1 mindblowing fact google doesn't want you to know about before you get ios9

kwerk said:
Why do people contribute to linux and other open source free software then? In the old days many websites were run for fun, and hosted as a favour at universities or businesses (without ads). Although yes it would be hard to run todays youtube like that. But how much of youtube is pure clickbait dross. Some robot voice going over car specs and stuff like that?
Click to expand...

Yes, there are some exceptions and they fall into the 1%. Ask yourself, do you think newspapers such as the Metro or the Evening Standard, (which are handed out free to thousands of commuters every day) would survive if they were suddenly told they couldn't benefit from advertising revenue? The digital advertising landscape has been ruined by pop up interstitials and overlays telling you that you've won money or that a new controversial diet pill is available etc., in reality there is nothing wrong with genuine standard banners from genuine companies trying to advertise their products and services. It's a small price to pay for quality content and the alternative is a subscription model or far less choice than you're used to.
 
I have wondered if how much googles services would cost a month if it wasn't for adverts. On a daily basis I use search, translator, gmail and maps. If they stopped advertising I don't think I would buy it.
 
In b4 "lolkwerk". Where have you been anyway? Haven't seen you around as much lately, and I miss your lolkwerk threads :-)

Angilion said:
I don't run an adblocker. I run security software that won't allow any page to trigger dozens of sites running whatever scripts they please, as is usually the case. I'm unlikely to turn that off. I am willing to be advertised at and farmed for data to a tolerable extent as a fee for some sites, but it's an inherently hostile thing (the advertiser is taking some of my life, farming me for data and trying to manipulate my mind for their profit - that's clearly hostile) and there's little requirement for them to limit it.
Click to expand...

You've got my attention here. What security software are you using to trap the scripts? A single click triggering 10+ page impressions unsettles me too. Are modified HOSTS files still effective? I think Spybot Search & Destroy used to do that for you and would frequently update the blacklist via its definitions file.
 
Why does the thread title read like one of those irritating ******* adverts on FaceBook? I hate those things. Just tell me what it is already, I don't want to have to click to find out FFS.
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
[..]
You've got my attention here. What security software are you using to trap the scripts? A single click triggering 10+ page impressions unsettles me too. Are modified HOSTS files still effective? I think Spybot Search & Destroy used to do that for you and would frequently update the blacklist via its definitions file.
Click to expand...

I use NoScript, a plugin for Firefox. Its functionality is rather like a firewall for scripts, so it doesn't use a blacklist. All scripts are blocked unless they're from a site that's on your whitelist, which you control. You can allow a site to run scripts temporarily (until you close the browser or revoke temporary permissions) or permanently (from then on unless you remove that site from your whitelist). It also blocks cross-site scripting and clickjacking, but then pops up a message telling you what's going on and giving you the option to choose to allow it if you want to. Flash, Silverlight, Java and other types of embedded content on or from any site not in your whitelist is replaced with a grey box the same size with a activate button on it to easily allow what you want to allow. Or you can change the options to always allow one or more types of embedded content. It's very close to perfect - it gives you protection, information and choices.
 
Last edited:
It's up to websites to make ads smaller, unobtrusive and most of all, genuine.

Too many websites just accept an advertisement package and to hell with what it actually advertises, or how it advertises it.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
We've really only ourselves to blame for intrusive advertising. If we were willing to tolerate discreet ads rather than block them, sites could make some cash. Instead, they have to pursue ever more irritating methods to make a few pennies for their content.

It will be interesting to see how the web evolves in a post advertising world. Will more sites be paywalled?
Click to expand...

I seem to remember when adverts were discrete, we didn't mind.

When they started looking like lings cars web site was when the web viewing public decided enough was enough and started blocking.
 
kwerk said:
I was thinking the other day how weird it is that desktops moved away from apps with html5/java/flash, but mobile devices moved towards apps. On mobile you need a weather/facebook/email/etc apps, but on desktops you can get by with basically nothing installed now. Even to use a calculator you can just type it in to google for an answer.

I wonder if desktops will move back to apps, or mobile will move to websites. You're saying the latter is true?

Personally I don't like messing about with apps I just use a website, I don't even like mobile versions I use the desktop versions on my phone.
Click to expand...

Apple can't monetise content that is delivered through a browser. The revenue is 'lost' to whatever advertising platform the site is using.

Introduce ad blocking as standard on mobile safari and the people running as funded mobile sites are going to have to kill off their mobile sites and drive their customers onto the Apple app platform to stay afloat.

Of course Apple will dress this up as a move for the consumer, but really it is just protecting their bottom line.

With the advent of usable HTML5 standards, maturing JS tools and WebGL, there's less and less reason to target native apps. Apple won't let the App Store go without a fight.
 
Mynight said:
This forum wouldn't exist if it weren't for the generosity of OCUK. I suspect it's a fair amount more than £10 a month with the activity this generates. Also afaik vbulletin is a one of cost for older versions like this. Obviously it generates revenue for OCUK or it wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

OCUK make a fortune from the site. It's where they get most of their referral sales from. They can't NOT have a forum. Nothing to do with generosity. It's a business necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom