Notes from an Emergency [video]

For sites you tell that it's ethical, like above, and that users won't block it because it's cached at your own server (you can do that because you don't track users). That may compensate for the smaller price. If it doesn't now, it will once more people start blocking ads.

For users you tell that it won't harm them, so they don't need to look into blockers (it will work if you take some effort to avoid malware too), and if they start blocking this kind of ad, you won't have any competitive advantage so harmful ads will win.

It's what those independent European politicians are already pushing. They couldn't care less about a little technocratic tweak like "only target ads based on content". They want rules, fines, and discretion that lets them bend internet media to match their ideologies and establishments. (Not to advance the progressive aims Ceglowski prefers.)

Maybe in a future presentation Ceglowski can explain the specific regulations he wants – how they can win enactment & then achieve good results. But he didn't even get to them in his time here, and even in the full transcript they're just superficial bullet points. That makes them seem like perfunctory afterthoughts – not at all ready to appear on the agenda, compared to the actual, rapidly-advancing internet-censorship regulations that Europe is already pushing.

EDIT:

Also, "you lost me" kool kid dismissal is supposed to be used with things mentioned early in the piece of writing, not with literally the last two sentences of the post. You admitted that you read everything, so no points for style :P.

1) Money from selling useful software that people buy

2) The web as an information source. Apps are actually software that is (paid for and) installed

3) The PC as hub for the user's digital Life"

That is not what got Microsoft where they were. Microsoft cut deals with monopoly and oligopoly providers to make their stuff defaults. They used all kinds of shady techniques to create network effects such as getting OEM's to use them by default instead of competition (consumers rarely switch). Then, their lockin due to obscure data formats and protocols made transitioning or interoperability very difficult. Like IBM and Oracle, they kept patenting things (artificial monopolies) to use to sue or force acquisitions of opponents. For open standards, they practiced "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish." These kind of techniques created a situation where customers were essentially forced to stay on or acquire their products to be part of the ecosystem which was 90% of the market or something. This got them billions of dollars plus a lot of antitrust action.

"Instead, with help from the DOJ, Microsoft lost, and now we have the Google model"

Microsoft is still one of the richest companies in existence along with IBM and Apple. These still use the old models (licensing software and suing w/ patents) plus offer stuff with the new model. It didn't go away due to regulation. There's tons of proprietary apps out there.

"1) Software and services given away as enticement for user data which is then sold to advertisers.

2) Primacy of the web app over installed apps."

Web primacy wasn't due to antitrust or anything like that. Web apps have no installation, work across devices (in theory), and update automatically. The reason native apps didn't is because of greedy companies in private sector fighting with each other more than helping each other. A regulation making a standard might have actually helped just because there would be a deployment target. The ad-driven model came from market demand where they consistently and massively chose ad-funded sites over stuff they paid for. This combined with VC money, copyright/patent monopolies, and sometimes Wall St requirements post-IPO created with private sector bribes to politicians turned that into new oligopolies of companies that are dominating certain areas such as search, email, e-commerce, payment, and social media.

So, a combination of foolish demand by markets, choices by VC's, founders wanting to be rich, CEO's doing as much monopolistic practice as possible, companies fighting instead of working on common ground, and corrupt politicians collectively led to this situation. It was improved a little bit on a few occasions by regulation but overall its impact pales in comparison to other factors.