Fair enough of course (Google doesn't create any ads AFAIK) but if targeted ads or re-targeting are the complaint, which many claim as the problem they have with ads, that doesn't solve it.
FWIW Apple and Google have in general the same basic ad restrictions, something you may not have been aware of judging by your post. As Apple is also an ad producer they have some additional points.
Admittedly Google's ad policy contains more consumer protections than I expected. However that doesn't change the fact that Google and Apple are on opposite sides of the tug of war between ad revenue and user privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I've given no "tacit approval" of all they do, as my own blocking of ads should demonstrate. Transparency would be a great start.
I'm asking if anyone has suggestions for a replacement method for web operators to be paid.
Yes, I have a suggestion:
Establish reasonable advertising standards, in collaboration with consumer protection groups and leading user experience advocates, in a way that balances the needs of both parties. This cannot be achieved when your only success metrics are impressions, click-throughs, and ad revenues.
Admittedly Google's ad policy contains more consumer protections than I expected. However that doesn't change the fact that Google and Apple are on opposite sides of the tug of war between ad revenue and user privacy
Kudos to you for reading it.
I often get the impression from some members here that they avoid doing so since they'll then continue on with a claim or comment that is clearly incorrect based on the proffered link. FUD substitutes for facts far too often. Considering the education and/or average intelligence of AI members seems to me well above average it's sad if some of the best thinkers among us are unwilling to chance a change of opinion by considering facts and stances that might challenge them.
EDIT: If you were curious if Google actually enforces their advertising standards, yes they do. In 2014 alone they disabled/removed over 500M ads that violated the rules, while having to take tougher stands with some advertisers who still acted badly, blacklisting over 200 thousand of them.
Establish reasonable advertising standards, in collaboration with consumer protection groups and leading user experience advocates, in a way that balances the needs of both parties. This cannot be achieved when your only success metrics are impressions, click-throughs, and ad revenues.
Yes exactly - a percentage of page space that can contain ads. No ads in the page head or foot and no ads in body content.
Result is a more unified page layout and design. Coz lawd knows there are some people out there who haven't got a clue.
They fill their pages full of err, content ....
my 0.02c
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
[@]tmay[/@] [@]TheWhiteFalcon[/@] and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
Good post, your absolutely right. I personally don't find ads very annoying anymore as I have fully customized the kinds of ads I want to see. Those that aren't, I just ignore them, well I also pretty much ignore even the ones that are geared for me. Sometimes though a good sale will popup so their not all bad. Funny or more ironically, if you want a completely ad free computer experience and have a child, get the ChromeBook education version. All ads are disabled by default and can never be re-enabled. I'm still trying to figure out how to enable this feature on my Pixel II or any non educational model. It really works to, all you see is the place holder for the ad and nothing else. After my daughter graduates this year I'm definitely going to take her little HP 11 for myself, it's the LTE model, 4GB RAM, 32GB SSD and Celeron n2840, which makes it quick enough for programming using my favorite cloud IDE, CodeEnvy. She tricked us into getting the LTE model, we were supposed to buy the WiFi only model so the children wouldn't be able to surf outside of the secure internal school network. She got away with it for a while until she was caught creating a HotSpot for her friends to use her network connection as well. Instead of buying a new one though I just changed the pin password on the SIM card, bad girl, teaches me to never allow daddy to buy the kids their gadgets.
Which while on the subject, I swear the guy in such a push over when it comes to the kids, every single time I send them out to pick me up something from the Apple store (this time for another power plug for my MacBook) or any other computer store they always come back with treats. My kids both have Apple watches now because of one of these recent outings, they of course didn't tell me until I received the phone call that my 3 Apple watches had come in, my husband didn't even bother asking me if I wanted one, oh I thought you would buy it yourself if you wanted one. Big meany, I want a treat too sometimes, I guess I shouldn't have made such a big deal about me not wanting one because of it's poor battery life but now their all running around with their cool new treates, pushing buttons to stop and play their music, taking photos by controlling their phones (oh did you guys know you can use the watch as viewfinder, that's a pretty cool feature) asking Siri questions every other friggen minute, stupid family, I don't need a cool new watch, I've memorized lot's of interesting facts, ask me something, anything......... stupid family, nnnaaaahhh, look at out neato new watches, we're so cool, yeah, well I hope it can make dinner also because I'm leaving ........... nobody loves me.
News App.. probably thats the reason why Apple created the News App..
Apple's News app is just okay, I think I tried it a couple of times and never went back. I really prefer FlipBoard and Feedly as their just absolutely fantastic apps. Microsoft's Windows 8 news app for their Metro interface is also a really good app, if you have a Windows machine running 8.1 or 10 preview I highly recommend you trying it out, you'll be fairly impressed.
Having said that, if Apple did implement a practical ad blocker, I'm sure Google would find some kind of workaround where you couldn't tell the difference between site content and ad content.
Sort of like what Facebook does? Facebook embeds ads in the newsfeed and serves them all from the facebook domain using HTTPS.
Thank you for downloading Adobe Flash! Special offer: Adobe would like to install the Ask.com toolbar and change you browser's home page to Ask.com automatically. Include this special offer in your download today? (yes is the default)
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
@tmay@TheWhiteFalcon and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
My serious answer is I paid for the AI mobile ad subscription. As for all those ads in newspapers, magazines, and TV, the first thing I do with the one weekly newspaper I get is pull out all the ads and throw them in the recycle bin. As for TV, I either mute it or use that time to do something else. I rarely read magazines because most of them have more advertisements than actual content. I understand website operators need to find a way to justify their web presence but they need to find a way to push ads without supplying the advertisers with my personal information. TV, newspapers, and magazines don't get any of my information so why should web sites?
Apple's News app is just okay, I think I tried it a couple of times and never went back. I really prefer FlipBoard and Feedly as their just absolutely fantastic apps. Microsoft's Windows 8 news app for their Metro interface is also a really good app, if you have a Windows machine running 8.1 or 10 preview I highly recommend you trying it out, you'll be fairly impressed.
Apple doesn't have a News app. They just announced one that will be released this Fall.
The problem is with websites that have Flash-free versions, but only load them for platforms that don't support Flash.
Too bad Safari on OSX doesn't let you maintain specific default User Agents for specific URLs.
While I'm dreaming, I'd also like to be able to specify which URLs open in Private Mode and which open normally...
My point exactly. Something as simple as Jacquie Lawson e-cards works the same way on an iPhone as it does on my iMac as long as I change Safari to emulate an iPad. I sent an email to them asking about this and I believe they said to change browsers. I refuse to use anything from Google I don't have to including Chrome so that's not the answer (@payeco) so maybe Apple can interrogate the web site, check to see if Flash is on the site and automatically change to HTML5. I was tired of constantly patching Flash so I totally removed it and most things are working fine. Of course I still found a website that uses wmv video and Flip4Mac doesn't have a free version anymore. When will these people learn????
If we kill the ad business with blockers, then don't complain when sites want to start charging for access.
I wouldn't complain. I'd love to be able to pay for an ad free access to this site, but unfortunately their app still displays ads, contrary to what they state in the App Store.
Besides, people are always willing to pay for quality. Ads really aren needed.
I wouldn't complain. I'd love to be able to pay for an ad free access to this site, but unfortunately their app still displays ads, contrary to what they state in the App Store.
Besides, people are always willing to pay for quality. Ads really aren needed.
You paid for their subscription and they still show you ads?
Apple doesn't have a News app. They just announced one that will be released this Fall.
I was thinking of Googles NewsStand for iOS, I just started my iPad in anticipation of correcting you, nope, your right, I'm wrong. There are so many of these damn apps out there I'm honestly confused as to who is making what.
I'd really like to see them push back on web sites that work without Flash on iOS yet continue to force the use of it on OSX.
Here’s what Apple needs to do:
They’ve already sandboxed plugins and allow us to choose “Allow”, “Block”, “Allow Always” (which is completely broken and shouldn’t exist since apparently Apple is too stupid to figure out something this simple), and “Ask.”
When set to “Block”, Safari should report to websites that FLASH IS NOT INSTALLED AT ALL. It doesn’t do that. So site owners see “flash installed” on their visits, so they’re not pressured into switching.
I wouldn't complain. I'd love to be able to pay for an ad free access to this site, but unfortunately their app still displays ads, contrary to what they state in the App Store.
Besides, people are always willing to pay for quality. Ads really aren needed.
I think that sites which have or have tried to have a paywall have more than proven that the masses are not willing to pay for quality.
But having said that I don't really object to advertising. I object to sites taking my personal data. I don't object to a site tracking my movements on that same site and customizing the ad based upon my clicks. I object to visiting one site and then seeing ads for that site on another site I visit. And I don't trust Google one bit.
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
@tmay@TheWhiteFalcon and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
For AI, the content is the advertising in some cases. There are special promotions, profiles for developers and I believe the pricing guide is also an affiliate program. Banner ads are ineffective garbage anyway.
Comments
Fair enough of course (Google doesn't create any ads AFAIK) but if targeted ads or re-targeting are the complaint, which many claim as the problem they have with ads, that doesn't solve it.
FWIW Apple and Google have in general the same basic ad restrictions, something you may not have been aware of judging by your post. As Apple is also an ad producer they have some additional points.
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/143465?hl=en
Admittedly Google's ad policy contains more consumer protections than I expected. However that doesn't change the fact that Google and Apple are on opposite sides of the tug of war between ad revenue and user privacy.
I'm asking if anyone has suggestions for a replacement method for web operators to be paid.
Yes, I have a suggestion:
Establish reasonable advertising standards, in collaboration with consumer protection groups and leading user experience advocates, in a way that balances the needs of both parties. This cannot be achieved when your only success metrics are impressions, click-throughs, and ad revenues.
Kudos to you for reading it.
I often get the impression from some members here that they avoid doing so since they'll then continue on with a claim or comment that is clearly incorrect based on the proffered link. FUD substitutes for facts far too often. Considering the education and/or average intelligence of AI members seems to me well above average it's sad if some of the best thinkers among us are unwilling to chance a change of opinion by considering facts and stances that might challenge them.
EDIT: If you were curious if Google actually enforces their advertising standards, yes they do. In 2014 alone they disabled/removed over 500M ads that violated the rules, while having to take tougher stands with some advertisers who still acted badly, blacklisting over 200 thousand of them.
Yes exactly - a percentage of page space that can contain ads. No ads in the page head or foot and no ads in body content.
Result is a more unified page layout and design. Coz lawd knows there are some people out there who haven't got a clue.
They fill their pages full of err, content ....
my 0.02c
Good post, your absolutely right. I personally don't find ads very annoying anymore as I have fully customized the kinds of ads I want to see. Those that aren't, I just ignore them, well I also pretty much ignore even the ones that are geared for me. Sometimes though a good sale will popup so their not all bad. Funny or more ironically, if you want a completely ad free computer experience and have a child, get the ChromeBook education version. All ads are disabled by default and can never be re-enabled. I'm still trying to figure out how to enable this feature on my Pixel II or any non educational model. It really works to, all you see is the place holder for the ad and nothing else. After my daughter graduates this year I'm definitely going to take her little HP 11 for myself, it's the LTE model, 4GB RAM, 32GB SSD and Celeron n2840, which makes it quick enough for programming using my favorite cloud IDE, CodeEnvy. She tricked us into getting the LTE model, we were supposed to buy the WiFi only model so the children wouldn't be able to surf outside of the secure internal school network. She got away with it for a while until she was caught creating a HotSpot for her friends to use her network connection as well. Instead of buying a new one though I just changed the pin password on the SIM card, bad girl, teaches me to never allow daddy to buy the kids their gadgets.
Which while on the subject, I swear the guy in such a push over when it comes to the kids, every single time I send them out to pick me up something from the Apple store (this time for another power plug for my MacBook) or any other computer store they always come back with treats. My kids both have Apple watches now because of one of these recent outings, they of course didn't tell me until I received the phone call that my 3 Apple watches had come in, my husband didn't even bother asking me if I wanted one, oh I thought you would buy it yourself if you wanted one. Big meany, I want a treat too sometimes, I guess I shouldn't have made such a big deal about me not wanting one because of it's poor battery life but now their all running around with their cool new treates, pushing buttons to stop and play their music, taking photos by controlling their phones (oh did you guys know you can use the watch as viewfinder, that's a pretty cool feature) asking Siri questions every other friggen minute, stupid family, I don't need a cool new watch, I've memorized lot's of interesting facts, ask me something, anything......... stupid family, nnnaaaahhh, look at out neato new watches, we're so cool, yeah, well I hope it can make dinner also because I'm leaving ........... nobody loves me.
News App.. probably thats the reason why Apple created the News App..
Add: AI has App too.. And mostly news sites has apps too..
Apple's News app is just okay, I think I tried it a couple of times and never went back. I really prefer FlipBoard and Feedly as their just absolutely fantastic apps. Microsoft's Windows 8 news app for their Metro interface is also a really good app, if you have a Windows machine running 8.1 or 10 preview I highly recommend you trying it out, you'll be fairly impressed.
Having said that, if Apple did implement a practical ad blocker, I'm sure Google would find some kind of workaround where you couldn't tell the difference between site content and ad content.
Sort of like what Facebook does? Facebook embeds ads in the newsfeed and serves them all from the facebook domain using HTTPS.
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
@tmay @TheWhiteFalcon and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
My serious answer is I paid for the AI mobile ad subscription. As for all those ads in newspapers, magazines, and TV, the first thing I do with the one weekly newspaper I get is pull out all the ads and throw them in the recycle bin. As for TV, I either mute it or use that time to do something else. I rarely read magazines because most of them have more advertisements than actual content. I understand website operators need to find a way to justify their web presence but they need to find a way to push ads without supplying the advertisers with my personal information. TV, newspapers, and magazines don't get any of my information so why should web sites?
News App.. probably thats the reason why Apple created the News App..
Given that the News app demos didn't show any advertising, how are content publishers supposed to monetize this?
Apple's News app is just okay, I think I tried it a couple of times and never went back. I really prefer FlipBoard and Feedly as their just absolutely fantastic apps. Microsoft's Windows 8 news app for their Metro interface is also a really good app, if you have a Windows machine running 8.1 or 10 preview I highly recommend you trying it out, you'll be fairly impressed.
Apple doesn't have a News app. They just announced one that will be released this Fall.
The problem is with websites that have Flash-free versions, but only load them for platforms that don't support Flash.
Too bad Safari on OSX doesn't let you maintain specific default User Agents for specific URLs.
While I'm dreaming, I'd also like to be able to specify which URLs open in Private Mode and which open normally...
My point exactly. Something as simple as Jacquie Lawson e-cards works the same way on an iPhone as it does on my iMac as long as I change Safari to emulate an iPad. I sent an email to them asking about this and I believe they said to change browsers. I refuse to use anything from Google I don't have to including Chrome so that's not the answer (@payeco) so maybe Apple can interrogate the web site, check to see if Flash is on the site and automatically change to HTML5. I was tired of constantly patching Flash so I totally removed it and most things are working fine. Of course I still found a website that uses wmv video and Flip4Mac doesn't have a free version anymore. When will these people learn????
As for all those ads in newspapers...
I wouldn't complain. I'd love to be able to pay for an ad free access to this site, but unfortunately their app still displays ads, contrary to what they state in the App Store.
Besides, people are always willing to pay for quality. Ads really aren needed.
I wouldn't complain. I'd love to be able to pay for an ad free access to this site, but unfortunately their app still displays ads, contrary to what they state in the App Store.
Besides, people are always willing to pay for quality. Ads really aren needed.
You paid for their subscription and they still show you ads?
I was thinking of Googles NewsStand for iOS, I just started my iPad in anticipation of correcting you, nope, your right, I'm wrong. There are so many of these damn apps out there I'm honestly confused as to who is making what.
Here’s what Apple needs to do:
They’ve already sandboxed plugins and allow us to choose “Allow”, “Block”, “Allow Always” (which is completely broken and shouldn’t exist since apparently Apple is too stupid to figure out something this simple), and “Ask.”
When set to “Block”, Safari should report to websites that FLASH IS NOT INSTALLED AT ALL. It doesn’t do that. So site owners see “flash installed” on their visits, so they’re not pressured into switching.
I think that sites which have or have tried to have a paywall have more than proven that the masses are not willing to pay for quality.
But having said that I don't really object to advertising. I object to sites taking my personal data. I don't object to a site tracking my movements on that same site and customizing the ad based upon my clicks. I object to visiting one site and then seeing ads for that site on another site I visit. And I don't trust Google one bit.
So serious question: How would you suggest website operators like AI get paid for the services they provide and the costs they incur to offer them?
@tmay @TheWhiteFalcon and other regulars who have taken an interest in the topic, I would particularly like to hear your suggestions. They may be good ideas. There's a lot of smart folks here.
We know advertising has traditionally been the most agreeable method, and used for hundreds of years by newspapers, then magazines, then TV and radio, and now the web. Companies are gonna advertise anyway and data aggregators who help make it possible won't be impacted much if at all by an ad-blocker.
Depriving website operators of advertising income won't change that nor prevent your personal information from being mined, collected and monetized by health, financial, social and insurance data companies. Worse those guys really do sell you, your name, your family,your address, your religious affiliation, your sexual persuasion and anything else some company or agency is willing to pay to know about you.
For AI, the content is the advertising in some cases. There are special promotions, profiles for developers and I believe the pricing guide is also an affiliate program. Banner ads are ineffective garbage anyway.