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

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#191

Post by JohnTHaller »

VieElm wrote: post #152
danso wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he wants free content without any convenience to him. He doesn't care about the so-called bigger picture, just the instant gratification he's been entitled to.

This isn't true, I'm perfectly willing to pay for content. I just don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked. Thanks to browser extensions I don't have to no matter how much that hurts your feelings. You say I'm entitled but it's actually you who isn't entitled to control how the software works on my computer. I'm perfectly willing to support business models that aren't terrible. Perhaps you might also consider us…

We show an ask for donations in place of the ads for users who block our ads (Simple, subtle, using the same colors and fonts as the rest of the site so it isn't distracting). A handful of users do donate. The vast majority do not. Interestingly, the users who donate are also the ones most likely to whitelist our site.

Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad when it isn't granted to them and turn up their noses at things like ads that support the content for the price they're willing to pay (free).

Re: UBlock Origin

#192

Post by Nadya »

danso wrote: post #182
Nadya wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shh... don't point out the hypocrisy of installing software but preventing the "Ask Toolbar" that it tries to install from installing. How dare you hurt their business model by preventing the program from installing spyware! You should be running IE with 12 different toolbars and Bonzi Buddy and the 90-day trial of McAfee.

OK, I'll answer this one. No software I own installs adware/spyware that I then uninstall or circumvent. This includes "free" commercial stuff like Chrome, Steam, the Kindle App, and Spotify. And then stuff I purchase licenses for, including Transmit, Sublime Text, Lightroom. The free consumer software that I do use, KeepassX and Handbrake, don't currently install adware/spyware. If they did, I wouldn't use them. So…

That wasn't directly targeted at you - but more the "pro-ad" people who support it as a business model. Many of them (not all, as you yourself prove) will uncheck the "install this" for bundleware. Which hurts that business model for software developers.

Now the main difference is that users can uncheck the bundleware in most installers. Few sites offer a pay-to-opt-out option against ads. So what options do users have to disable ads? They're forced to use an Adblocker to opt themselves out.

People turn to alternatives because it provides an easy-access alternative. Netflix soared in popularity and put Blockbuster out of business because you didn't have to visit a brick & mortar store to rent movies. Many people will pay to use Netflix rather than torrent for free, because Netflix provides a no-friction way of consumption.

Provide a way that's frictionless for users to disable ads. A once-a-year payment for $10-$20 does the job fine and likely makes you more per user than ads would. Give them a little flair badge or something trivial and cosmetic and you might convince even the Adblockers to impart some of their money to you.

There are other business models other than Ad Revenue. Many of those business models have been time-tested and work. Ads are the "lazy" way out that shows a lack of care towards your audience.

Re: UBlock Origin

#193

Post by JohnTHaller »

glesica wrote: post #105
JohnTHaller wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of people use ad blockers to block ads. That's why almost no ad blockers block GA, etc by default. Plus, from my other comment: "Many sites rely on Google Analytics to be able to do their own promotions and sponsorships, which is the only way they make money other than ads. By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. So, you use the site resources, don't see ads and don't add to their use…

> By blocking GA, the site doesn't see you as a visitor. They can still use server analytics to see me as a visitor. I even show up on Cloudflare. I don't want them tracking what I do on their site, it should be enough to know I showed up and asked for a specific page. If their business model relies on knowing more, then they chose a lousy business model. Why is there so much sympathy for ad-supported sites on HN but…

Many sponsors and partners will not accept log-based self-hosted stats as they can be easily faked. Many will only accept a 3rd party stats site like Google Analytics as they can be provided with a read-only view into it and know that the underlying data isn't faked. It could be gamed, of course, with some effort (botnet of IPs loading pages from the site, etc) but it's much more involved than faking a Piwik report. Of course, many of the blocklists that block GA also block self-hosted Piwik anyway.

There's sympathy for ad-supported sites because that's the vast majority of the internet's content. And micropayments, paid memberships, etc have almost universally failed with the exception of a few very large publishers and a few very specific niche publishers.

Re: UBlock Origin

#194

Post by nfoz »

kbenson wrote: post #181
marrs wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.

It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are s…

I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement.

If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.

Re: UBlock Origin

#195

Post by marrs »

kbenson wrote: post #181
marrs wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.

It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are s…

You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers aren't getting much value from the newspaper.

If you're telling me that disabling ads is bad manners then I put it to you that attempting to deceive the advertisers about the value of their ads is also bad manners. In fact I'm starting to wonder if it isn't my moral obligation to block adverts in order to help advertisers save money they would have otherwise wasted.

Re: UBlock Origin

#196

Post by VieElm »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #191
VieElm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true, I'm perfectly willing to pay for content. I just don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked. Thanks to browser extensions I don't have to no matter how much that hurts your feelings. You say I'm entitled but it's actually you who isn't entitled to control how the software works on my computer. I'm perfectly willing to support business models that aren't terrible. Perhaps you might also consider us…

We show an ask for donations in place of the ads for users who block our ads (Simple, subtle, using the same colors and fonts as the rest of the site so it isn't distracting). A handful of users do donate. The vast majority do not. Interestingly, the users who donate are also the ones most likely to whitelist our site. Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad whe…

Sounds like you've come up with a nice comfortable rationalization for creating bad experiences for your users. How convenient for you. You don't seem to think very highly of your site's visitors.

> Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad when it isn't granted to them and turn up their noses at things like ads that support the content for the price they're willing to pay (free).

This is an obvious generalization and an opinion you have. People who block ads do so because ads have been and continue to be annoying, exploitive, invasive and vectors for viruses. I am not sorry I block them, and you're not going to make me feel bad for making decisions about what my computer does or doesn't do.

Re: UBlock Origin

#197

Post by baddox »

DanBC wrote: post #179
VieElm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> uBlock blocks piwik all the same Good. I don't want to contribute to your analytics. I don't want ads. I just want to browse the web without being tracked. I don't care if that means you can't pay for your site, other sites will spring up that can without annoying users with ads and without tracking them.

But you're only blocking ads and analytics? You're not making any effort to avoid the sites that track?

Why avoid the sites that track if it's trivial to visit those sites without getting tracked?

Re: UBlock Origin

#198

Post by kbenson »

nfoz wrote: post #194
kbenson wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are s…

I would pay the premium for newspapers without ads. In fact, I do -- I support news organizations that aren't driven by advertisement. If you can't find a business model that doesn't antagonize me, then you haven't found a business model that I care to support. If capitalism is failing to provide us with even basic methods of producing quality works, then that's a problem we should tackle at a larger scale.

But this isn't about you choosing to pay for a source without ads, this is about people choosing the source with ads, and then removing them. Those are entirely different things.

Re: UBlock Origin

#199

Post by tshaddox »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #191
VieElm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true, I'm perfectly willing to pay for content. I just don't want ads and I don't want to be tracked. Thanks to browser extensions I don't have to no matter how much that hurts your feelings. You say I'm entitled but it's actually you who isn't entitled to control how the software works on my computer. I'm perfectly willing to support business models that aren't terrible. Perhaps you might also consider us…

We show an ask for donations in place of the ads for users who block our ads (Simple, subtle, using the same colors and fonts as the rest of the site so it isn't distracting). A handful of users do donate. The vast majority do not. Interestingly, the users who donate are also the ones most likely to whitelist our site. Most (but not all) users today feel entitled to content, games, music, etc for free and get mad whe…

Don't confuse the desire to not see ads with a feeling of entitlement. I fully support a website operator's right to detect that I am blocking ads and hide the content, or to make unblockable ads. I don't feel entitled to their resources. But if they do show content I'm interested in, I'll consume it. It's not at all a feeling of entitlement.

Re: UBlock Origin

#200

Post by Lawtonfogle »

talles wrote: post #63
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should I sell my soul to the devil and work on freemium, coins, exploit OCD and rich-parents kids, You can do freemium without selling your soul. Look at LoL or Path of Exile for the best examples. Others would be Bloons TD 5 or Bloons City, where coins allow you to skip ahead, but slow downs are not purposefully added. Only when you add something that basically drains the fun out of the game unless money is spent a…

I never played those games you mentioned but I don't get "allow you to skip ahead, but slow downs are not purposefully added" . If you can skip ahead by putting money on it you have slowed down who didn't (right?)

It is an issue of a fun gameplay mechanic. Slowing it down destroys the fun. Allowing it to be skipped doesn't destroy the fun, but does allow those not interested in it to skip it.

Consider a Mario game. Speeding up would be selling gems that let you skip a level. Slowing it down is saying you only get 3 lives ever 30 minutes unless you spend gems.

Or think of WoW. The leveling up is a fun part of the game, but after the second or third character, it gets far more boring and people are willing to pay to skip it. As more expansions came out, WoW actually made leveling easier. Then recently they added an option to skip the majority of the leveling and get straight to the end game. That is paying to speed it up.

Now consider Candy Crush. A fun game at the core, with levels that get harder and introduce new game play. All well and good. But then they added extreme cooldowns on everything. 1 life every 30 minutes with a max of 5 at a time. Periods where you have to wait 24 hours to go to the next section. Other powerups limited to once a day. That is purposefully slowing it down.

Post reply on HN