Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Mar 2012 21:01 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Because I've been spending days browsing through XDA, reading CM changelogs, and flashing nightly builds, I'm still in an Android state of mind, so excuse me for more talk on the subject. An interesting study has been performed which found that advertisements in Android applications are a huge battery drain - they account for up to 75% of an application's battery usage.
Thread beginning with comment 511383
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: websites?
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE: websites?"
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, you have the right, but you can't enforce it. As a site owner myself, I'm really bothered by the fact that people can enjoy my content, make me pay for the bandwidth and the servers and not contribute anything back.

If a site has really obnoxious ads it's the user's right to not use that site. It's not his right to steal from the site's owner.

I'm really putting effort into making sure that my ads don't bother my users, but after all that, if you still block my ads then, it's really rude, inconsiderate and overall really douchebag behavior on the your part.

So ... get used to the ads or GTFO, I don't need you anyway. If Adblock becomes a big problem for my sites I'll do my best to block those self entitled assholes. After all, if you want to keep visiting my website, think about the fact that I need money to make it and update it and using ads for that is my choice, my right, you are not forced to click them and if you don't like it fuck off.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: websites?
by stestagg on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:14 in reply to "RE[2]: websites?"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Sounds like your revenue model is a bit broken if you feel forced to attack your users.

Reminds me somewhat of the RIIA ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: websites?
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 13:48 in reply to "RE[3]: websites?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

In what way am I attacking my users?

I'm offering some content that some people may need. In exchange I want them to look at some ads and if they find them useful even click on them. That's the deal I'm offering. They can accept it or not.

If you want all the content and none of the ads, just think of the reverse - maybe the site owners want all the ads and none of the content. What do you say we meet in the middle? Or maybe you think that we don't have any expenses and we do all this just from the goodness of our hearts?

Why do you feel that you have the right to take advantage of my work for free - in fact more than free because your very presence on my site costs me some money?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: websites?
by maccouch on Wed 21st Mar 2012 12:19 in reply to "RE[2]: websites?"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

apart from your "a tad violent" phrasing, the issue is that i cant/is-not-viable to selectively use the adblock. I enable it and it sits there doing its job. I don't even remember it anymore.

What do you propose? that i deliberately go into each site with adblock disabled and then enable it if the website uses too many ads or ads that are not my-taste-suitable? that's just dreaming.

I agree with you that ads can be non-annoying or obtruding but unfortunately 99.9% of the ads today in 99.999% of the websites are. How can we tell them apart?

ideally, and if i could just ask that from the internet deities, Adblock would be standard on every browser with two small changes:

1) that i can whitelist ad-networks.
exampe: the Fusion Ads on most mac centric blogs/websites are pretty nice. one ad per page and content is relevant to the add and vice-versa.

2) that i can say: "i want to see at most N adds" and then the Adnetworks and Website managers would order their adds in importance order on the website code.
So, if you just can show me 2 adds, what will they be? you can't shove 99 ads trough my throat, so please just chose 2!

That would probably satisfy both parties and would make a usable system. but unfortunately it seems too reasonable to actually get a change in the race-to-the-bottom tech world we live in.

------

i had a quick reflection on our disability to be reasonable like this on my blog: http://www.maccouch.com/2012/02/tv-is-broken-moderation/ and i think i will probably just post this comment there also. Maybe here and there someone will read it and help us to make it happen.

Edited 2012-03-21 12:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: websites?
by pandronic on Wed 21st Mar 2012 14:01 in reply to "RE[3]: websites?"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

The "violent phrasing" is directed at people who take all the work that site owners do for granted. Most site owners are not rich, they are normal people, some do this for a living and can be dependent on the ad revenue to pay their mortgages and put their kids through school. Then some asshole (I'm not talking about you ;) ) comes and proclaims from behind his computer monitor that site owners should basically work for free for his enjoyment or benefit. How is that fair?

What I'm saying is that what I'd like to offer my users is a "take it or leave it" kind of deal - this is my website - either you use all of it, or none of it. Am I not reasonable?

That being said, I despise advertising. I think that a product should succeed or fail based on its merits and not on marketing campaigns and budgets. But that is not the world we live in. I'm also a fan of reasonably priced paywalls with proper trials. But then an asshole comes with crappy, but ad-supported "free" content and most users will go for that even if they would be better off paying for content in the long run, instead of wasting their time with half-baked copypasta. But again, that's the world we live in.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: websites?
by Neolander on Wed 21st Mar 2012 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: websites?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

At work, I browse the web using a first-gen eMac equipped with insufficient RAM for its current OS (512MB, and it had 384MB when I got it). You should try it too, it gives some perspective as for why people with slow machines and/or crappy network connection can make the decision to block every ad without being complete douchebags.

Then of course, I am okay with ads on my personal laptop, on which they are not much of an annoyance as long as they do not start to use obnoxious Flash animations.

Edited 2012-03-21 17:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2