People may be sick of ads, but it's what keeps the lights on for sites like AppleInsider.
Rubbish. That's a lie you've been sold by every lazy website on the internet. There are many ways to make a website self sustaining that are all much more work than slapping ads all over the place.
I see no ads on most sites anymore thanks to the ever-growing bag of tricks out there. I still get pre-roll video ads because it seems if you block those you also block what you want to watch.
You are willing to pay for content, but lucky for us you are not everybody. The majority of the people are not willing to pay or worse, they don't have the means to pay.
It is definitely a bad thing for the consumer if e.g. the olympic games in Rio 2016 would be hidden behind pay walls.
Not that its any of my business, but people that don't have the means to pay aren't likely a good target for advertisers.
Companies don't get it? If you follow apples plan everyone eats a hearty meal. Once you start going against Apple you'll profit for a time but eventually get crushed over the long run
Example
Samsung Google and Apple all had full bellies when the iPhone initially released. Sammy and goog got greedy, branched out, started making money but where are they now? Android is a mess,
So you know for an absolute fact that Apple would've never gone against Google? We have the luxury to believe that, but Google didn't. In business it's best to control your own fate then depending on someone else.
Not that its any of my business, but people that don't have the means to pay aren't likely a good target for advertisers.
People who don't have the means, do spend money, but they prioritize on essential things like basic food. This of course does not mean that they are not a target for advertizers.
Apple should enforce strict ad control, that's one of whole points of this from my perceptive...web pages today are an utter mess of banner, skyscraper, flyover, roadblocks, textual ads, video pre-roll interference, etc.
Along with a myriad of site self promotion and social media promotion and other third party spackle-filler, browsing the web is becoming a horrible experience. I can barely place my finger on my iPad in Safari without my nail blowing off because of some POS ad jettisoning me somewhere else. I've taken many screen shots of the iPad browsing experience and sent them to Cook - actual usable content on many sites was 20-30% of the visible screen, filled with a minefield ad web page launches.
This is not Apple's issue per say, but it does diminish the experience of using an iPad greatly, so it does affect attitude toward the device. The smaller screen and touch interface exacerbate this particular problem
If something like News can add a structured space where content is legitimately the predominate feature, and the experience and interaction is well defined to eliminate the sad state of affairs online today, I'm all for it.
Apple often succeeds when they enter industries/markets that need a cleansing, and the internet is ironically ripe for fixing.
So you know for an absolute fact that Apple would've never gone against Google? We have the luxury to believe that, but Google didn't. In business it's best to control your own fate then depending on someone else.
That a HUGE problem with Android. Google a Ad company controls it. Everyone making Android phones has zero control on what Google does. You're whole Android phone business is relying on Google!!! Google doesn't give a crap if you make money or not. if you go away, there will be someone else to take your place.
Fact is Ad's are out of control all over the Web. It's just getting so bad there's places I don't even bother going to any more. Ad Blockers of one type or another are gaining popularity FAST these days because works getting out about them because so many just can't take these Ad's. These ad company's have done it to themselves. They've make themselves so annoying, and same with Web sites that just plaster ad's all over the place, people have had enough of it.
Places like Apple Insider, I allow them. They seem to have some self control. The Ad's are Mild. If everywhere else was the same, I wouldn't even bother with having a AdBlocker.
Rubbish. That's a lie you've been sold by every lazy website on the internet. There are many ways to make a website self sustaining that are all much more work than slapping ads all over the place.
Well, yes. You can achieve an eye pleasing site if you choose to (the gist of the second part of my post).
For example, a site like Daring Fireball makes a ton of money with simply text ad links. Of course you need to gain a following like Gruber has done. Tech podcasts like DailyTech News with Tom Merritt relies on user donations, supplemented with...ads.
But let's be honest, most sites are not in the self-sustaining business or passion. They're here to make money. And like it or not, advertising /sponsorship isn't going anywhere.
And like it or not, advertising /sponsorship isn't going anywhere.
Concur. I suspect an economist might explain that consumers are generally unwilling to pay for what they are offered for free, and consumers generally don't see ads as a cost.
I don't mind the ad based system. What I mind the in-your-face ads that "shout" in my ear constantly or the sites that have 225 ads on their main page... I would even support Apple charging <$10 month subscription for the news app without any ads! Split the 70% over the sites that want to participate and let the others go on their way...
The problem is that sites and advertisers believe that because we are reading their site they have the ability to shove this crap in our face... I already have about 10 sites in my hosts file that I refuse to visit because of the vast amount of in-your-face advertising they peddle!
Concur. I suspect an economist might explain that consumers are generally unwilling to pay for what they are offered for free, and consumers generally don't see ads as a cost.
25% is the threshold that some are saying will be a danger point for Ad Blockers. That's already being exceeded in many parts of Europe, and might soon be crossed in the U.S.
Mobile ad blocking could ramp quickly to 25% just on iPhones. At what point will websites begin ad blocking countermeasures and what will be the user response to that?
You are willing to pay for content, but lucky for us you are not everybody. The majority of the people are not willing to pay or worse, they don't have the means to pay.
It is definitely a bad thing for the consumer if e.g. the olympic games in Rio 2016 would be hidden behind pay walls.
I pay for Netflix so I get no ads, I am pretty sure a similar model could develop for the apps on Apple TV and iOS. Web is obviously a bit more difficult but not impossible.
I pay for Netflix so I get no ads, I am pretty sure a similar model could develop for the apps on Apple TV and iOS. Web is obviously a bit more difficult but not impossible.
Much more difficult. Large organizations like NYT have paywalls and still have ads. Albeit, done tastefully.
Good. If they weren't complaining, that means Apple is doing something wrong. To provide a great consumer experience, you often are required to impose stringent requirements, limitations, and regulations on your partners and content providers. If they don't like it, they can advertise elsewhere.
That is pretty much what happened with iAd. The advertisers were unhappy with the restrictions and the cost so they went elsewhere.
As long as you as end customer has the choice between subscription based and ad based content, there is no issue. But if more and more content providers are moving to subscription based content because of the imposed restrictions of the device owners, the choice for the end customers evaporates. And that is definitely a bad thing for a large part of the consumers.
The false dilemma you present is that choice will go away. I disagree: there will always be a choice because there will always be competition.
History has shown that consumers won't be forced into anything. What will happen is that some consumers simply won't pay for subscriptions and if that results in an unsustainable solution, then the subscription model will collapse. Or, consumers will abandon the paid subscription model for free alternatives, even if that means using a competing app or platform altogether. On the other hand, if enough consumers pay for subscriptions, then the model works, and consumers get what they (by choice) paid for. Either way, consumers aren't harmed because they ultimately hold the power of the purse; consumers are in control. You should trust the free market to decide what it wants.
The false dilemma you present is that choice will go away. I disagree: there will always be a choice because there will always be competition.
History has shown that consumers won't be forced into anything. What will happen is that some consumers simply won't pay for subscriptions and if that results in an unsustainable solution, then the subscription model will collapse. Or, consumers will abandon the paid subscription model for free alternatives, even if that means using a competing app or platform altogether. On the other hand, if enough consumers pay for subscriptions, then the model works, and consumers get what they (by choice) paid for. Either way, consumers aren't harmed because they ultimately hold the power of the purse; consumers are in control. You should trust the free market to decide what it wants.
I think the problem is not the consumer being forced, it is the consumer, not understanding that his actions have not intended consequences. If they block all ads of any kind to receive content (even in controlled alternative ways like the Apple News App), many sites will die.
After 80 years, ad, action supported "free" media consumption has still not been by any viable alternative; somebody has got to get paid somehow for this media. Either you pay directly, or you pay indirectly. There are no miracles.
That is pretty much what happened with iAd. The advertisers were unhappy with the restrictions and the cost so they went elsewhere.
Right now, they CAN go elsewhere, but if end users start blocking ads and don't take up with alternative ad supported media (like News), we'll they'll be running out of options.
Comments
People may be sick of ads, but it's what keeps the lights on for sites like AppleInsider.
Rubbish. That's a lie you've been sold by every lazy website on the internet. There are many ways to make a website self sustaining that are all much more work than slapping ads all over the place.
I see no ads on most sites anymore thanks to the ever-growing bag of tricks out there. I still get pre-roll video ads because it seems if you block those you also block what you want to watch.
You are willing to pay for content, but lucky for us you are not everybody. The majority of the people are not willing to pay or worse, they don't have the means to pay.
It is definitely a bad thing for the consumer if e.g. the olympic games in Rio 2016 would be hidden behind pay walls.
Not that its any of my business, but people that don't have the means to pay aren't likely a good target for advertisers.
So you know for an absolute fact that Apple would've never gone against Google? We have the luxury to believe that, but Google didn't. In business it's best to control your own fate then depending on someone else.
Not that its any of my business, but people that don't have the means to pay aren't likely a good target for advertisers.
People who don't have the means, do spend money, but they prioritize on essential things like basic food. This of course does not mean that they are not a target for advertizers.
Along with a myriad of site self promotion and social media promotion and other third party spackle-filler, browsing the web is becoming a horrible experience. I can barely place my finger on my iPad in Safari without my nail blowing off because of some POS ad jettisoning me somewhere else. I've taken many screen shots of the iPad browsing experience and sent them to Cook - actual usable content on many sites was 20-30% of the visible screen, filled with a minefield ad web page launches.
This is not Apple's issue per say, but it does diminish the experience of using an iPad greatly, so it does affect attitude toward the device. The smaller screen and touch interface exacerbate this particular problem
If something like News can add a structured space where content is legitimately the predominate feature, and the experience and interaction is well defined to eliminate the sad state of affairs online today, I'm all for it.
Apple often succeeds when they enter industries/markets that need a cleansing, and the internet is ironically ripe for fixing.
So you know for an absolute fact that Apple would've never gone against Google? We have the luxury to believe that, but Google didn't. In business it's best to control your own fate then depending on someone else.
That a HUGE problem with Android. Google a Ad company controls it. Everyone making Android phones has zero control on what Google does. You're whole Android phone business is relying on Google!!! Google doesn't give a crap if you make money or not. if you go away, there will be someone else to take your place.
Fact is Ad's are out of control all over the Web. It's just getting so bad there's places I don't even bother going to any more. Ad Blockers of one type or another are gaining popularity FAST these days because works getting out about them because so many just can't take these Ad's. These ad company's have done it to themselves. They've make themselves so annoying, and same with Web sites that just plaster ad's all over the place, people have had enough of it.
Places like Apple Insider, I allow them. They seem to have some self control. The Ad's are Mild. If everywhere else was the same, I wouldn't even bother with having a AdBlocker.
Rubbish. That's a lie you've been sold by every lazy website on the internet. There are many ways to make a website self sustaining that are all much more work than slapping ads all over the place.
Well, yes. You can achieve an eye pleasing site if you choose to (the gist of the second part of my post).
For example, a site like Daring Fireball makes a ton of money with simply text ad links. Of course you need to gain a following like Gruber has done. Tech podcasts like DailyTech News with Tom Merritt relies on user donations, supplemented with...ads.
But let's be honest, most sites are not in the self-sustaining business or passion. They're here to make money. And like it or not, advertising /sponsorship isn't going anywhere.
Fixed that for you. XD
And like it or not, advertising /sponsorship isn't going anywhere.
Concur. I suspect an economist might explain that consumers are generally unwilling to pay for what they are offered for free, and consumers generally don't see ads as a cost.
The problem is that sites and advertisers believe that because we are reading their site they have the ability to shove this crap in our face... I already have about 10 sites in my hosts file that I refuse to visit because of the vast amount of in-your-face advertising they peddle!
Concur. I suspect an economist might explain that consumers are generally unwilling to pay for what they are offered for free, and consumers generally don't see ads as a cost.
25% is the threshold that some are saying will be a danger point for Ad Blockers. That's already being exceeded in many parts of Europe, and might soon be crossed in the U.S.
Mobile ad blocking could ramp quickly to 25% just on iPhones. At what point will websites begin ad blocking countermeasures and what will be the user response to that?
Especially the 'in your face, taking up 90% of the screen with a disguised close button' kind.
I pay for Netflix so I get no ads, I am pretty sure a similar model could develop for the apps on Apple TV and iOS. Web is obviously a bit more difficult but not impossible.
I pay for Netflix so I get no ads, I am pretty sure a similar model could develop for the apps on Apple TV and iOS. Web is obviously a bit more difficult but not impossible.
Much more difficult. Large organizations like NYT have paywalls and still have ads. Albeit, done tastefully.
Much more difficult. Large organizations like NYT have paywalls and still have ads. Albeit, done tastefully.
The way it's always been done from back in the paper days.
Good. If they weren't complaining, that means Apple is doing something wrong. To provide a great consumer experience, you often are required to impose stringent requirements, limitations, and regulations on your partners and content providers. If they don't like it, they can advertise elsewhere.
That is pretty much what happened with iAd. The advertisers were unhappy with the restrictions and the cost so they went elsewhere.
The false dilemma you present is that choice will go away. I disagree: there will always be a choice because there will always be competition.
History has shown that consumers won't be forced into anything. What will happen is that some consumers simply won't pay for subscriptions and if that results in an unsustainable solution, then the subscription model will collapse. Or, consumers will abandon the paid subscription model for free alternatives, even if that means using a competing app or platform altogether. On the other hand, if enough consumers pay for subscriptions, then the model works, and consumers get what they (by choice) paid for. Either way, consumers aren't harmed because they ultimately hold the power of the purse; consumers are in control. You should trust the free market to decide what it wants.
The false dilemma you present is that choice will go away. I disagree: there will always be a choice because there will always be competition.
History has shown that consumers won't be forced into anything. What will happen is that some consumers simply won't pay for subscriptions and if that results in an unsustainable solution, then the subscription model will collapse. Or, consumers will abandon the paid subscription model for free alternatives, even if that means using a competing app or platform altogether. On the other hand, if enough consumers pay for subscriptions, then the model works, and consumers get what they (by choice) paid for. Either way, consumers aren't harmed because they ultimately hold the power of the purse; consumers are in control. You should trust the free market to decide what it wants.
I think the problem is not the consumer being forced, it is the consumer, not understanding that his actions have not intended consequences. If they block all ads of any kind to receive content (even in controlled alternative ways like the Apple News App), many sites will die.
After 80 years, ad, action supported "free" media consumption has still not been by any viable alternative; somebody has got to get paid somehow for this media. Either you pay directly, or you pay indirectly. There are no miracles.
That is pretty much what happened with iAd. The advertisers were unhappy with the restrictions and the cost so they went elsewhere.
Right now, they CAN go elsewhere, but if end users start blocking ads and don't take up with alternative ad supported media (like News), we'll they'll be running out of options.