or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Oooooooohhhh The Irony!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oooooooohhhh The Irony!

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Has anyone else noticed the increase of on-line adverts recently, specifically the ones that block the site you want until you wait 10/15/whatever seconds or press the button?

As if they weren't galling enough, they seem to all (or nearly all!) advertise a spam blocking service.

Well, in my book, spam is unsolicited, unwelcome and intrusive. Is there anything about these adverts that is not any or all three of the above? They are the www equivalent of spam and should, IMHO, be treated as such!

Hey everyone! Let's spam everyone so much that they buy our anti-spam services!

I call BS to the lot of them and refuse to buy anything advertised in such a user-unfriendly manner!

Martin

(And don't even ask about websites which won't work with pop-ups blocked...)
post #2 of 8
This will get worse, until people move to a paid content system.

How many websites (big ones, mind you) could survive at $10-20 a user a year, and make money?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #3 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

This will get worse, until people move to a paid content system.

How many websites (big ones, mind you) could survive at $10-20 a user a year, and make money?

Internet groups warn BBC over iPlayer plans

Quote:
ISPs fear that introduction of web broadcasts will overload their networks as users download 'catch-up' TV

Some of the largest broadband providers in the UK are threatening to "pull the plug" from the BBC's new iPlayer unless the corporation contributes to the cost of streaming its videos over the internet.

So, once the end-user has paid for an internet connection, BBC has payed for a internet connection, the ISP's now want more money because the two parties want to actually use their connections. Did they think that once they started pushing 2+mbit connections, they wouldn't be used for large bandwidth services?
post #4 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Internet groups warn BBC over iPlayer plans



So, once the end-user has paid for an internet connection, BBC has payed for a internet connection, the ISP's now want more money because the two parties want to actually use their connections. Did they think that once they started pushing 2+mbit connections, they wouldn't be used for large bandwidth services?

It's true that someone has to pay, and that that someone is almost always the consumer. The BBC being one of the biggest exceptions-to-prove-the-rule. I am by no means alone in the UK in thinking one of the best things about the BBC is the ability to watch TV/listen to the radio/read their website sans adverts. Maybe I am spoiled by this... but, when I follow a link, or whatever, to a website, I want to see whatever it is I have gone there to see as soon as possible. I don't want to sit through 15 seconds of someone's crap flash advertising.

Recent research has shown that as broadband speeds increase, so inversely do our (ie consumers) expectations of how long we are prepared to wait for a site to load. Less than 20 seconds, IIRC, is the latest figure, before we try another site. So what do the advertisers do? Lumber us with 15 seconds of unsolicited, unwelcome and intrusive ads. Way to understand the zeitgeist!

Put the adverts which, I accept we will have, on the side of the website. Or on the top. Or the other side. But not before the site.

Maybe it's just me, but I have already started using those sites which spare me...
post #5 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Internet groups warn BBC over iPlayer plans



So, once the end-user has paid for an internet connection, BBC has payed for a internet connection, the ISP's now want more money because the two parties want to actually use their connections. Did they think that once they started pushing 2+mbit connections, they wouldn't be used for large bandwidth services?

I see what you mean with video, but in the case of the NYT or even appleinsider, could they dispense with the ads altogether if you paid a smallish yearly fee? I know weatherunderground does that -- basicallly $4.99 a year to 'turn off the ads.' Would this scale?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #6 of 8
If you don't like; don't visit. With some exceptions (e.g. BBC for you), sites don't owe you SQUAT.

Let the free market take care of it; when the ads become too intrusive, fewer people visit, page views decrease, ad revenue decreases and the site goes away or ceases to be relevant.

For example, take macosrumors-dot-com, (don't what to hint link) where there use really intrusive ads and viewers leave.
Report employers of illegal aliens at (866) DHS-2ICE
Reply
Report employers of illegal aliens at (866) DHS-2ICE
Reply
post #7 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutemartin View Post

I am by no means alone in the UK in thinking one of the best things about the BBC is the ability to watch TV/listen to the radio/read their website sans adverts. Maybe I am spoiled by this... but, when I follow a link, or whatever, to a website, I want to see whatever it is I have gone there to see as soon as possible. I don't want to sit through 15 seconds of someone's crap flash advertising.

I liked BBC for it's written content. I have always hated their video content. First it was Real Video and it always was a chore and even dangerous for us Mac users. Even on Windows it sucked.

Now speaking of Windows and BBC's new "iPlayer"...talk about taking two steps backward...they dump Real and go with a Windows proprietary (and DRM) video player. Great job BBC...you've now have lost me forever. I've noticed that CNN have their own "Turner Video Player" now too for their live broadcasts...goodbye CNN...

I'll stay with Google video uploads of BBC shows in Flash and for other non-commercial broadcasting, stay with PBS who now offer almost everything in Quicktime streaming.
post #8 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutemartin View Post

Has anyone else noticed the increase of on-line adverts recently, specifically the ones that block the site you want until you wait 10/15/whatever seconds or press the button?

As if they weren't galling enough, they seem to all (or nearly all!) advertise a spam blocking service.

Well, in my book, spam is unsolicited, unwelcome and intrusive. Is there anything about these adverts that is not any or all three of the above? They are the www equivalent of spam and should, IMHO, be treated as such!

Hey everyone! Let's spam everyone so much that they buy our anti-spam services!

I call BS to the lot of them and refuse to buy anything advertised in such a user-unfriendly manner!

Martin

(And don't even ask about websites which won't work with pop-ups blocked...)

Currently a long term InternetBoredomSymptom sufferer, I only go to Apple-news-related website nowadays... and, admittedly pr0n... overall because of this, I now don't have to deal with all that rubbish. And using Gmail solved a ton of my email spam problems.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Oooooooohhhh The Irony!