No, he's speaking of the older demographic, the 40's and up, which are a huge part of Amazon's business. They mostly don't care about brand or device names and such, they just want to be able to watch Netflix on it, or a listen to music, or read a book. They are looking for access to services and functionality, and the brand and device names all fall away in their minds. In fact, most could give less than a damn about any of that as long as something does what they want it to do, that's all they care about. So if they can get movies, books, Netflix, etc on a $199 Kindle Fire versus a $499 iPad, that's what they are going to buy, because all they care about are those services, not the shiny box it comes in.
Where have I heard that (the part in bold) before?
I'm not far away from 40 myself. My parents and inlaws are in their 60s. If you think the iPad or the Apple ecosystem doesn't appeal to them, simply because it "just works," then you may want to take another look at that demographic. It's not about the shiny box at all. It's about the intuitive interface, and the fact that the iPad will do anything they want it to do.
I'm NOT saying that some people won't be swayed by the Fire HD. For the same reason they'll buy an Android phone: It's "good enough." And no doubt, the pricing.
The iPad mini will "solve" the pricing argument, I think. Again, not speaking for everyone. I'm only speaking of my experience with generations such as my parents, inlaws, etc.
I think that you underestimate the so called over 40 crowd, which you claim to know about. Plenty of older people use Apple's devices, and just because somebody is over 40, that doesn't mean that their senses, such as sight and feel, are not functioning anymore. I bet that even an average 80 year old person can tell the difference between the super fluid iPad and non responsive Android tablets.
You said it better than I did. I love seeing the older generations interact with Apple's products. About 3 weeks ago, I was in the Apple store and saw an elderly lady using an iPad for the first time. Too awesome, she walked out of the store a purchaser, too.
Here I thought you were smart Jeff, people want both, people always want both.
People have always wanted services. They have needed gadgets to access those services. The big deal about the iPhone was it consolidated a bunch of services (some of which weren't even available on phones, like desktop class web browser) into 1 gadget.
The difference is what people have been willing to pay for. They have not been willing to pay for services for the most part (look at how music sales revenues have dropped, although music consumption has increased. Same with books and DVDs, etc). Apple showed, with the iTunes Store, that people will pay small sums of money not so much for the service, but for the convenience with which they can get the service. OTOH, they are willing to pay decent bucks for actual well designed hardware.
I am not sure how this bet will work for Amazon, but for all their successes, they are really not good at making money. Essentially, they are selling a loss leader, in order to increase sales of other loss leaders ($1 eBook, etc.).
You said it better than I did. I love seeing the older generations interact with Apple's products. About 3 weeks ago, I was in the Apple store and saw an elderly lady using an iPad for the first time. Too awesome, she walked out of the store a purchaser, too.
I know what you mean!
When I was on summer vacation this year, I gave an iPad to my mom as a gift, and she loves it, even though she is completely clueless about computers. She has a Windoze laptop from her job, but even a simple task like checking email on that thing is a nightmare for her.
I even had my grandmother try out the iPad, and she's soon 100 freaking years old, and she had no problem with navigating through a photo album. The iPad is probably the first computer type device that she has ever used in her entire life.
How useful would Apple Insider be if it posted articles but never sourced the information or provided links?
Please think before you post.
Appleinsider is a news/rumors site, I am not(wasn't sure if you were aware). Comparing a persons comment on a forum to an article on news site is rediculous.
All i am saying is that for something that is really easy to find, consult google. If it is some statistic/quote/etc where the detail is important, then provide a link. Otherwise, the person asking for the link is being lazy.
[" url="/t/152391/lock-home-screen-ads-aid-amazons-aggressive-pricing-of-kindle-fire-hd/40#post_2184664"]
I think that you underestimate the so called over 40 crowd, which you claim to know about. Plenty of older people use Apple's devices, and just because somebody is over 40, that doesn't mean that their senses, such as sight and feel, are not functioning anymore. I bet that even an average 80 year old person can tell the difference between the super fluid iPad and non responsive Android tablets.
The over 40 crowd are the true fans of Apple products. Most of the young whipper snappers never heard of Apple before the iPod.
Gadgets subsidized with ads is relatively new, but ad subsidized products and services that are not new. Magazines, newspapers, cable & satellite TV come to mind. You pay for the product or service, and you still pay by ad exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But, what if he is right?
What if, instead of bombarding you with random ads, the OS and Amazon's servers could monitor your current interests and show you only [mostly] ads of interest -- helping [serving] you rather than spamming you?
Amazon's web site already tracks your interests, reminds you of them, and suggests other items that may be of interest to you.
Done properly, this could work as a personal shopper's assistant... Rather than a carnival barker!
I let a friend staying over for a week or so use my computer - THREE YEARS ago - and he browsed Amazon, the iTunes Store and other sites on my computer. And I'm still getting recommendations for the products HE was interested in - none of which are of any interest to me. "Personal shopper's assistant" my sweet patootie.
It's also frightening to me sometimes (tho' occasionally hilarious) what gets placed in my gMail and facebook screens based on a few random words in some email, post or message. And the, yes, eye-catching electronic billboards on the interstates have come close to making me a dangerously distracted driver on more than one occasion of late.
But 99% of the time I've trained my eyes to simply ignore the constant "BUYBUYBUYBUYBUYBUY" prompts we receive as we move through both the analog and virtual worlds...... ...making me luckier than some of my friends who get more distracted to either a) their consternation and botherment or b) their impending bankruptcies because they're driven by the marketing messages......
PS: Still, I see many in this Apple-centric crowd underestimating Amazon. Don't discount the Bezos. People say the company doesn't "make money," but the stock's up over 12,0000% since the years ago IPO. Somebody's doing something right. And Amazon may yet prove the most formidable competitor to AAPL in the tablet space.
What if, instead of bombarding you with random ads, the OS and Amazon's servers could monitor your current interests and show you only [mostly] ads of interest -- helping [serving] you rather than spamming you?
Amazon's web site already tracks your interests, reminds you of them, and suggests other items that may be of interest to you.
Done properly, this could work as a personal shopper's assistant... Rather than a carnival barker!
I would argue that this is a "personal shopping assistant" for idiots. If you really need Amazon to tell you what to buy you might be better off just giving them access to your bank account and accepting whatever they send you. Possibly this is the future.
The over 40 crowd are the true fans of Apple products. Most of the young whipper snappers never heard of Apple before the iPod.
I agree, how old do you think the people who grew up with Apple ]['s are today? And I'd also say that a young person is much more likely to buy some inferior, cheap, discounted Android device with ads. Youth unemployment is very high, and many young people are broke today.
Most people have money by the time that they're 40, and a hundred bucks here or there means nothing to them. Most people over 40 are also wiser than young kids, and I bet that many of them value quality over cheapness.
On Friday, Wall Street analyst Shaw Wu with Sterne Agee said he's concerned about Amazon's low-margin business model. Last year, it was believed that Amazon was actually losing money on each first-generation Kindle Fire it sold.
"We question the company's stance where it believes it can make profits on content is the right business model," Wu said, "as reselling someone else's content has historically proven to not be a very profitable venture."
However, ads have been proven to be a profitable business model. Of course it remains remains to be seen whether hardwiring ads into your hardware is a good business model. Also everything Amazon is doing hinges on the consumer actually using the device a lot after they buy it. I don't know if they have a good enough user experience to pull that off. The one good thing for consumers is that it motivates Amazon to provide updates to old products because they make money from you using them rather than from selling them to you.
A good Ad can be a great thing with lots of benefits.
Uh, no. Not interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs
This whole "link?" trend really needs to stop. Its not like I am quoting some crazy statistic. If you want a link, here is what you do.
1. Go to google, or bing, or yahoo, or altavista(are they even around anymore)
2. Type in Kindle fire HD remove advertising
3. Hit Go, Search, Bing, or whatever search button terminology the site uses
4. Bunch of links magically appear.
Since that is too difficult and I obviously love to make up stuff that could very easily be proven true/false by following the above steps, here is a link:
BS. You made a claim, you can back it up with a link. Someone else shouldn't have to make your case for you, not if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Back to the topic.
When they say, "coming soon", what they mean is, "we created a shitstorm by making all of these new KFs ad-supported and we completely underestimated the backlash, so give us a few days while a committee decides what we should charge to remove the ads". :P
The ironic part is that all the effort the poster made to explain why he didn't post the link, responding back and forth, he could/should have just made his first post with a link to prove his claim and be done with it.
I love it when people don't know the proper use of ironic, yet are trying to say I am wrong for not using quotations/documentation in a non formal setting.
And what was apparently missed was my attempt at absurdity to illustrate how simple that piece of information would be to find.
Here's my prediction. It's going to go the way Cable TV has gone. In the next 5 years we'll see this sale strategy make it's way around the various tablet and PC companies (except for Apple).
Then it will be just generally accepted that Ads will be part of the user experience...just like cable. In the early days of cable we paid money to watch commercial-free broadcasting. That's why we paid for it. Now you pay money for what? just expanded programming, and you pay a LOT for it. That's why pirating is such a huge thing. It's easy and it's free.
Apple got it right with the iTunes store. Offer a price-point that people would be stupid not to pay, and a service that's easy as pie, and they'll go for it.
The rest of the world's strategy: we'll give you what you want, but it's going to hurt a little, and you still have to pay for it.
Another great example of the future of mobile computing (tablet or otherwise). Look at Dwell Magazine.
The first 4 years it came out, it was a 100+ page leaflet with brilliant articles and excellent photography.
Wins April 2005 National Magazine Award for General Excellence in the 100,000-to-250,000 circulation category.
Oct/Nov. 2005 issue...turned a new leaf towards ads and creates the same magazine, but with double the ads (in total a 250+ page tome) with the same amount of content as before.
Wins March 2006 Adweek 2006 Creative Team of the Year award.
Today, they reduced the issues back to the 100+ mark, but now have a better balance of ads and content. However, the content is no better than any other design magazines found in the check-out line.
This whole thread just makes me sad. People who buy magazines and watch cable TV are just idiots in my book.
Advertisements are bad enough in and of themselves. They are deceptive, not as creative as everyone thinks they are and their entire purpose is to fool you, annoy you, and otherwise twist your mind around.
Magazines and Cable TV (in general) also have almost no original content, and magazines generally have no content at all that is more current than a few months ago. Most of the content in both cases is also freely available elsewhere without advertisements. In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
Anyone who actually pays their own hard earned money for something that still has advertisements in it is just a complete and utter fool IMO. Special scorn is reserved for those who buy "fashion" magazines where even the articles are in fact advertisements and the actual content falls to zero.
People are essentially paying for companies to lie to them, to fool them into buying something they don't need. Idiots.
In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
I have to disagree with you on cable tv. The best series being made today are all produced by cable channels. Network TV is crap in comparison.
Walking Dead, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Hell on Wheels, Deadwood, Curb your Enthusiasm, Breaking Bad, The Wire and countless others...........
This whole thread just makes me sad. People who buy magazines and watch cable TV are just idiots in my book.
Advertisements are bad enough in and of themselves. They are deceptive, not as creative as everyone thinks they are and their entire purpose is to fool you, annoy you, and otherwise twist your mind around.
Magazines and Cable TV (in general) also have almost no original content, and magazines generally have no content at all that is more current than a few months ago. Most of the content in both cases is also freely available elsewhere without advertisements. In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
Anyone who actually pays their own hard earned money for something that still has advertisements in it is just a complete and utter fool IMO. Special scorn is reserved for those who buy "fashion" magazines where even the articles are in fact advertisements and the actual content falls to zero.
People are essentially paying for companies to lie to them, to fool them into buying something they don't need. Idiots.
thanks for calling me and many others on this forum an idiot and a fool.
So I take it you don't have an internet connection? Because you're paying for bandwidth that contains Ads, including this webpage you're currently on.
While I think this is somewhat of an overreach on Bezos' part, I know that removing all advertising from content is a mistake on Apple's part. That could be a big reason they are not able to secure as much content as they need to make content/service as profitable as their products are, especially when it comes to television content. RIght now people are streaming old assed content via Netflix® or new content via hulu+®. Hulu is getting money from both ends, as a subscription and ads in the content, well at least they have ads in the non'+" content. Apple is foolish to kill the commercials, which is why they are such an also -ran in their ad business.
If people want shows without ads, they shoud have the option to pay for them, on the other hands, I would get a lot more TV and Movie rentals from the iTunes store if they were subsidized with a few commercials. I think Apple is wrong in thinking that people don't like ads in their content, I know people don't like crappy ads in their content, but considering the impact of ads on society as a whole, a good ad has a lot of impact. I buy more music from iTunes that I've heard in television ads than any other source. The Advertising industry needs to have an 'in' as well. C'mon Apple, give us some free (with Ads and maybe some coupons too!)
[" url="/t/152391/lock-home-screen-ads-aid-amazons-aggressive-pricing-of-kindle-fire-hd/40#post_2184702"]
I have to disagree with you on cable tv. The best series being made today are all produced by cable channels. Network TV is crap in comparison.
Walking Dead, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Hell on Wheels, Deadwood, Curb your Enthusiasm, Breaking Bad, The Wire and countless others...........
I see that you like me can't do without HBO and AMC, and you forgot Game of Thrones.
This whole thread just makes me sad. People who buy magazines and watch cable TV are just idiots in my book.
Advertisements are bad enough in and of themselves. They are deceptive, not as creative as everyone thinks they are and their entire purpose is to fool you, annoy you, and otherwise twist your mind around.
Magazines and Cable TV (in general) also have almost no original content, and magazines generally have no content at all that is more current than a few months ago. Most of the content in both cases is also freely available elsewhere without advertisements. In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
Anyone who actually pays their own hard earned money for something that still has advertisements in it is just a complete and utter fool IMO. Special scorn is reserved for those who buy "fashion" magazines where even the articles are in fact advertisements and the actual content falls to zero.
People are essentially paying for companies to lie to them, to fool them into buying something they don't need. Idiots.
The whole point is to 'not pay' for advertising, which is how the cable and sattelite industry screwed the nation. The idea is to get the content cheap and have the advertisers pay for all or most of it. It worked for years on over the air television and radio and it is a good model. It costs a lot of money to generate that content, and they should be paid, let the advertisers pay for it. Good business!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907
No, he's speaking of the older demographic, the 40's and up, which are a huge part of Amazon's business. They mostly don't care about brand or device names and such, they just want to be able to watch Netflix on it, or a listen to music, or read a book. They are looking for access to services and functionality, and the brand and device names all fall away in their minds. In fact, most could give less than a damn about any of that as long as something does what they want it to do, that's all they care about. So if they can get movies, books, Netflix, etc on a $199 Kindle Fire versus a $499 iPad, that's what they are going to buy, because all they care about are those services, not the shiny box it comes in.
Where have I heard that (the part in bold) before?
I'm not far away from 40 myself. My parents and inlaws are in their 60s. If you think the iPad or the Apple ecosystem doesn't appeal to them, simply because it "just works," then you may want to take another look at that demographic. It's not about the shiny box at all. It's about the intuitive interface, and the fact that the iPad will do anything they want it to do.
I'm NOT saying that some people won't be swayed by the Fire HD. For the same reason they'll buy an Android phone: It's "good enough." And no doubt, the pricing.
The iPad mini will "solve" the pricing argument, I think. Again, not speaking for everyone. I'm only speaking of my experience with generations such as my parents, inlaws, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I think that you underestimate the so called over 40 crowd, which you claim to know about. Plenty of older people use Apple's devices, and just because somebody is over 40, that doesn't mean that their senses, such as sight and feel, are not functioning anymore. I bet that even an average 80 year old person can tell the difference between the super fluid iPad and non responsive Android tablets.
You said it better than I did. I love seeing the older generations interact with Apple's products. About 3 weeks ago, I was in the Apple store and saw an elderly lady using an iPad for the first time. Too awesome, she walked out of the store a purchaser, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilogic
Here I thought you were smart Jeff, people want both, people always want both.
People have always wanted services. They have needed gadgets to access those services. The big deal about the iPhone was it consolidated a bunch of services (some of which weren't even available on phones, like desktop class web browser) into 1 gadget.
The difference is what people have been willing to pay for. They have not been willing to pay for services for the most part (look at how music sales revenues have dropped, although music consumption has increased. Same with books and DVDs, etc). Apple showed, with the iTunes Store, that people will pay small sums of money not so much for the service, but for the convenience with which they can get the service. OTOH, they are willing to pay decent bucks for actual well designed hardware.
I am not sure how this bet will work for Amazon, but for all their successes, they are really not good at making money. Essentially, they are selling a loss leader, in order to increase sales of other loss leaders ($1 eBook, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
You said it better than I did. I love seeing the older generations interact with Apple's products. About 3 weeks ago, I was in the Apple store and saw an elderly lady using an iPad for the first time. Too awesome, she walked out of the store a purchaser, too.
I know what you mean!
When I was on summer vacation this year, I gave an iPad to my mom as a gift, and she loves it, even though she is completely clueless about computers. She has a Windoze laptop from her job, but even a simple task like checking email on that thing is a nightmare for her.
I even had my grandmother try out the iPad, and she's soon 100 freaking years old, and she had no problem with navigating through a photo album. The iPad is probably the first computer type device that she has ever used in her entire life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud30000
How useful would Apple Insider be if it posted articles but never sourced the information or provided links?
Please think before you post.
Appleinsider is a news/rumors site, I am not(wasn't sure if you were aware). Comparing a persons comment on a forum to an article on news site is rediculous.
All i am saying is that for something that is really easy to find, consult google. If it is some statistic/quote/etc where the detail is important, then provide a link. Otherwise, the person asking for the link is being lazy.
The over 40 crowd are the true fans of Apple products. Most of the young whipper snappers never heard of Apple before the iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Gadgets subsidized with ads is relatively new, but ad subsidized products and services that are not new. Magazines, newspapers, cable & satellite TV come to mind. You pay for the product or service, and you still pay by ad exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But, what if he is right?
What if, instead of bombarding you with random ads, the OS and Amazon's servers could monitor your current interests and show you only [mostly] ads of interest -- helping [serving] you rather than spamming you?
Amazon's web site already tracks your interests, reminds you of them, and suggests other items that may be of interest to you.
Done properly, this could work as a personal shopper's assistant... Rather than a carnival barker!
I let a friend staying over for a week or so use my computer - THREE YEARS ago - and he browsed Amazon, the iTunes Store and other sites on my computer. And I'm still getting recommendations for the products HE was interested in - none of which are of any interest to me. "Personal shopper's assistant" my sweet patootie.
It's also frightening to me sometimes (tho' occasionally hilarious) what gets placed in my gMail and facebook screens based on a few random words in some email, post or message. And the, yes, eye-catching electronic billboards on the interstates have come close to making me a dangerously distracted driver on more than one occasion of late.
But 99% of the time I've trained my eyes to simply ignore the constant "BUYBUYBUYBUYBUYBUY" prompts we receive as we move through both the analog and virtual worlds...... ...making me luckier than some of my friends who get more distracted to either a) their consternation and botherment or b) their impending bankruptcies because they're driven by the marketing messages......
PS: Still, I see many in this Apple-centric crowd underestimating Amazon. Don't discount the Bezos. People say the company doesn't "make money," but the stock's up over 12,0000% since the years ago IPO. Somebody's doing something right. And Amazon may yet prove the most formidable competitor to AAPL in the tablet space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But, what if he is right?
What if, instead of bombarding you with random ads, the OS and Amazon's servers could monitor your current interests and show you only [mostly] ads of interest -- helping [serving] you rather than spamming you?
Amazon's web site already tracks your interests, reminds you of them, and suggests other items that may be of interest to you.
Done properly, this could work as a personal shopper's assistant... Rather than a carnival barker!
I would argue that this is a "personal shopping assistant" for idiots. If you really need Amazon to tell you what to buy you might be better off just giving them access to your bank account and accepting whatever they send you. Possibly this is the future.
They have been selling service driven gadgets for 10 years. It is entirely possible he knows more than you.
Edit: Ok it was 5 years not 10. They still have some experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The over 40 crowd are the true fans of Apple products. Most of the young whipper snappers never heard of Apple before the iPod.
I agree, how old do you think the people who grew up with Apple ]['s are today? And I'd also say that a young person is much more likely to buy some inferior, cheap, discounted Android device with ads. Youth unemployment is very high, and many young people are broke today.
Most people have money by the time that they're 40, and a hundred bucks here or there means nothing to them. Most people over 40 are also wiser than young kids, and I bet that many of them value quality over cheapness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
On Friday, Wall Street analyst Shaw Wu with Sterne Agee said he's concerned about Amazon's low-margin business model. Last year, it was believed that Amazon was actually losing money on each first-generation Kindle Fire it sold.
"We question the company's stance where it believes it can make profits on content is the right business model," Wu said, "as reselling someone else's content has historically proven to not be a very profitable venture."
However, ads have been proven to be a profitable business model. Of course it remains remains to be seen whether hardwiring ads into your hardware is a good business model. Also everything Amazon is doing hinges on the consumer actually using the device a lot after they buy it. I don't know if they have a good enough user experience to pull that off. The one good thing for consumers is that it motivates Amazon to provide updates to old products because they make money from you using them rather than from selling them to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
A good Ad can be a great thing with lots of benefits.
Uh, no. Not interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baka-Dubbs
This whole "link?" trend really needs to stop. Its not like I am quoting some crazy statistic. If you want a link, here is what you do.
1. Go to google, or bing, or yahoo, or altavista(are they even around anymore)
2. Type in Kindle fire HD remove advertising
3. Hit Go, Search, Bing, or whatever search button terminology the site uses
4. Bunch of links magically appear.
Since that is too difficult and I obviously love to make up stuff that could very easily be proven true/false by following the above steps, here is a link:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/07/amazon-confirms-yes-you-can-opt-out-of-ads-on-new-kindle-fire/
Let me know if you need more links....
BS. You made a claim, you can back it up with a link. Someone else shouldn't have to make your case for you, not if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Back to the topic.
When they say, "coming soon", what they mean is, "we created a shitstorm by making all of these new KFs ad-supported and we completely underestimated the backlash, so give us a few days while a committee decides what we should charge to remove the ads". :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The ironic part is that all the effort the poster made to explain why he didn't post the link, responding back and forth, he could/should have just made his first post with a link to prove his claim and be done with it.
I love it when people don't know the proper use of ironic, yet are trying to say I am wrong for not using quotations/documentation in a non formal setting.
And what was apparently missed was my attempt at absurdity to illustrate how simple that piece of information would be to find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
Here's my prediction. It's going to go the way Cable TV has gone. In the next 5 years we'll see this sale strategy make it's way around the various tablet and PC companies (except for Apple).
Then it will be just generally accepted that Ads will be part of the user experience...just like cable. In the early days of cable we paid money to watch commercial-free broadcasting. That's why we paid for it. Now you pay money for what? just expanded programming, and you pay a LOT for it. That's why pirating is such a huge thing. It's easy and it's free.
Apple got it right with the iTunes store. Offer a price-point that people would be stupid not to pay, and a service that's easy as pie, and they'll go for it.
The rest of the world's strategy: we'll give you what you want, but it's going to hurt a little, and you still have to pay for it.
Another great example of the future of mobile computing (tablet or otherwise). Look at Dwell Magazine.
The first 4 years it came out, it was a 100+ page leaflet with brilliant articles and excellent photography.
Wins April 2005 National Magazine Award for General Excellence in the 100,000-to-250,000 circulation category.
Oct/Nov. 2005 issue...turned a new leaf towards ads and creates the same magazine, but with double the ads (in total a 250+ page tome) with the same amount of content as before.
Wins March 2006 Adweek 2006 Creative Team of the Year award.
Today, they reduced the issues back to the 100+ mark, but now have a better balance of ads and content. However, the content is no better than any other design magazines found in the check-out line.
This whole thread just makes me sad. People who buy magazines and watch cable TV are just idiots in my book.
Advertisements are bad enough in and of themselves. They are deceptive, not as creative as everyone thinks they are and their entire purpose is to fool you, annoy you, and otherwise twist your mind around.
Magazines and Cable TV (in general) also have almost no original content, and magazines generally have no content at all that is more current than a few months ago. Most of the content in both cases is also freely available elsewhere without advertisements. In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
Anyone who actually pays their own hard earned money for something that still has advertisements in it is just a complete and utter fool IMO. Special scorn is reserved for those who buy "fashion" magazines where even the articles are in fact advertisements and the actual content falls to zero.
People are essentially paying for companies to lie to them, to fool them into buying something they don't need. Idiots.
"People don't want gadgets anymore."
- Jeff Bezos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
I have to disagree with you on cable tv. The best series being made today are all produced by cable channels. Network TV is crap in comparison.
Walking Dead, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Hell on Wheels, Deadwood, Curb your Enthusiasm, Breaking Bad, The Wire and countless others...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This whole thread just makes me sad. People who buy magazines and watch cable TV are just idiots in my book.
Advertisements are bad enough in and of themselves. They are deceptive, not as creative as everyone thinks they are and their entire purpose is to fool you, annoy you, and otherwise twist your mind around.
Magazines and Cable TV (in general) also have almost no original content, and magazines generally have no content at all that is more current than a few months ago. Most of the content in both cases is also freely available elsewhere without advertisements. In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
Anyone who actually pays their own hard earned money for something that still has advertisements in it is just a complete and utter fool IMO. Special scorn is reserved for those who buy "fashion" magazines where even the articles are in fact advertisements and the actual content falls to zero.
People are essentially paying for companies to lie to them, to fool them into buying something they don't need. Idiots.
thanks for calling me and many others on this forum an idiot and a fool.
So I take it you don't have an internet connection? Because you're paying for bandwidth that contains Ads, including this webpage you're currently on.
While I think this is somewhat of an overreach on Bezos' part, I know that removing all advertising from content is a mistake on Apple's part. That could be a big reason they are not able to secure as much content as they need to make content/service as profitable as their products are, especially when it comes to television content. RIght now people are streaming old assed content via Netflix® or new content via hulu+®. Hulu is getting money from both ends, as a subscription and ads in the content, well at least they have ads in the non'+" content. Apple is foolish to kill the commercials, which is why they are such an also -ran in their ad business.
If people want shows without ads, they shoud have the option to pay for them, on the other hands, I would get a lot more TV and Movie rentals from the iTunes store if they were subsidized with a few commercials. I think Apple is wrong in thinking that people don't like ads in their content, I know people don't like crappy ads in their content, but considering the impact of ads on society as a whole, a good ad has a lot of impact. I buy more music from iTunes that I've heard in television ads than any other source. The Advertising industry needs to have an 'in' as well. C'mon Apple, give us some free (with Ads and maybe some coupons too!)
I see that you like me can't do without HBO and AMC, and you forgot Game of Thrones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This whole thread just makes me sad. People who buy magazines and watch cable TV are just idiots in my book.
Advertisements are bad enough in and of themselves. They are deceptive, not as creative as everyone thinks they are and their entire purpose is to fool you, annoy you, and otherwise twist your mind around.
Magazines and Cable TV (in general) also have almost no original content, and magazines generally have no content at all that is more current than a few months ago. Most of the content in both cases is also freely available elsewhere without advertisements. In the case of cable TV, most of the content is many years old, was produced for pennies on the dollar and should actually be free since the creative minds that put it together are all long dead, and didn't even get paid more than a few dollars in their lifetimes for the stuff they made.
Anyone who actually pays their own hard earned money for something that still has advertisements in it is just a complete and utter fool IMO. Special scorn is reserved for those who buy "fashion" magazines where even the articles are in fact advertisements and the actual content falls to zero.
People are essentially paying for companies to lie to them, to fool them into buying something they don't need. Idiots.
The whole point is to 'not pay' for advertising, which is how the cable and sattelite industry screwed the nation. The idea is to get the content cheap and have the advertisers pay for all or most of it. It worked for years on over the air television and radio and it is a good model. It costs a lot of money to generate that content, and they should be paid, let the advertisers pay for it. Good business!