stupid and just sitting around not trying to come up with better solutions. This is actually the best we have at this moment without a massive shift in how the web works. The fact is that the internet makes things very easy to take without re…

> Just because it's easy though, doesn't make it "right".

If something is both easy and rewarding for those who do it, don't base your business on trusting people not to do it.

Consequentially, don't base your morality code on a notion of "people shouldn't do it". They shouldn't do it because it hurts businesses, but it only hurts businesses because they're foolish enough to make the first mistake.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#165

Post by bdcravens »

manigandham wrote: post #146
bdcravens wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that Google, HN, "share" links etc is free advertising. Media says that certain discovery channels (Google) should be let in, while other (HN, emailed links, etc) shouldn't. This extension only equalizes that. Perhaps a better extension would be to hide organic search results in Google for pay-walled content providers, while leaving AdWords links intact. In the interests of protecting profit-based interest…

Publishers are all for-profit, they just choose different monetization models. Whether it's ads or paywall, content is content. Why should it be ok for Google to discriminate which content is shown by the host's business model instead of the relevance and quality of the content?

I'm cool with content providers charging. What I'm not ok with is some discovery channels getting free access to that content, while others don't.

As far as Google is concerned, they're a business, not a public utility. If a content provider can choose what and whom to show to, so can Google.

The ethical approach would be to not be indexed by Google, but rather, use a pure paid ads approach (or a revenue sharing model).

To not have a universal interaction model is deceptive. (I search on Google, see an article, click, and use your nifty sharing widget, but those I share with are prompted to subscribe, and now I look bad)

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#166

Post by donohoe »

OrwellianChild wrote: post #130
mapgrep wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.

This raised an interesting question for me - how much money is saved on a per-subscriber basis by sending the digital version vs. print (for the NYT)? Their pricing certainly doesn't reflect it: Web + Smartphone: $3.75/wk $16.25/mo $195/yr Web + Tablet: $5.00/wk $21.67/mo $260/yr All Digital Access: $8.75/wk $37.92/mo $455/yr 7-Day Home Delivery: $8.90/wk $38.57/mo $463/yr There are multiple levels of insanity here:…

Actually, thats not true. A broad amount of research wen tin to this (originally at least).

There is a method to this madness :)

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#167

Post by Too »

manigandham wrote: post #156
bdcravens wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traffic flowing through one discovery channel is free, but traffic flowing through another isn't. While technically separate from net neutrality as it's happening in a different place in the networking stack, it's the same principle: if it flows over the network, it should be equal.

That's not the same thing: Net neutrality is about the service provider not getting involved in what the service carries. A content owner can freely decide who can/cant view their content, that's completely up to them. Same way we have regional rights for video content. Just because we want it to be equal doesn't take their rights away, regardless of consumer perception, etc.

"We don't serve Jews here."

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#168

Post by donohoe »

mapgrep wrote: post #76
donohoe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with thin…

Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.

   The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past.
Yes and No. Print advertising is significantly worth more than web. Thats not "in the past' that is alive and well (but declining). Still high.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#169

Post by donohoe »

gambiter wrote: post #139
donohoe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with thin…

When have micro-payments actually been used in any meaningful way? I've only seen companies complaining that they aren't viable. They were certainly quick to make the choice for me. Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique. This seems…

   ...have become irrelevant
Please read this article:

"Cuomo Orders Emergency Measures to Protect Workers at Nail Salons" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/cuomo-orders-emer...

That response by a state governor was in due to an article in The New York Times from a week ago.

Also, do not underestimate the amount of original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose.

Irrelevant? Do some measure of homework.

Re: Wait, Google Sent Me

#170

Post by mapgrep »

donohoe wrote: post #168
mapgrep wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.

The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Yes and No. Print advertising is significantly worth more than web. Thats not "in the past' that is alive and well (but declining). Still high.

Ya but then isn't it pretty logical that people use a browser extension to get around buying subscriptions that are priced artificially high to protect a soon-to-be-obsolete revenue stream?
Post reply on HN