Here is my suggestion. AI and other sites should cooperate with Marco to provide an ad blocker that pays sites. Users of the blocker should pay a subscription fee (perhaps set up as a regular donation), and this fee should be paid out to sites they visit, based on time spent there. Thus those of us who want to support the sites we read, but don't want to bother with a zillion subscriptions, can conveniently pay to have an ad free experience.
I can honestly say I cannot stand using an iPad to read web pages of late. They jump around as ads load and it is all but impossible to click on anything as it moves just as you try due to more ads loading. I now always use my MBP for the web which has Ad Blocker and Little Snitch. The experience on an iPad for this site and just about any other I read regularly is totally unacceptable to me. I can't wait to try an iPad with an AdBlocker.
Now that's the user side of things. I can see the problem for a content provider and there is obviously a massive shift about to take place. Google must be literally crapping themselves given iOS is their main bread winner and I am truly pleased about that. Google has become the creeper in the forrest, sapping the trees dry and strangling them.
I don't watch traditional TV either. On the rare occasion I do I am totally shocked by the ratio of ads to content, it is beyond ludicrous. I use Netflix mostly and Amazon Prime on occasions. Both are paid for, Netflix directly and Amazon included in my annual subscription.
I frankly see little alternative to this sort of model for web content. I have no problem with adver-torials if they are clearly labelled as such but I doubt they will pay the bills or if they do there will be far too many. I'd happily pay a reasonable annual subscription to a select few sites such as Ars Technica, Apple Insider, I would not want to miss DED , the BBC (I'd want to see the BBC drop Flash on their Desktop site first) and I already do for a few science sites and we donate to NPR and PBS. That said, if we paid for AI I would hope removal of trolls would be stepped up and as little political content as feasible.
Perhaps Apple can add the subscription service for web sites to the AppStore or Wallet or something to make it easy and painless. I don't mind if they get 30% as a large share holder
This is a difficult balance to get right. I listened to the debate building up to the release of Peace on ATP and you could hear the debate about it being the right thing to be doing.
These are my thoughts; I don't like the tracking that are built into the ads, but I especially don't like the intrusive ads. I have a simple workaround, if a site uses intrusive ads... I blacklist them, I don't go to them. That way I don't see the ads. They don't get the revenue, its a primitive form of ad blocking, but just as effective. I notice that where the content on a site is very good, I am more willing to put up with the ads. But in general, the inverse is the case. The better the content, the better the control of the ads on the site.
As part of the procedure of rolling out new desktops for our business clients we install ad blockers and also block these via content filtering on client firewalls too. In business, web adverts are just too big a security risk for PC users, we have seen many fall prey to zero day exploits that were injected via adverts on reputable websites.
I do think that Apple should have asked the developers of ad blockers to provide an option to opt in for adverts when you visit a website. E.g you come to appleinsider and are greeted by a banner stating who the adverts are provided by and how it benefits the website, you can then opt in or not.
Interestingly enough, a few powerful psychopaths want to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed with their products.
A perfect example of the sort of political crap I'd love to see filtered out of a science based site. If I want a debate about the NRA I would be reading AI.
Just a foot note on the BBC site... It's paid for by the UK Public. There is something called a TV Licence where every home and business in the UK pays £145 per year ($225 US) per building who has a TV. Looking at the numbers I could find for 2009 - 2010 the income for this was £3.56 billion ($5.56 billion US). With a round 6% of that being used to fund the BBC websites, around £213 million ($331 million UK) per year is paid for the BBC Website.
I do not mind ads at the very least provided they are simple non-obtrusive, pop-ups, flashing, characters running across my screen, pop-ups that won't let you close the window, redirects, sound, etc. In-fact, I use AdBlock Plus for years now ... BUT I also enable the "allow non-intrusive advertising" option as my willingness to meet half way with websites. I feel that option encourages websites to only utilize safe ads and in return they are whitelisted by AdBlock Plus.
On top of that the ads use tracking and install lots of needless cookies.
Notice how the worst douchebags-- the self important, self appointed idiots that low quality sites refer to with such reverence are using snotty ad services like The Deck?
Gruber charges an arm and a leg for people to come to his site which is itself all advertisements- you can't block it because all he writes about is his app, his friends, himself, his political opinions (ignorant of course.) and then there's the "sponsored posts" which is %50 of the posts these days.
Gruber charges an arm and a leg for people to come to his site which is itself all advertisements- you can't block it because all he writes about is his app, his friends, himself, his political opinions (ignorant of course.) and then there's the "sponsored posts" which is %50 of the posts these days.
There's nothing but advertising on that site.
Gruber puts up one sponsored post per week, and usually writes 4-5 posts during the week. As for writing about "app, his friends, himself, his political opinions", that my friend is what we call a 'blog'. If you don't enjoy it, don't read it, but it certainly isn't advertising.
"Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don't deserve the hit.”
Corrected:
"ADVERTISEMENTS come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit SOME people in major ways, they also hurt A TON, including many who don't deserve the hit.”
Here’s the average ‘content’ percentage on this site:
Oh, and thanks for the proliferation of trolls that have been allowed to remain on forums in order to bump up page hits. An excellent way to alienate the audience who will actually be using that advertising for Apple products...
Advertisers: if what you do is so useless, so unpopular, and so anti-consumer that people are installing tools to stop it, take the hint.
Apple Insider is spending too much effort shoveling out crap articles that are poorly written, and written by people who know **** all about technology.... so I don't have so much sympathy for them.
On top of that the ads use tracking and install lots of needless cookies.
Notice how the worst douchebags-- the self important, self appointed idiots that low quality sites (like AI) refer to with such reverence are using snotty ad services like The Deck?
Gruber charges an arm and a leg for people to come to his site which is itself all advertisements- you can't block it because all he writes about is his app, his friends, himself, his political opinions (ignorant of course.) and then there's the "sponsored posts" which is %50 of the posts these days.
There's nothing but advertising on that site.
Gruber charges people for Daring Fireball? Im pretty sure it costs me nothing, and to be fair he presents his ads in a very classy, curated and minimalist fashion. That's not to say what he advertises for isn't usually garbage, it is. Nor is it to say that his political opinions aren't brain dead partisan hack, because as smart and insightful as he is about tech stuff, he's a drooling idiot when it comes to politics. Nothing wrong with him supporting his friends, in fact that's a character strength as far as I'm concerned. But it's cringe worthy when he tries getting all nightly news. Strikes me as a guy who lives in a NYC thought echo chamber, emotionally and religiously invested in the team D vs R fantasy dichotomy.
Then again Steve Jobs was pretty smart too, but a complete zealot retard about diet and health. Everybody's got a flaw, mine is tipping Australians.
Personally I despise Google and if this move to implement Content Blockers hurts Google then I am all for it.
I also believe that no company has the right to track me all over the web just because I looked at their site. That sounds like a parasite to me.
The deal that Apple offers publishers in Apple News sounds like a good deal- perhaps more than they are getting now? If this is so I have to wonder what the real reason certain advertisers are complaining so much.
Also I am happy to pay for troll & ad free, original content.
WARNING: I'm going to be brutally honest here and it might get long in the tooth. However, it may contain nuggets of truth that you Kasper The Automated Slave and your team here at AI might consider as discussion points in the near future.
[LIST=1] [*] Kasper [I]The Automated[/I] Slave - a truthful screen name if there ever was one, because a) congratulations for "automating" curation (see [@]proline[/@]'s post above); and b) for not being a very good editor because editing is a hands-on activity that can't successfully be automated. Regardless, you're continuously trying anyway and want to continue "automating" the making of money from a computer-generated process. That's no longer going to be easy, automated... or successful IMHO. [*] [*] Apple[I]insider[/I] - a name that I can only assume that you luckily fell upon very early on and very possibly wanted to become...which unfotunately... you are not. Your posts are 90% regurgitated web content found elsewhere and with better depth. Your 2 "exclusive" topics are those either created by DED and woefully lacking any editing (double paragraphs, repetition of thoughts and themes, etc.), or playing around with your drone and keeping tabs (of late) about the progress of the new Apple Campus. Your "hands-on" posts are technically true only because you touched them for a couple of minutes, whereas the common and colloquial meaning of hands-on is a lie and a rehash of what you have scraped from other sites or have been told at a demo. [*] [*] Content presentation - apart from the above, how many times in the last 7 years that I've been coming here have members continuously told you here in these forums that the front-end of the site is too bloated, is slow, and often times the worst site they visit daily? How many times have you worked diligently to fix that? How many ads, banner-blocks and divs have you and your team decided to... painful as it is... EDIT from this site as a compromise to your faithful readers? [*] [*] Most Valuable Asset: the AI forums and a core number of AI Members that contribute here. Oddly enough, actual industry "insiders" and "insights" that are not reflected on the front page, nor monetized or used efficiently to bolster your importance as a "must visit" web entity within the Apple community. [*] [*] Technical Intelligence - In close relationship to both #3 and #4 above, rather than clean up your web presence, you decide instead to develop and use your limited funds to create a "web app". Besides being widely despised and even discouraged by Apple itself because it adds NOTHING but unnecessary bloat to the App Store, even your most valuable followers either a) don't use it, and b) have spent THEIR time to tell you what's wrong with it... rather than concentrating on THE site and forums and making them better. Wasted effort, energy, resources... and in the end... opportunity to stand out among your competition. [/LIST]
Ads - so now we come to the meat of your post and are offered a whole platter of foul Swiss cheese with an abundance of sour w(h)ine. Rather than embracing the opportunity (that word again!) to "ask" for suggestions from your loyal readers, or objectively state your faults and a mission statement how you plan to address them, you take the easy way out and point to why ads are needed (like we don't know that!) and why WE should white-list your site without giving ANY reasons beyond "think of the jobs" (i.e. children") lost. IF YOU WERE doing your job to the best of your ability and using the collective intelligence available to you... dare I say... you would NOT need to ask for support nor suffer the consequences of your pathetic buffet of excuses.
OK. That was brutal... and no... I will not apologize for my assessment. IF you are serious and once you take an objective hard look at what you have here at AI... and what you don't... and decide to leverage the positives, you just might survive the "Website Culling of 2015".
You stated [B]"adopt or die"[/B] as a footnote. Now start to believe that and plant seeds for future success, rather than becoming a "smelly fish head" more commonly known as a "victim".
Disclaimer: I've been working in multiple industries in constant flux since the very early '80s, from typesetting, litho, offset printing, dead-tree publishers, photographers, ad agencies, education and entertainment.
If there's anything in my post here that I can tell you as fact and absolutely not simply an opinion, it is the reality of [B]"adopt or die"[/B]. That is a choice that only you and your team can make and act upon to have even a small chance of influencing the outcome. I have experienced certain entire industries that have died no matter what the individual proprietors have done to mitigate it. I don't believe that is what you/we are facing here.
You simply have work to do, and no... at this point... it can not be "automated".
The problem for me isn't ads on sites so much as the speed impact. With Peace installed even sites without ads (such as the BBC in the UK) load considerably faster, presumably because the analytics frackers aren't being loaded as well as the ad content. If sites don't want users to install ad blockers then there needs to be work on improving load times and quick, because once users are used to having them installed it will be hard to get them to turn them off.
NeilHughes, publishers like yourself would not be writing about this topic were it not for Apple's release of content blockers. While I agree with the sentiment that we should seek a middle grounds of sorts, the public has been grumbling about increasingly abusive and intrusive online advertising for years while publishers, for the most part, have turned a deaf ear. You have allowed your business model to depend on ad networks over which you have zero influence, and who have zero accountability to your readers. When a company treats its users as the product rather than as its customers, the outcome is never a good one.
Focusing your frustration on fed up end users while only meekly criticizing the advertisers who are the true source of the problem will not endear you to your readers nor earn their sympathy.
Using the example below from PC Mag, this company's content is not even remotely worth the pain of the user experience. Any website subjecting their readers to this level of nonsense deserves to go out of business.
Personally I despise Google and if this move to implement Content Blockers hurts Google then I am all for it.
I also believe that no company has the right to track me all over the web just because I looked at their site. That sounds like a parasite to me.
The deal that Apple offers publishers in Apple News sounds like a good deal- perhaps more than they are getting now? If this is so I have to wonder what the real reason certain advertisers are complaining so much.
Also I am happy to pay for troll & ad free, original content.
They're complaining for the same reason they complain about Iads, they can't profile the god damn users beyond the demos of the actual media, like in the old days... They want targetted ads... The problem is that to get a supremely targetted ads, they need to know me better than my boyfriend... If they want to be "boyfriend" material, they better not show up drunk and barf all over my web browsing like they do now... And then send me roses on the next day... Promising me a better experience in the future from having endured that Barftastic experience... And then stalking me all over the Internet... Yeah, Fun...
Comments
Here is my suggestion. AI and other sites should cooperate with Marco to provide an ad blocker that pays sites. Users of the blocker should pay a subscription fee (perhaps set up as a regular donation), and this fee should be paid out to sites they visit, based on time spent there. Thus those of us who want to support the sites we read, but don't want to bother with a zillion subscriptions, can conveniently pay to have an ad free experience.
I can honestly say I cannot stand using an iPad to read web pages of late. They jump around as ads load and it is all but impossible to click on anything as it moves just as you try due to more ads loading. I now always use my MBP for the web which has Ad Blocker and Little Snitch. The experience on an iPad for this site and just about any other I read regularly is totally unacceptable to me. I can't wait to try an iPad with an AdBlocker.
Now that's the user side of things. I can see the problem for a content provider and there is obviously a massive shift about to take place. Google must be literally crapping themselves given iOS is their main bread winner and I am truly pleased about that. Google has become the creeper in the forrest, sapping the trees dry and strangling them.
I don't watch traditional TV either. On the rare occasion I do I am totally shocked by the ratio of ads to content, it is beyond ludicrous. I use Netflix mostly and Amazon Prime on occasions. Both are paid for, Netflix directly and Amazon included in my annual subscription.
I frankly see little alternative to this sort of model for web content. I have no problem with adver-torials if they are clearly labelled as such but I doubt they will pay the bills or if they do there will be far too many. I'd happily pay a reasonable annual subscription to a select few sites such as Ars Technica, Apple Insider, I would not want to miss DED
Perhaps Apple can add the subscription service for web sites to the AppStore or Wallet or something to make it easy and painless. I don't mind if they get 30% as a large share holder
These are my thoughts; I don't like the tracking that are built into the ads, but I especially don't like the intrusive ads. I have a simple workaround, if a site uses intrusive ads... I blacklist them, I don't go to them. That way I don't see the ads. They don't get the revenue, its a primitive form of ad blocking, but just as effective. I notice that where the content on a site is very good, I am more willing to put up with the ads. But in general, the inverse is the case. The better the content, the better the control of the ads on the site.
Interestingly enough, a few powerful psychopaths want to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed with their products.
I do think that Apple should have asked the developers of ad blockers to provide an option to opt in for adverts when you visit a website. E.g you come to appleinsider and are greeted by a banner stating who the adverts are provided by and how it benefits the website, you can then opt in or not.
A perfect example of the sort of political crap I'd love to see filtered out of a science based site. If I want a debate about the NRA I would be reading AI.
Just a foot note on the BBC site... It's paid for by the UK Public. There is something called a TV Licence where every home and business in the UK pays £145 per year ($225 US) per building who has a TV. Looking at the numbers I could find for 2009 - 2010 the income for this was £3.56 billion ($5.56 billion US). With a round 6% of that being used to fund the BBC websites, around £213 million ($331 million UK) per year is paid for the BBC Website.
Notice how the worst douchebags-- the self important, self appointed idiots that low quality sites refer to with such reverence are using snotty ad services like The Deck?
Gruber charges an arm and a leg for people to come to his site which is itself all advertisements- you can't block it because all he writes about is his app, his friends, himself, his political opinions (ignorant of course.) and then there's the "sponsored posts" which is %50 of the posts these days.
There's nothing but advertising on that site.
Gruber charges an arm and a leg for people to come to his site which is itself all advertisements- you can't block it because all he writes about is his app, his friends, himself, his political opinions (ignorant of course.) and then there's the "sponsored posts" which is %50 of the posts these days.
There's nothing but advertising on that site.
Gruber puts up one sponsored post per week, and usually writes 4-5 posts during the week. As for writing about "app, his friends, himself, his political opinions", that my friend is what we call a 'blog'. If you don't enjoy it, don't read it, but it certainly isn't advertising.
Neil,
Here is my suggestion. AI and other sites should cooperate with Marco to provide an ad blocker that pays sites.
Cool idea. Isn't going to happen though. Marco crossed over from constructive to troll a long time ago.
Safari is only part of the ad problem.
The bottom of screen text blocking ads I get from several news and other apps is disgusting.
With difficulty I close the ad window only to have it often reappear in a few minutes.
Most ads do not relate to me at all. Perhaps Google's targeted ads are better,
so perhaps I should try an android phone which will also save me lots of phone purchase money.
You see I'm a VERY moral person by nature. Ads don't bother me most of the time but I REFUSE to fund a scumbag thief named Goog.
Middle Ground:
Isn't the News app supposed to solve this? I hope so. I want Goog out of my life completely.
Fixed that statement from Marco Arment for you.
Original:
"Ad blockers come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit a ton of people in major ways, they also hurt some, including many who don't deserve the hit.”
Corrected:
"ADVERTISEMENTS come with an important asterisk: while they do benefit SOME people in major ways, they also hurt A TON, including many who don't deserve the hit.”
Here’s the average ‘content’ percentage on this site:
Oh, and thanks for the proliferation of trolls that have been allowed to remain on forums in order to bump up page hits. An excellent way to alienate the audience who will actually be using that advertising for Apple products...
Advertisers: if what you do is so useless, so unpopular, and so anti-consumer that people are installing tools to stop it, take the hint.
Gruber charges people for Daring Fireball? Im pretty sure it costs me nothing, and to be fair he presents his ads in a very classy, curated and minimalist fashion. That's not to say what he advertises for isn't usually garbage, it is. Nor is it to say that his political opinions aren't brain dead partisan hack, because as smart and insightful as he is about tech stuff, he's a drooling idiot when it comes to politics. Nothing wrong with him supporting his friends, in fact that's a character strength as far as I'm concerned. But it's cringe worthy when he tries getting all nightly news. Strikes me as a guy who lives in a NYC thought echo chamber, emotionally and religiously invested in the team D vs R fantasy dichotomy.
Then again Steve Jobs was pretty smart too, but a complete zealot retard about diet and health. Everybody's got a flaw, mine is tipping Australians.
I also believe that no company has the right to track me all over the web just because I looked at their site. That sounds like a parasite to me.
The deal that Apple offers publishers in Apple News sounds like a good deal- perhaps more than they are getting now? If this is so I have to wonder what the real reason certain advertisers are complaining so much.
Also I am happy to pay for troll & ad free, original content.
[LIST=1]
[*] Kasper [I]The Automated[/I] Slave - a truthful screen name if there ever was one, because a) congratulations for "automating" curation (see [@]proline[/@]'s post above); and b) for not being a very good editor because editing is a hands-on activity that can't successfully be automated. Regardless, you're continuously trying anyway and want to continue "automating" the making of money from a computer-generated process. That's no longer going to be easy, automated... or successful IMHO.
[*]
[*] Apple[I]insider[/I] - a name that I can only assume that you luckily fell upon very early on and very possibly wanted to become...which unfotunately... you are not. Your posts are 90% regurgitated web content found elsewhere and with better depth. Your 2 "exclusive" topics are those either created by DED and woefully lacking any editing (double paragraphs, repetition of thoughts and themes, etc.), or playing around with your drone and keeping tabs (of late) about the progress of the new Apple Campus. Your "hands-on" posts are technically true only because you touched them for a couple of minutes, whereas the common and colloquial meaning of hands-on is a lie and a rehash of what you have scraped from other sites or have been told at a demo.
[*]
[*] Content presentation - apart from the above, how many times in the last 7 years that I've been coming here have members continuously told you here in these forums that the front-end of the site is too bloated, is slow, and often times the worst site they visit daily? How many times have you worked diligently to fix that? How many ads, banner-blocks and divs have you and your team decided to... painful as it is... EDIT from this site as a compromise to your faithful readers?
[*]
[*] Most Valuable Asset: the AI forums and a core number of AI Members that contribute here. Oddly enough, actual industry "insiders" and "insights" that are not reflected on the front page, nor monetized or used efficiently to bolster your importance as a "must visit" web entity within the Apple community.
[*]
[*] Technical Intelligence - In close relationship to both #3 and #4 above, rather than clean up your web presence, you decide instead to develop and use your limited funds to create a "web app". Besides being widely despised and even discouraged by Apple itself because it adds NOTHING but unnecessary bloat to the App Store, even your most valuable followers either a) don't use it, and b) have spent THEIR time to tell you what's wrong with it... rather than concentrating on THE site and forums and making them better. Wasted effort, energy, resources... and in the end... opportunity to stand out among your competition.
[/LIST]
Ads - so now we come to the meat of your post and are offered a whole platter of foul Swiss cheese with an abundance of sour w(h)ine. Rather than embracing the opportunity (that word again!) to "ask" for suggestions from your loyal readers, or objectively state your faults and a mission statement how you plan to address them, you take the easy way out and point to why ads are needed (like we don't know that!) and why WE should white-list your site without giving ANY reasons beyond "think of the jobs" (i.e. children") lost. IF YOU WERE doing your job to the best of your ability and using the collective intelligence available to you... dare I say... you would NOT need to ask for support nor suffer the consequences of your pathetic buffet of excuses.
OK. That was brutal... and no... I will not apologize for my assessment. IF you are serious and once you take an objective hard look at what you have here at AI... and what you don't... and decide to leverage the positives, you just might survive the "Website Culling of 2015".
You stated [B]"adopt or die"[/B] as a footnote. Now start to believe that and plant seeds for future success, rather than becoming a "smelly fish head" more commonly known as a "victim".
Disclaimer: I've been working in multiple industries in constant flux since the very early '80s, from typesetting, litho, offset printing, dead-tree publishers, photographers, ad agencies, education and entertainment.
If there's anything in my post here that I can tell you as fact and absolutely not simply an opinion, it is the reality of [B]"adopt or die"[/B]. That is a choice that only you and your team can make and act upon to have even a small chance of influencing the outcome. I have experienced certain entire industries that have died no matter what the individual proprietors have done to mitigate it. I don't believe that is what you/we are facing here.
You simply have work to do, and no... at this point... it can not be "automated".
Neil Hughes, publishers like yourself would not be writing about this topic were it not for Apple's release of content blockers. While I agree with the sentiment that we should seek a middle grounds of sorts, the public has been grumbling about increasingly abusive and intrusive online advertising for years while publishers, for the most part, have turned a deaf ear. You have allowed your business model to depend on ad networks over which you have zero influence, and who have zero accountability to your readers. When a company treats its users as the product rather than as its customers, the outcome is never a good one.
Focusing your frustration on fed up end users while only meekly criticizing the advertisers who are the true source of the problem will not endear you to your readers nor earn their sympathy.
Using the example below from PC Mag, this company's content is not even remotely worth the pain of the user experience. Any website subjecting their readers to this level of nonsense deserves to go out of business.
Personally I despise Google and if this move to implement Content Blockers hurts Google then I am all for it.
I also believe that no company has the right to track me all over the web just because I looked at their site. That sounds like a parasite to me.
The deal that Apple offers publishers in Apple News sounds like a good deal- perhaps more than they are getting now? If this is so I have to wonder what the real reason certain advertisers are complaining so much.
Also I am happy to pay for troll & ad free, original content.
They're complaining for the same reason they complain about Iads, they can't profile the god damn users beyond the demos of the actual media, like in the old days... They want targetted ads... The problem is that to get a supremely targetted ads, they need to know me better than my boyfriend... If they want to be "boyfriend" material, they better not show up drunk and barf all over my web browsing like they do now... And then send me roses on the next day... Promising me a better experience in the future from having endured that Barftastic experience... And then stalking me all over the Internet... Yeah, Fun...