freerange wrote: »
This website is the absolute worst, by far, that I visit regularly in terms of loading speed and annoying loading refreshes. It's ok to pontificate, but I don't see any suggestions from you on how to improve AI's worst in class performance.
I don't see how this is Apple's responsibility. For everything stated in this article, it is also true that most of the comments are accurate. These companies DO create seriously agitating, nuisance ads, and they track without permission in any way they can.
Every time I search some random thing on Google and then show up to Apple Insider, I see the same images of that thing flooding every single ad in sight on the pages of AI for the next week.
Do you think the average consumer doesn't put it all together?
I don't give a rat's ass, frankly.
My job as a consumer is not to figure out how you can make money selling shit to me.
Thats your job. Start thinking different or stop working in this field. Adapt or die. Make room for the next guy.
I'd be willing to pay a modest subscription fee for AppleInsider news if it would change its bad habits. I check it just about every day to see what the daily hubbub is. On my desktop, the site occasionally appears to hang after loading all the ads, with the content area blank until I force a reload. Pain in the keister.
If an online publisher could get some people to pony up and pay while also cutting down on intrusive ads, data hogging ads, tracking ads, content-blocking ads; they could just carry on without losing out. Up the quality of the reporting, limit ads to good players/payers and you'll see even greater subscriptions.
And if implementing an iAd only system is deemed too exclusive, what about some sort of Ad Community Association that has a binding code of conduct that would let people trust what they're serving. A publication could let it be known that the only ads that they serve are from members and it would include some sort of page view max quota, such as 1 or 2, based on screen size.
nasserae wrote: »
Online publishers and their free with ads business model killed newspaper and magazine publishers. Now ad blocking is threatening your business model. By "you" I mean every one bitching about ad blockers. What goes around comes around.
tallest skil wrote: »
And yet I don’t respect him one iota, nor is someone who destroys something good like this “conscientious” at all.
Sorry, but no.
Enjoy your delusions.
AppleInsider wrote: »
Anyone can agree that some mobile ads are exceptionally egregious and must be kept in check. But anyone who believes they are entitled to simply block ads across the board and deprive publications and their staff of advertising revenue and their very livelihood is flat-out wrong.
mdriftmeyer wrote: »
Not hard to see this site is overkill.
That's not theoretical, that's reality. Whatever social behavior you exhibit online - forums, Twitter, Facebook, anything - is being collated against some type of identifier of you, the person, and also matched with your real world behavior. Profiling of consumers is getting easier and easier. That loyalty card you use with your associated email address? That ties your online identify and behavior to your offline. Combine that with the increasing prevalence of physically tracking you. When you walk into a lot of stores, they are capturing any unique identifier from your phone just by having your wireless turned on. I believe Apple instituted faux MAC addresses on wifi just to reduce this issue. And we don't even know what the mobile operators are sharing.
focher wrote: »
That loyalty card you use with your associated email address? That ties your online identify and behavior to your offline.
It's entirely possible to criticize a person's actions but not the person. You should consider it.
The person chose to undertake the actions. The actions were undertaken due to a number of the other actions or beliefs that make up the person. The person can change, but until he does, the person is to blame. Who are we but our beliefs and the actions undertaken in accordance therewith?
This feels like the same thing as the Flappy Bird guy pulling his product, except there’s zero chance that some competitor or other field-associated group would have approached him to do so.
Pulling a content blocker is suspect.