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

What the ad blocker debate reveals

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 159 posts

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#91

Post by coldpie »

tdkl wrote: post #22
alkonaut wrote: post #11

I understand why it's a genius strategy from Apple to make mobile browsing free from ads (Googles lifeblood), but I don't see why it's such a huge deal to Google; they already have a mobile platform of their own where ad blocking was always possible and widespread. You could see this step from Apple as an aggressive one towards Google, or just as reaching feature parity with Android on ad-blocking. What will be inter…

> where ad blocking was always possible and widespread. Majority of people don't root.

Hmm? Firefox and ublock origin don't require root. It won't block in-app ads, but that's not what is being discussed here.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#92

Post by yoz-y »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #76
yoz-y wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current world of abundance, advertising is crucial to content and product producers. Let's say you make an application, how do you sell it if nobody knows about it? You make a nifty product, how do you make people know it exists? Advertising, in principle, is good, the way it is done currently on the Web is awful.

I used to think this but I have come around to the opposite opinion. We have tools, these days, to rate and rank products. We have tools to search for them. We have tools to get nifty new ideas out to the public as quick as you can say "gone viral". Buyers don't need advertising at all. It's purely a system to confound rational consumer choice these days, to maintain the viability of companies that shouldn't be viabl…

This can work for some products but not for all. For example I rarely do a research on what movie to go to see. If it was not advertised somewhere (e.g.: trailer before another movie, a print ad in a bus stop) then there is little chance I will decide to go and see it. Same goes for applications, yes there are channels for ranking and rating them and most of them are subpar to say the least (with the system often being gamed or skewed because of often lazy users).

I've come to know many of the services and apps I use through channels like podcast and blog advertising. When done right, ads can be enjoyable (for example they are the only thing worth reading in an in-flight magazine)

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#93

Post by moron4hire »

scott_s wrote: post #61
moron4hire wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, fine, then how does HBO do it? If I want to have the NY Times, it's $32/mo [0], plus I have to let them ride my shoulder as I go about the rest of my business online. HBO Now is $15/mo [1], the only ads I get are in between episodes and only for other shows on HBO. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp3004.htm... they charge different rates for different screen sizes, which I find highly o…

I pay $15 a month for the NY Times, and I read it on all devices (laptop, iPhone, iPad). Their webpage is the best in the business, and I find it fine for all devices. To answer your question: I do not know. But I don't find it a useful comparison; while they both produce "content", the content itself is vastly different. Producing shows with the quality of, say, Game of Thrones, is expensive, but so is having and se…

I don't think the nature of the content changes much. They both have employees to pay. They both have infrastructure costs. They both live off of people consuming their stuff. HBO has competitors who use NY Times revenue model. HBO even publishes at least a small amount of investigative journalism.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#94

Post by JulianMorrison »

jakobegger wrote: post #84
yoz-y wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current world of abundance, advertising is crucial to content and product producers. Let's say you make an application, how do you sell it if nobody knows about it? You make a nifty product, how do you make people know it exists? Advertising, in principle, is good, the way it is done currently on the Web is awful.

If it's a good product, it will spread by word of mouth. Advertising can help sales, but it's by no means the only way to do sales.

It will also spread by Amazon reviews, Google search rank, positive press, and a great many other means of communication. This is not the 20th century when it was voice, TV, print, or nothing.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#95

Post by TeMPOraL »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #41
toyg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publicity is the lifeblood of commerce. As long as one seller exists, one or more advertisers will also exist to help him sell more. Sad but true.

If all ads get blocked, all advertisers go bust.

There will always be advertising. The point is, we shouldn't tolerate anything but honest, decent one.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#96

Post by VLM »

jacquesm wrote: post #21
[deleted] wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> what is to stop the ad being switched to something else (video, pr0n eptc) on the 3rd party server? That's when you're lucky. If you're unlucky it's malware injected via ad networks. Browsing the web without an adblocker is like sex with multiple partners every day without a condom.

Bad analogy because that could be fun, although diseased. Ads are not fun.

Its more like being a paramedic/EMT and not being allowed to wear gloves on call at blood covered scenes. Well I'm sorry that corporate policy won't let you wear gloves anymore but "we have to" keep profits up for the hepatitis and HIV treatment drug industries so you'll just have to deal with it.

A standard HN automotive analogy would be working as a car mechanic while not being allowed to wear safety gear.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#97

Post by toyg »

johnchristopher wrote: post #70
toyg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you could hand the magazine to a 3-year old who can't read, and he'll cut out all pictures for you. Nitpickers, these days...

Are you really saying you would let a 3-year old operate that ad cutting physical machine mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9995459 ? Adults, these days... :]

My 3-year-old is perfectly fine with a pair of safe scissors, as long as we keep him away from curtains and other should-not-cut materials.

Luckily, we have no need for ad-cutting on kindle...

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#98

Post by JoshTriplett »

hibikir wrote: post #40
Donzo wrote: post #5

Publishers have done this to themselves with obstrusive intersitals; slow, over-the-content pop-ups; autoplaying video and audio ads; and other extremely annoying and degrading ad implementations. They have destroyed the browsing experience. If publishers were more ethical with their implementations of advertising technologies, fewer people would be driven to use ad-blocking.

It's a Tragedy of the Commons situation: When we block ads, we do it relatively aggressively, so those that implement advertising in an acceptable way get crushed anyway. You are either using ads people don't see, or doing terrible things like many Minecraft mods, often downloaded by kids, and hosted at a particularly nasty site where the obvious download link gives you malware. To block horrible things like that, we…

> so those that implement advertising in an acceptable way get crushed anyway

I have yet to see any ad blocker that blocks a simple link along with text like "I used this and here's how it helped me". I don't consider any other forms of advertising "acceptable".

> Pay people not to post advertisements on their page, but to actively talk about you in the same way they talk about other things on their site.

A couple of sites I read occasionally mention products they've used, and now that they're popular, they also mention whether or not they're getting any money for mentioning the product. As long as that money gets mentioned, and the actual opinion is genuine, I see nothing wrong with this.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#99

Post by jfoster »

Nursie wrote: post #29
danr4 wrote: post #2

It's rather simple in my mind. Putting your content up for free is the same as standing by my fence, waiting for me to ask you to throw your magazine over so I could read it. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Don't want me to cut out the ads? tough luck, my reading experience, my choice. Want to make money? try a subscription model. Why can't you have both? Welcome to…

I think it's simple too, but doesn't need a meatspace analogy like that. I request some data, you send me some data. My computing device (yes MY computing device) then renders it in accordance with my wishes. That's it. (oh, and no, I have no obligation to play ball with your trackers)

I actually think the people running sites are better off with this becoming the norm. Ads are not a great way to make money. Low friction paywalls will be great for everyone.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#100

Post by bigbugbag »

yoz-y wrote: post #53
JulianMorrison wrote: post #30

I want the advertising industry to die. And I honestly don't care what it takes down with it. If it hurts, we'll find ways around it, Patreon being a good example.

In the current world of abundance, advertising is crucial to content and product producers. Let's say you make an application, how do you sell it if nobody knows about it? You make a nifty product, how do you make people know it exists? Advertising, in principle, is good, the way it is done currently on the Web is awful.

1) The current world of abundance has reached its peak. 2) Advertising is not crucial to producers, though for commercial producers enough customers to make money is. 3) Advertising in principle is pure evil.
Post reply on HN