- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 572
We didn't need the ad-blockers when the banners were the old style gif/jpeg ones. When they auto play video or audio it's time to block them.
Chrome plans to cripple ad blockers
- Thread starter MagicalAzareal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ad blocking chrome controversy
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,766
I agree with this -- but in reverse. Site owners need to get over it and find new and better ways to pay for their websites than pushing unwanted ads at every user.
- Moderator
- #23
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2004
- Messages
- 7,028
such as?
That's a common excuse I see, but the fact is people were blocking those too. And they still do.
Micropayments haven't worked.
Subscriptions haven't worked.
Memberships haven't worked.
How does a content site pay for itself if it's not with advertising?
Are you willing to pay for every site you use? And what of those who can't? Do they become relegated to 2nd tier netizens blocked from most content because it's behind paywalls?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,766
I understand the difficulties but it doesn't change the fact that people don't want to have ads all over the websites they visit. Just saying "Too bad, live with it" isn't going to keep them from using ad blockers, which will continue to gain in use.
I don't know what the answer is.
I don't know what the answer is.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 572
I tweak the block to allow the stationary banners through, but I'm probably in the minority.
It's funny how I see many people on the net saying "well, I'll just switch to Firefox." Who do they think is funding Firefox's development? No doubt if there's a huge move over to Firefox, Google won't renew their search contract and FF will be up the creek. No one else is in a position to fund FF development except other large advertising companies (the Bing arm of Microsoft for example), and they wouldn't because it's not in their best interest either.
BTW, not sure how one would go about letting stationary ads through. Ad blockers block the request before the fetch is made, and they can't know if a PNG or GIF is animated until after the fetch.
BTW, not sure how one would go about letting stationary ads through. Ad blockers block the request before the fetch is made, and they can't know if a PNG or GIF is animated until after the fetch.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,898
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Messages
- 6,818
Upkeep cost is an expense a webmaster chooses to incur.
Only running up expenses or expecting absurdly high returns are problematic. The margins you chase dictate the kind of monetization strategies available to you, and few are viable at the high end.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
All the quote from their funding did what restate what I already stated, Google is funding the bulk of Firefox development, and they can easily pull this funding if they find it's against their business interests to fund them.
Google is not paying Mozilla to support open source or a project that benefits the web. They pay to be the default search engine in the browser and receive traffic to their own search engine and consequently to their ads, which is their prime revenue stream. If anything, you're benefitting Firefox and Mozilla by switching from Chrome to Firefox and increasing Firefox's market share. In turn, they can charge more to Google and let you have an open browser.
Google is also paying Apple billions to be the default search engine in iOS. Are they "funding" Apple because they like the iPhone and iPad?
They just pay to receive traffic to their ads, plain and simple.
Google is also paying Apple billions to be the default search engine in iOS. Are they "funding" Apple because they like the iPhone and iPad?
They just pay to receive traffic to their ads, plain and simple.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It doesn't matter what Google is paying for from Mozilla, Mozilla uses that money to fund browser development. Therefore, yes, Google is funning a very large percentage of that open source project. Just as when you buy a new car, you're funding the development of new models. Mozilla needs that money, as Google is their single largest source of funds. As soon as Mozilla becomes a bigger disadvantage than an advantage to Google, Google will pull that rug out from under them. Once a large enough percentage of Firefox's users end up blocking Google's ads, then Google isn't gaining anything by paying to be the default search engine.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 284
Yeah I switched from Chrome to Firefox for this very reason. Free as in freedom. None of that hail corporate google stuff.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 572
I don't even touch Chrome with a 10 metre pole. A while back a family member put it on a brand new computer and somehow it found their friends stuff.